School patronage

expectationlost

minister says schools must not disriminate and then goes on to list the ways in which they can https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-10-20a.1354&s=speaker%3A307#g1355.q and then say they don't discriminate

Dan_Solo

expectationlost wrote: »

minister says schools must not disriminate and then goes on to list the ways in which they can https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-10-20a.1354&s=speaker%3A307#g1355.q and then say tey don't discriminates

Can't you buy these certs on ebay?

Cabaal

Curious,
Are baptism certs checked against a database? How does the school check them? If you claim kid was baptised in Bally go backwards in back arse of Ireland how do school confirm this?

In other words, whats stop you making a fake one?

Bristolscale7

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious,
Are baptism certs checked against a database? How does the school check them? If you claim kid was baptised in Bally go backwards in back arse of Ireland how do school confirm this?

In other words, whats stop you making a fake one?

Maybe the Flying Spaghetti monster should start baptizing adherents in bolognase sauce and issue catholic (i.e. 'universal') certificates!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Or are there any "rogue" priests who'll do the job for a fiver, like those BS doctorates people get?

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

minister says schools must not disriminate and then goes on to list the ways in which they can https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-10-20a.1354&s=speaker%3A307#g1355.q and then say they don't discriminate

Religious discrimination is not discrimination if the school is run by Catholics and it discriminates against Christians. Simples.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Or are there any "rogue" priests who'll do the job for a fiver, like those BS doctorates people get?

A real priest will do it for nothing. If you are willing to live the lie, why pay the fiver?.

expectationlost

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

From the Guardian yesterday:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/21/no-baptism-no-school-irish-parents-fight-for-equal-access-to-education?CMP=twt_gu

Nothing like a good bit of international embarrassment to get Irish politicians moving a bit?

and international coverage breeds international coverage http://www.globalpost.com/article/6673606/2015/10/22/irish-petition-urges-end-faith-based-school-selection of Paddy Monaghans petition

In a statement on Thursday, the Department of Education said the minister intends to "reinvigorate the process to speed up divestment" and would meet with Catholic bishops in the "coming period."

Dan_Solo

recedite wrote: »

A real priest will do it for nothing. If you are willing to live the lie, why pay the fiver?.

Because you'd probably have to do some convincing with a "real" priest. A dodgy one would just write you one on the spot.
With the added bonus that it makes absolutely zero difference to anybody because it's all a load of twaddle anyway. Yay.

recedite

Nothing "reinvigorates" like a good kick in the hole.

expectationlost

Urgent need for fitness to teach hearings, Ombudsman for Children Dr Niall Muldoon has said http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/urgent-need-for-fitness-to-teach-hearings-ombudsman-says-1.2400511

This was because of the combined effect of failing to introduce fitness hearings, and the refusal of successive government to implement fully the provisions of Section 28 of the Education Act 1998, which set out how grievances and concerns of a student could be dealt with and remedied.

Jim Daly has introduced an Education Ombudsman bil but the childrens Ombudsman thinks it not the right solution

He added there was a “flaw” in the current system in that the Department was powerless to overturn a decision of the board of management even though it was the paymaster. A “recalibrating” of responsibilities was justified, although this was ultimately a legislative matter, he pointed out.

Education (Amendment) Bill 2015 [PMB] Sponsored by Deputy Jim Daly
Source: Private Member http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=29882&&CatID=59

Bill entitled an Act to establish an Ombudsman for Education, to provide an appeal mechanism for decisions of boards of education concerning decisions of teachers and grievances against schools, to provide for the investigation and reporting by the ombudsman for education of various matters pertaining to this act, to amend the Education Act, 1998, and to provide for related matters.

not willing to use all its powers

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Curious,
Are baptism certs checked against a database? How does the school check them? If you claim kid was baptised in Bally go backwards in back arse of Ireland how do school confirm this?

In other words, whats stop you making a fake one?

Honesty? Integrity? Decency? Self-respect?

If people think that actually baptising their children would be hypocritical and dishonest, what makes you think they'd regard forgery and deception as just fine and dandy?

EoghanIRL

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Maybe the Flying Spaghetti monster should start baptizing adherents in bolognase sauce and issue catholic (i.e. 'universal') certificates!

I actually haven't had bolognese in a while.
Thanks for the reminder.
FSM works in mysterious ways.

uck51js9zml2yt

I'm not RC, have my son in an RC school and this year am on the school board of management... So much for exclusion of non RC's.

Pherekydes

Emmie Embarrassed Sibilant wrote: »

I'm not RC, have my son in an RC school and this year am on the school board of management... So much for exclusion of non RC's.

That's great, but many are being excluded on the basis of religion.

No single child should be excluded from any state school on the basis of religion.

Dan_Solo

Emmie Embarrassed Sibilant wrote: »

I'm not RC, have my son in an RC school and this year am on the school board of management... So much for exclusion of non RC's.

Your anecdote proves conclusively that it doesn't happen to anyone ever then.
Oh wait a minute...

Dan_Solo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Honesty? Integrity? Decency? Self-respect?

If there was more of these traits on school boards and at the DoE we wouldn't have this neolithic school admission policy in the first place.

Peregrinus

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If there was more of these traits on school boards and at the DoE we wouldn't have this neolithic school admission policy in the first place.

Oh, possibly. At least as far as the Dept of Ed goes, anyway.

But what of it? You can object to a lack of integrity in the Dept of Ed, as you do, or you can assume a lack of integrity among atheists by questioning why they don't forge baptismal certificates, as Cabaal does. But I think there would an obvious tension involved in doing both simultaneously.

The key problem here is a lack of school places for people who don't want a Catholic education. The blindingly obvious solution is an increase in the supply of such places to meet demand. You can't really argue that it's the obligation of religious school patrons to supply those places; it seems to be first and foremost the obligation of the Dept of Education. I'm not sure whether the Department's failure to do that is best considered as a lack of integrity or decency, but let's not quibble over words; we can certainly condemn it as a moral failing of some kind.

But the objections to forging baptismal certificates as a response to the situation are obvious. One, it's dishonest. Two, it's illegal. Three, it contributes to the problem, by concealing the demand for non-religious places and artificially inflating the demand for religious places. Four, the victims of this practice are the atheists who will neither baptise their children nor forge baptismal certificates; it will tend to be an openly unbaptised child who gets bumped to make a space for the pseudobaptised child. And why would we advocate, or even tolerate, a practice which penalises the very people we have already identified as the victims of discrimination?

Dan_Solo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Honesty? Integrity? Decency? Self-respect?

If there was more of these traits on school boards and at the DoE we wouldn't have this neolithic school admission policy in the first place.

Peregrinus

Is there an echo in here?

Dan_Solo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, possibly. At least as far as the Dept of Ed goes, anyway.

But what of it? You can object to a lack of integrity in the Dept of Ed, as you do, or you can assume a lack of integrity among atheists by questioning why they don't forge baptismal certificates, as Cabaal does. But I think there would an obvious tension involved in doing both simultaneously.

The key problem here is a lack of school places for people who don't want a Catholic education. The blindingly obvious solution is an increase in the supply of such places to meet demand. You can't really argue that it's the obligation of religious school patrons to supply those places; it seems to be first and foremost the obligation of the Dept of Education. I'm not sure whether the Department's failure to do that is best considered as a lack of integrity or decency, but let's not quibble over words; we can certainly condemn it as a moral failing of some kind.

But the objections to forging baptismal certificates as a response to the situation are obvious. One, it's dishonest. Two, it's illegal. Three, it contributes to the problem, by concealing the demand for non-religious places and artificially inflating the demand for religious places. Four, the victims of this practice are the atheists who will neither baptise their children nor forge baptismal certificates; it will tend to be an openly unbaptised child who gets bumped to make a space for the pseudobaptised child. And why would we advocate, or even tolerate, a practice which penalises the very people we have already identified as the victims of discrimination?

This is all fantastic sounding stuff. So long as you have no involvement whatsoever in the system yourself. Give your kid no education for a few years while this works its way through the courts or you hope for the best that the DoE will come into the 20th/21st century?
No, there's more integrity to f**king up their system with fake birth certs TBH and playing them for fools, while simultaneously campaigning for change. It's an entirely moral course of action.

Peregrinus

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is all fantastic sounding stuff. So long as you have no involvement whatsoever in the system yourself. Give your kid no education for a few years while this works its way through the courts or you hope for the best that the DoE will come into the 20th/21st century?
No, there's more integrity to f**king up their system with fake birth certs TBH and playing them for fools, while simultaneously campaigning for change. It's an entirely moral course of action.

Oh, I completely understand why a parent might do this. I am not judging those who do. But I would judge them for denying that (a) it's dishonest, (b) it solves a problem for them at the expense of intensifying a problem for everyone like them, and (c) the particular person they are f*cking over is not "the system"; it's another atheist parent.

I don't think atheists can be taken seriously when they accuse the religious of being delusional if they cherish denialist delusions about their own conduct.

Dan_Solo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, I completely understand why a parent might do this. I am not judging those who do. But I would judge them for denying that (a) it's dishonest, (b) it solves a problem for them at the expense of intensifying a problem for everyone like them, and (c) the particular person they are f*cking over is not "the system"; it's another atheist parent.

I don't think atheists can be taken seriously when they accuse the religious of being delusional if they cherish denialist delusions about their own conduct.

What "delusions" are you inventing? Nobody said it was "honest". Lying to state run schools who discriminate on the basis of religion is entirely moral though. All we need is for every atheist to do it and then there's no discrimination at all.
I don't think the skyfairyists can be taken seriously when the only response they have to blatant discrimination is to beg that very body who enforces the discrimination to change and hope for the best.
Do theists really think the RCC and their mates at the DoE will give up the last bastion of enforced religious indoctrination they've got if they're asked nicely?

Peregrinus

And do you really think they're going to give it up if the demand for school places for unbaptised children vanishes because all the applicants produce certificates of baptism?

Like I said, delusional.

Bristolscale7

Just out of curiosity...how many Islamic patronage schools exist in Ireland? I reckon if these start to increase using the existing laws then the inert mass of Catholic Ireland would be more open to removing religion from all schools.

rainbow kirby

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity...how many Islamic patronage schools exist in Ireland? I reckon if these start to increase using the existing laws then the inert mass of Catholic Ireland would be more open to removing religion from all schools.

2 state funded and at least one private one.

Dan_Solo

Peregrinus wrote: »

And do you really think they're going to give it up if the demand for school places for unbaptised children vanishes because all the applicants produce certificates of baptism?

Like I said, delusional.

But you are missing the point, probably deliberately. When it comes out that half of the pupils have fake certs there won't be any choice but to reform the whole thing, without sabotaging their education. You know full well (but refuse to admit) the only thing stopping the majority of RCC schools closing down is that the state currently refuses to provid any other option. Polls show that if there was a choice then parents wouldn't send their kids to religious schools. This is a system that deserves abusing TBH.

uck51js9zml2yt

Pherekydes wrote: »

That's great, but many are being excluded on the basis of religion.

No single child should be excluded from any state school on the basis of religion.

Where a school is over subscribed they need to have a criteria.

We were refused places in both an educate together and a Gael scoil based on enrollment critria even though he was on both lists almost 5 years.their policies were siblings, children of staff get precedence no matter when they join the list.

pauldla

Emmie Embarrassed Sibilant wrote: »

Where a school is over subscribed they need to have a criteria.

We were refused places in both an educate together and a Gael scoil based on enrollment critria even though he was on both lists almost 5 years.their policies were siblings, children of staff get precedence no matter when they join the list.

But is that not just complaining that they've got their privilege so I want mine? Would it be possible, for example, to have a fairer admissions system based on, say, academic performance and/or distance from school?

uck51js9zml2yt

pauldla wrote: »

But is that not just complaining that they've got their privilege so I want mine? Would it be possible, for example, to have a fairer admissions system based on, say, academic performance and/or distance from school?

I'm not complaining at all. Just stating what happened. As it goes my son has 12 in his class as opposed to 26-30 in the other schools.its also DEIS funded.
Not sure how Academic performance would work for junior infants. A first come first in would be better but I understand the difficulty having 2or3 kids in different schools would cause for parents getting them all in for 9.