School patronage

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

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 agree with all this. But how can Dept. of Education justify the continued public funding of the religious patrons under these circumstances? What we have now is religious patrons being paid to provide religious indoctrination to irreligious people and people of other religions.
The solution is either to divest the management of most existing schools to a different patronage model, or if that is refused, to transfer the public funding from those schools to brand new schools.

pauldla

Emmie Embarrassed Sibilant wrote: »

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.

Indeed, junior infants probably would not benefit from academic profiling. I was thinking a bit older, my own being primary age. Still, it is worth pondering alternative systems. It's one thing to burn down the sh1thouse but another thing to install new plumbing, after all.

Dan_Solo

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?

Getting a bit off topic, but I don't even see why academic performance should be permitted as a criteria. Dumb kids need an education too surely?
Distance from school and siblings I totally agree with.

Dan_Solo

recedite wrote: »

I agree with all this. But how can Dept. of Education justify the continued public funding of the religious patrons under these circumstances? What we have now is religious patrons being paid to provide religious indoctrination to irreligious people and people of other religions.
The solution is either to divest the management of most existing schools to a different patronage model, or if that is refused, to transfer the public funding from those schools to brand new schools.

Current DoE policy effectively denies non-Catholics an education. It's ridiculous. Schools should just be told to drop the religion criteria or funding is stopped dead instantly. Problem solved.

Hotblack Desiato

There is a march on Sunday for education equality (good idea, but seems all very last minute )

Thread here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057512350

March is at noon going from the Dail to Dept Education.

expectationlost

minister being asked, i presume, if a school can start in a commericial building https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-10-20a.1392&s=%22School+Patronage%22

The publicly-stated policy on patronage divesting is to use existing educational infrastructure to facilitate provision of diversity in areas where there is no demographic imperative to establish new schools. My Department can approve start-up divesting schools in commercial properties only where there is reasonable certainty of a school building or State-owned property coming on stream within a one or two-year period of a school start up. My Department is committed to working constructively with patron bodies to move forward the patronage divesting process in all areas, including Dublin 6 and Dublin 6W.

lazygal

That's a cop out. Waiting for schools to be divested means most projects are long fingered. And gives a lie to the start your own schools refrain.

Hotblack Desiato

The whole concept of divestment is a diversion, a deliberate fraud, a spoiling tactic.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Current DoE policy effectively denies non-Catholics an education. It's ridiculous. Schools should just be told to drop the religion criteria or funding is stopped dead instantly. Problem solved.

Hmm. Exactly how many non-Catholics are currently not being educated?

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. Exactly how many non-Catholics are currently not being educated?

Fair enough, and no black was ever late for work if she had to sit at the back of the bus. And sure if the bus was full and she got ****ed off to make room for a whitey there was always another bus in thirty minutes.

uck51js9zml2yt

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Fair enough, and no black was ever late for work if she had to sit at the back of the bus. And sure if the bus was full and she got ****ed off to make room for a whitey there was always another bus in thirty minutes.

Ridiculous analogy. My son got refused from 2 non Catholic schools and got a place in a Catholic one. If I was to go the way you're going I'd be demanding these schools drop their ridiculous criteria of giving places to siblings and students of staff before people who were on the list before them.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Fair enough, and no black was ever late for work if she had to sit at the back of the bus. And sure if the bus was full and she got ****ed off to make room for a whitey there was always another bus in thirty minutes.

Any at all then?

recedite

Emmie Embarrassed Sibilant wrote: »

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...

Emmie Embarrassed Sibilant wrote: »

Ridiculous analogy. My son got refused from 2 non Catholic schools and got a place in a Catholic one. If I was to go the way you're going I'd be demanding these schools drop their ridiculous criteria of giving places to siblings and students of staff before people who were on the list before them.

Without getting into the personal details, it seems like the school your son goes to is something like the ones we were discussing earlier. The kind of school that is not the first choice of parents, but those without a baptismal cert get dumped there. And because it is a less "sought after" school there are always spare places available. And because of that, no other type of school can get a Department of Ed. sanction to start up in the area. In an ideal world, the RC patron would be punished for running such a school by having the funding withdrawn and given to an alternative patron. But in our system, they are rewarded, and in turn they use this school to block other new patrons from coming into the area. While at the same time rewarding their own people with access to the better schools in the area.

So it seems to me you are suffering from something akin to Stockholm Syndrome; you are thankful for small mercies. But in reality, all of these schools are funded by the taxpayer, both the first choice schools and the second choice ones, and as a citizen with equal rights you are entitled to much more than a place at the back of the bus.

And BTW your idea that being on the waiting list longer should get you priority is no more valid than sibling priority, or staff priority. Long waiting lists discriminate against "blow-ins".

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Without getting into the personal details, it seems like the school your son goes to is something like the ones we were discussing earlier. The kind of school that is not the first choice of parents, but those without a baptismal cert get dumped there. And because it is a less "sought after" school there are always spare places available. And because of that, no other type of school can get a Department of Ed. sanction to start up in the area.

Though of course it should be pointed out that there was no evidence whatsoever that any of the schools we were discussing earlier actually were like that. In fact it's pure supposition and fabrication on your part. It would be unfair to mislead anyone into thinking otherwise, wouldn't it?

recedite wrote: »

In an ideal world, the RC patron would be punished for running such a school by having the funding withdrawn and given to an alternative patron. But in our system, they are rewarded, and in turn they use this school to block other new patrons from coming into the area. While at the same time rewarding their own people with access to the better schools in the area.

Punishing patrons hardly sounds ideal. But fantastic this new idea of 'blocking patrons'; that's an unfounded assertion we haven't heard before!

recedite wrote: »

So it seems to me you are suffering from something akin to Stockholm Syndrome; you are thankful for small mercies. But in reality, all of these schools are funded by the taxpayer, both the first choice schools and the second choice ones, and as a citizen with equal rights you are entitled to much more than a place at the back of the bus. And BTW your idea that being on the waiting list longer should get you priority is no more valid than sibling priority, or staff priority. Long waiting lists discriminate against "blow-ins".

Wow! Psychological diagnosis along with the fantasies?

Peregrinus

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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 . . .

Yes, there will be other choices. If presenting forged baptismal certificates becomes enough of a thing that it's a problem, schools can do what Cabaal has already suggested; cross-check them with the parishes that issued them. (And report forged certificates to the guards; forgery is a crime, people.) Or, they can do what Catholic schools in many other countries already do; look for more than a baptismal certificate. They can look for, e.g, letters or recommendation from parishes, confirm the involvement of the family. Or no doubt you could think of other strategies, if you hadn't already decided that will be no other choice than the one you favour.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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.

Oh, I accept that there's a substantial oversupply of Catholic schools, relative to demand, and an undersupply of schools offering nondenominational or nonreligious education.

Whether a majority of parents want non-religious schools I rather doubt; that's not the picture that emerged in the consultation that the Dept of Ed undertook a couple of years back. But you may have seen polls that I have not; I'm happy to be pointed to them.

There's no doubt that the massive oversupply of Catholic schools is sustained by inertia. But I think we delude ourselves if we ignore reality, and one problematic reality is that, in most Catholic schools, probably a majority of the parents are happy with the patronage and don't wish it to change. And any campaign for more divestment which ignores this and doesn't come up with some strategy for addressing it is ignoring reality and is unlikely to succeed.

recedite

"Up to 200" people marched in Dublin yesterday.
No reaction from the politicians is reported.

Hotblack Desiato

As far back as August there was a report in the Irish Times saying FG TDs were annoyed at Jan O'Sullivan commenting on the issue of forced baptism for school places 'this close to an election' :rolleyes:

Here it is

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/baptising-for-school-entry-disturbing-1.2315272

Last week the Minister was criticised by Fine Gael for broaching the subject so close to an election after she insisted nobody should be forced to have their child baptised to secure a school place.

Like abortion, this is an issue politicians just want to ignore because they only see themselves losing votes if they come off the fence.

There can only be change if we make an issue of it and don't allow it to be sidelined.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As far back as August there was a report in the Irish Times saying FG TDs were annoyed at Jan O'Sullivan commenting on the issue of forced baptism for school places 'this close to an election' :rolleyes:

Here it is

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/baptising-for-school-entry-disturbing-1.2315272



Like abortion, this is an issue politicians just want to ignore because they only see themselves losing votes if they come off the fence.

or Labour will whip it up and put out some hope in order to get votes

expectationlost

the daily mail mentioned a group at the protest yesterday I've never heard of "Irish National Schools Trust" http://irishnationalschoolstrust.org/ its campaign based around the Stanley Letter and regarding the deeds of the trust of schools by the Labour party activist John Suttle who wrote 'the clontarf report' (just when I thought my previous post was too cycnical)

looksee

http://irishnationalschoolstrust.org/call-for-state-schools-to-accommodate-islamic-beliefs-irish-times/

Well the Irish National Schools Trust is a start. But then look at the request above. This is a prime example of why religion in schools is not a good idea. This would mean that in the 'time set aside for religious teaching' there would have to be a RC teacher, an 'all other Christian denominations' teacher, an Islamic teacher, a Jewish teacher and someone to mind the no-religion people. Much better to remove it altogether and let all these sects sort their own religious teaching.

Bristolscale7

Many of the senior civil sevants in the Department of Education are full blown ultramontanists; they are a significant part of the problem.

looksee

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Many of the senior civil sevants in the Department of Education are full blown ultramontanists; they are a significant part of the problem.

Well, that's an interesting word, had to look up ultramontanist but dead on!

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

http://irishnationalschoolstrust.org/call-for-state-schools-to-accommodate-islamic-beliefs-irish-times/

Well the Irish National Schools Trust is a start. But then look at the request above. This is a prime example of why religion in schools is not a good idea. This would mean that in the 'time set aside for religious teaching' there would have to be a RC teacher, an 'all other Christian denominations' teacher, an Islamic teacher, a Jewish teacher and someone to mind the no-religion people. Much better to remove it altogether and let all these sects sort their own religious teaching.

Yes, one of them had a poster actively calling for children to be separated during the school day for religious instruction. That is something I can never get behind.

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

or Labour will whip it up and put out some hope in order to get votes

After two successive and completely ineffective Labour ministers for education, hope has been beaten out of me.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, one of them had a poster actively calling for children to be separated during the school day for religious instruction. That is something I can never get behind.

1 of who?

Hotblack Desiato

This 'Irish National Schools Trust' that nobody appears to have heard of before yesterday.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Many of the senior civil sevants in the Department of Education are full blown ultramontanists; they are a significant part of the problem.

Is there a list of them? I didn't know civil servants were obliged to disclose their religious views. Have they released some documents or something stating their position?

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This 'Irish National Schools Trust' that nobody appears to have heard of before yesterday.

this sign http://irishnationalschoolstrust.org/the-clontarf-report/

so you don't agree with 1831 http://irishnationalschoolstrust.org/

think he's trying to say these are the rules that the national schools were set-up to follow we should be going from there, rather then from where we are thats worse then that, it doesn't exclude that they could use the school premises after school for religious instruction

here he is at the end of the speakers, min 32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwQPx3zqO5Y

Absolam

Well, it was only established in 2015, and given the language on the website and the characters involved they're not likely to rise to prominence as bastions of credible activism.
Their basic principles are reasonably admirable though.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This 'Irish National Schools Trust' that nobody appears to have heard of before yesterday.

It was quite far sighted for 1831. In 2015, I kinda hoped we could do better.
Is the founder a bearded guy who drives a De Lorean? Cos it seems like we're almost back to the future... or something.