School patronage

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

If this annoying nitpicking is the best defense you can come up with for maintaining the status quo it's pretty pathetic. As is the smug 'this is just how it is' attitude. Why would you want people who hate your religion within catholic schools? Do you think that they will be turned?

Actually I'm not looking to maintain the status quo, but feel free to review my posts if you want to discuss my position on the subject.
If a little critical fun being poked at what wasn't exactly a well reasoned argument against the status quo is too critical, you can always ignore it.

Hotblack Desiato

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/school-patronage-system-has-had-its-day-1.2304943?__vfz=c_pages%3D11000002670848

SpaceTime

"It's time to Nationalise the National Schools!"

Would be a good slogan!

Certainly makes more sense than nationalising the banks!

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/school-patronage-system-has-had-its-day-1.2304943?__vfz=c_pages%3D11000002670848

ugh I don't really like that the subhead, "The State should set a date for taking control of schools" which get little expansion below

The State must respond to its responsibilities as outlined by the European court. It must challenge all vested interests, set a date whereby it will take full control of the nation’s schools and dismantle the patronage system. It should recognise the contribution made by patron bodies and compensate where relevant.

doesn't explain how this would work, im for more then just slow and steady approach but this article will lead to catholic false victimhood

kylith

Had a row with my mum over this after I signed a petition on Facebook. Apparently the fact that the school near her is full of 'not Irish' kids, and that my niece wasn't baptised when she got into school means that this is a total non-story. The RCC never turns children away, the fact that they are legally allowed to turn kids away is not an issue, and I'm making a big fuss about nothing.

Should have asked her if she'd think it was acceptable to be forced to sign your kids up for Islam if the only school near you was a Muslim school. Instead I told her it was hypocrisy and the schools wanted people to lie in front of their families and friends, and didn't Jesus have something to say about lying?

expectationlost

its also contradictory, Religious education not taken seriously, says study http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/religious-education-not-taken-seriously-says-study-1.2305732 article behind paywall, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1111/teth.12292/ seems like an essay rather then a study

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/school-patronage-system-has-had-its-day-1.2304943?__vfz=c_pages%3D11000002670848

Good article, well researched and covering a lot of issues.
Whether or not it is realistic that the State should now take full control of all the schools is debatable, but he does make a good case for it, especially in citing the lessons to be learned from Finland (the Pasi Sahlsberg quote) Finland is widely acknowledged to have one of the best and fairest education systems in the world.
Check out the author; somewhat surprising, but heartening I think;

Seán Ó Díomasaigh is principal of Sacred Heart of Jesus NS, Huntstown, Dublin, and a former inspector with the Department of Education and Skills

Light years ahead of the quality of last weeks dismal offering anyway...

expectationlost wrote: »

Joe Humphreys opinion piece about church letting go of schools ...http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/how-the-catholic-church-could-solve-the-school-patronage-problem-1.2297551

expectationlost

opinion columns raise over (and under) opinionated letters http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/patronage-system-and-education-1.2306719

expectationlost

Archbishop defends right of schools to put Catholics first in queue http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/archbishop-defends-right-of-schools-to-put-catholics-first-in-queue-31428462.html

However, he said: "It is not fair to blame the Church."

Instead the Church leader pointed to the opposition within communities where schools are selected for divestment, as well as from local politicians.

"Communities don't want change, teachers don't want change, and even in some cases local politicians, who belong to parties who are committed to divesting, create obstacles locally," he said.

which schools where? which politicians? name them

recedite

Well there was that school in Ballyfermot that was mentioned earlier in the thread. But when you looked closer at the issue, it seemed that the good Archbishop was using the divestment issue as an excuse to amalgamate two single sex schools into one mixed school. The school with the massive GAA pitch and the best facilities was going to be closed. But he never actually said what he was going to with it after it closed
A couple of blocks of apartments and a fat bank balance, or an ET school?
Maybe both. The apartments, and a tiny school located in one corner of the site sold to Dept. of Education, or given over in lieu of some redress payments still owed.

I have to laugh at his final piece of advice in the article;

People have to pray for their priests and for more priests.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

Actually I'm not looking to maintain the status quo, but feel free to review my posts if you want to discuss my position on the subject.
If a little critical fun being poked at what wasn't exactly a well reasoned argument against the status quo is too critical, you can always ignore it.

So what would you like to change about the status quo?

blindside88

I've recently become interested in the whole school patronage debate and don't really feel strongly either way. I have no children and at the minute we are not planning on having children. My question is surely the schools that were established by the churches (Catholic and Protestant) are owned by the respective churches and can't be forced to change patronage by the state. Or do I have that wrong and the state actually owns the premises?
TIA
Blindside

eviltwin

blindside88 wrote: »

I've recently become interested in the whole school patronage debate and don't really feel strongly either way. I have no children and at the minute we are not planning on having children. My question is surely the schools that were established by the churches (Catholic and Protestant) are owned by the respective churches and can't be forced to change patronage by the state. Or do I have that wrong and the state actually owns the premises?
TIA
Blindside

No one is calling for them to change patronage. The current campaign is to make the admissions policy equal for all. Local schools should be for local children. It makes no sense that a child in the next town gets priority over a child living beside the school.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So what would you like to change about the status quo?

I didn't say I'd like to change it either
I have a sneaking suspicion there are as many versions of what 'the status quo' is as there are posters, which means discussing 'the status quo' is probably not overly productive.
With regard to the state of the education system, I would like to see the Rules for Schools updated. I think that could effect fundamental change in the education system without engaging in religious witch hunts or other such nonsense. Of course, they'd have to be enforced after being updated, but I think such action could produce a more acceptably equitable system without a great expense.

kylith

blindside88 wrote: »

I've recently become interested in the whole school patronage debate and don't really feel strongly either way. I have no children and at the minute we are not planning on having children. My question is surely the schools that were established by the churches (Catholic and Protestant) are owned by the respective churches and can't be forced to change patronage by the state. Or do I have that wrong and the state actually owns the premises?
TIA
Blindside

The issue is that despite being funded by the public purse they are allowed to exclude children based on their (parents') religion or lack thereof. I'd have no problem with them having exclusionary enrolment procedures if the church was paying all the bills but that's not the case. It's especially a problem when more than 90% of schools can do this.

Personally, if I were Benevolant Dictator, I'd be telling them that either they announce that they have scrapped the discriminatory policies by the start of the school year or they can go ask the Pope for the money to pay teacher's salaries etc.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

No one is calling for them to change patronage. The current campaign is to make the admissions policy equal for all. Local schools should be for local children. It makes no sense that a child in the next town gets priority over a child living beside the school.

Though it seems that is already addressed by the DoE when it seeks patronage submissions; the criteria for being a prospective patron as we've seen is:
1. Requirements
Has the applicant Patron(s) confirmed that they will comply with the requirements as set out:(comment if necessary in regard to any
requirement)
- Is willing to accept and open special education facilities
- Is willing to have up to three streams subject to demand for the school
- Is willing to enter into the standard lease agreement with DES (or otherwise provide their own site)
- Is willing to operate by the rules and regulations laid down by various DES circulars and operating procedures and to follow the prescribed curriculum
-Is willing to operate the school within the resourcing and policy parameters established by the DES
-Is willing to be part of a campus development with other primary or second level schools as identified by the Department
-Is willing to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a school

So under the current setup system, a religious ethos school is obliged to enrol local children as identified by the Dept; that provision is not hedged by 'if there's room after they get all the Catholics they want'.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Though it seems that is already addressed by the DoE when it seeks patronage submissions; the criteria for being a prospective patron as we've seen is:
1. Requirements
Has the applicant Patron(s) confirmed that they will comply with the requirements as set out:(comment if necessary in regard to any
requirement)
- Is willing to accept and open special education facilities
- Is willing to have up to three streams subject to demand for the school
- Is willing to enter into the standard lease agreement with DES (or otherwise provide their own site)
- Is willing to operate by the rules and regulations laid down by various DES circulars and operating procedures and to follow the prescribed curriculum
-Is willing to operate the school within the resourcing and policy parameters established by the DES
-Is willing to be part of a campus development with other primary or second level schools as identified by the Department
-Is willing to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a school

So under the current setup system, a religious ethos school is obliged to enrol local children as identified by the Dept; that provision is not hedged by 'if there's room after they get all the Catholics they want'.

All great in theory but in practice it's not possible for a lot of people. Our local school is a five minute walk from my house, I can see the yard from my kitchen, most of the kids in the estate go there but my son was refused a place on religious grounds. Meanwhile there are kids from neighbouring towns getting places. Where is the logic in that? Admissions should be on location. No child should have to drive to a school when there is one on their own doorstep.

lazygal

The more inclusive criteria only apply to new schools, I have been told by the dept. As I'm in an area with existing religious schools and there has been a decision that there is no need to provide an additional school my children may not secure places in any school as five out of six apply a Catholic or other denomination first enrolment policy. My children are third and forth, even 12th on some list, in categories of enrolment.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

If a little critical fun being poked at what wasn't exactly a well reasoned argument against the status quo is too critical, you can always ignore it.

The poor reasoning was the non sequitur you employed. Previously pointed out to you. You knew it was such really by attempting to use it as a means of trying to invert the argument about "inoculation". The silly pseudo analysis and nit picking since reminds me very well of the theology of my youth. When there is nothing to talk about, then the best that can be done is to talk about words and regress infinitely from the reality. We may as well teach belief in Harry Potter and analyze quidditch as trans substantiation versus con substantiation.

expectationlost

john walshe former advisor to RQ was on newstalk this morning http://www.newstalk.com/Are-we-there-yet-Nora-Owen-asks-how-much-further-until-equality-in-schools and Nora Owens write abit about it, blame's nimbyism

http://www.newstalk.com/Diarmuid-Martin-school-places-prioritising-children-baptised-Ruairi-Quinn-divesting-multi-denominational-John-Walshe
check out the comment ballyfermot de la salle

although I thought the ballyfermot thing was more about downsizing then divestment

this is why they simply need to build new schools, it'll cost but then they can save money later, starbucks it!

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

All great in theory but in practice it's not possible for a lot of people. Our local school is a five minute walk from my house, I can see the yard from my kitchen, most of the kids in the estate go there but my son was refused a place on religious grounds. Meanwhile there are kids from neighbouring towns getting places. Where is the logic in that? Admissions should be on location. No child should have to drive to a school when there is one on their own doorstep.

Oh, I agree the DoE can only apply new criteria to schools with new patronage, which is fair enough.
With regard to your son, if he was refused a place on religious grounds, would it be fair to say your religious ethos does not coincide with the schools? Does the ethos of the ET school he attends align more closely with your own?
Given a choice of attending a nearby school with a conflicting ethos, and a further away school with a compatible ethos, which would you prefer he did?

Since there are a a fair amount of Catholics in your sons school despite there being plenty of Catholic schools in the area, do you think there may be a need for additional school capacity? If so, do you think there are sufficient parents with similar ethos to your own in your local area to support you opening a school that would serve your needs better than they currently are?

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

The poor reasoning was the non sequitur you employed. Previously pointed out to you. You knew it was such really by attempting to use it as a means of trying to invert the argument about "inoculation".

No, I really think the poor reasoning was the statement:

inocybe wrote: »

On the bright side there's nothing like having Catholicism shoved down your throat at school to inoculate you against religion.

though in fairness;

Fleawuss wrote: »

Once people see through attempts to indoctrinate them with religious mumbo jumbo they tend to be "inoculated" against supernaturalism.

wasn't any better.

Fleawuss wrote: »

The silly pseudo analysis and nit picking since reminds me very well of the theology of my youth. When there is nothing to talk about, then the best that can be done is to talk about words and regress infinitely from the reality. We may as well teach belief in Harry Potter and analyze quidditch as tea substantiation versus con substantiation.

So.... what you're doing right now reminds you of the theology of your youth? I suppose if it makes you happy there's no great harm in it.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

No, I really think the poor reasoning was the statement: though in fairness; wasn't any better.
So.... what you're doing right now reminds you of the theology of your youth? I suppose if it makes you happy there's no great harm in it.

Inadequate.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

Inadequate.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I agree the DoE can only apply new criteria to schools with new patronage, which is fair enough.
With regard to your son, if he was refused a place on religious grounds, would it be fair to say your religious ethos does not coincide with the schools? Does the ethos of the ET school he attends align more closely with your own?
Given a choice of attending a nearby school with a conflicting ethos, and a further away school with a compatible ethos, which would you prefer he did?

Since there are a a fair amount of Catholics in your sons school despite there being plenty of Catholic schools in the area, do you think there may be a need for additional school capacity? If so, do you think there are sufficient parents with similar ethos to your own in your local area to support you opening a school that would serve your needs better than they currently are?

I'm very lucky we got him into an ET so it's all moot now but it's the attitude of the school that annoys me. A few years ago they did an enrolment drive where they went to the preschools in the area. It's a nice school with a lot going for it and at this point the ET place was not confirmed so I was looking for backups. They were so rude and dismissive once they found out we weren't Catholic. The contribution my son could make, that I as a parent could make was ignored, he was reduced to nothing more than a person of the wrong faith so they weren't interested. It was quite unsettling considering this is my local school.

I'm not sure of the religious breakdown in my son's school, I know there are a good few Muslims and evangelical Christians and probably Catholics too but that's okay. I want diversity. I just want that diversity across the school system so those people who don't have options aren't forced to take their children to school outside the community.

recedite

lazygal wrote: »

The more inclusive criteria only apply to new schools..

More to the point, these are new schools built on publicly owned land by the taxpayer. So nothing to do with any church. Yet the religious patrons can still get a shot at the patronage and a chance to run them. And if they succeed, they can still impose a priority admissions policy for "their own" religious group. They are quite happy to make a declaration that the school will be open to the entire local community, but they also want priority for their own clique.

SpaceTime

Effectively, and this is not intended as a slight on educate together, we've solved nothing in terms of creating a proper school system.

Ireland's increasingly diverse and all we're doing is pushing that diversity out of the mainstream and into a "special school for the difficult misfits" that's what the current education policy looks like from the outside.

The impression I keep getting is "oh you're not Catholic ? Oh then you're not really Irish"

Ireland has a massive problem with a history of sectarianism and we can't even seem to see that we are still running a public (or rather privatised, out sourced publically funded) school system on the grounds of a 19th century sectarian model that has grown legs and morphed into a crazy mess that we somehow accept as "normal".

I feel excluded as a person with centuries of Irish heritage but can you imagine just how socially excluded you'd feel if you were from an immigrant background and also not Catholic?!

Off you go to the special school ...

We're laying the foundations for a divided mess of a society where people will identify with "their communities" and not an overall Irish community because school is one off the most important places where people mix, meet, talk and connect. It's not just kids, it's their parents too. It's a major social foca point.

Look up north and see what these kinds of policies can do in a society that isn't homogenous.

Ireland isn't a monoculture and this mess of a school policy is going to create major problems as we move forward.

lazygal

I was discussing schools with someone and expressed concern about access to the local school because our children aren't Catholic. Their response was 'Oh I didn't know you were Protestant, you'll get into the CofI school no bother'. Hadn't occured to them that some children are just children, they don't have a label on them.

SpaceTime

lazygal wrote: »

I was discussing schools with someone and expressed concern about access to the local school because our children aren't Catholic. Their response was 'Oh I didn't know you were Protestant, you'll get into the CofI school no bother'. Hadn't occured to them that some children are just children, they don't have a label on them.

Also that's the other attitude : If you're not Catholic well then you must be Protestant...

They don't even see that you might be neither. Try also dont even seem to realise that there are actually several flavours of Protestant religions in Ireland and they don't actually get on or see eye to eye on a lot of issues and are in many cases as different as the Catholic Chuch and the C of I are. Yet they're just dumped into a "ah sure they're all Protestants" category.

I've even heard a Buddhist family being told "oh sure there's a great Protestant school down the road"

Assumption is simply "not one of us".

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a nice school with a lot going for it and at this point the ET place was not confirmed so I was looking for backups. They were so rude and dismissive once they found out we weren't Catholic. The contribution my son could make, that I as a parent could make was ignored, he was reduced to nothing more than a person of the wrong faith so they weren't interested. It was quite unsettling considering this is my local school.

It's tricky to legislate for rudeness and dismissiveness in fairness; they're traits that might be exhibited by staff in schools with pretty much any ethos. Interesting that your preferred school was a non-local one; I wonder if that's why your local school didn't have room for your son? Perhaps parents from other areas were applying to your local school because like you they wanted a school that aligned with their ethos, and were prepared to look a little further than local to get it, just like you did. Maybe they even had their local ET as a backup.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not sure of the religious breakdown in my son's school, I know there are a good few Muslims and evangelical Christians and probably Catholics too but that's okay. I want diversity. I just want that diversity across the school system so those people who don't have options aren't forced to take their children to school outside the community.

I like diversity too, I think it's good for children. But if you enforce that diversity, aren't people who don't have options (like the option of a Catholic education) still going to be forced to take their children to school outside the community?