Baptism cert for school?

Zulu

Hi folks,
does anyone know if you are required to prove your child was christened in order to get them into a catholic primary school?

We don't wish to christen our child, however, we do wish to get them into the local primary school.

I've no particular qualms lying about having had the child christened in order to get them in tbh, but will I be asked to "prove" it?

I'm sure I'm not the first person who though of this?
Cheers.

Rev Hellfire

If I recall correctly we where asked to provide a baptism cert for our local school. As to what difference it would make if we didn't have one I'm not sure.

seamus

If you say the child is catholic, then it's quite likely that you will be asked to provide a baptismal cert, especially if places are limited.

Zulu

Yeah, but could you just keep "forgetting" it until school starts?

Dades

I'd also say it's part of the acceptance. Place are too tight these days in schools. I'll find out next year. :pac:

I've also thought there must be money to be made by an enterprising person creating fake but realistic baptismal certs. (I made good money in the fake ID industry back in school!)

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah, but could you just keep "forgetting" it until school starts?

Many places are offered around January - so you might find yourself having to forget for 6 months. You'd be busted for sure.

yellowlabrador

Why? you presumably also don't want your child to do their communion.
Just be upfront and state your position. I'm sure you won't be the only one. Another option would be the local CofI school, they don't ask.
How can the authorities guess at demand if people keep doing the same old thing without standing up for their views and beliefs?

Dades

yellowlabrador wrote: »

How can the authorities guess at demand if people keep doing the same old thing without standing up for their views and beliefs?

Well, they could ask people for a start.

Looking at the application records for every school in the country is hardly going to answer that question. People apply to schools because of any number of reasons, the vicinity and reputation being the primary ones I'd imagine.

And it's all very well standing up for your personal views and beliefs until when the music stops, and your child is the last one standing without a school.

Zulu

yellowlabrador wrote: »

Why?

Because it's a fantastic school my wife went to 1 min from her parents house, and 5 mins from ours.

you presumably also don't want your child to do their communion.

Communion happens in 1st class. Our child would be in the door by then. It's unlikely the child would be expelled at that point.

Just be upfront and state your position.

Yeah, you're missing the point.

Another option would be the local CofI school, they don't ask.

Again you are missing the point. I'm not worried about not getting the child into school, I'm worried about getting the child into A school.

How can the authorities guess at demand if people keep doing the same old thing without standing up for their views and beliefs?

I'm not going to let my child suffer for my opinions.

yellowlabrador

yellowlabrador wrote: »

Another option would be the local CofI school, they don't ask.

They do, and children of no faith come last in the pecking order.

Jogathon

Check the enrolment policy of the school. Distance to the school is often listed very high up in the criteria. And ask in the school if they have capped their registration, or if they accept all.

swampgas

Just out of curiosity, why is a baptismal cert required at all? Isn't it possible that a child could have been baptised in such a way that no certificate is available? Don't lay people sometimes baptise children shortly after birth if they fear that the baby might not live very long? (I don't know this for sure, I just guessing here.)

And why wouldn't the school believe the parents anyway? Or why not have the parents sign a sheet saying that they will abide by the ethos of the school? (Not that I like that idea either.)

It just seems bizarre that in this one aspect of Irish life you have to have a piece of paper to prove that a particular religion has claimed you - just saying so isn't enough.

robindch

It's completely up to the school itself and the board of management and they can decide pretty much whatever policy they like.

Some schools demand written proof that you're a member of the appropriate religion and that could include stuff like certificates of baptism, letters from priests confirming attendance at mass, notes from godparents or anything at all really. Practices can and do vary widely from place to place and the government and the department of education don't appear to give a flying fuck. Other schools will take you at your word that you're a member of the appropriate religion and some don't bother asking.

The Educate Together schools publish their enrolment criteria and are fully open about where kids are in the queue for places. Schools controlled by religious organizations, however, are much less open -- for obvious reasons -- and may choose not to publicize their criteria, or let parents know how likely their child is to get a place, or indeed, anything at all.

If you're applying for a place in a religiously-controlled school, then I'd be careful about making too many enquiries before your child is accepted and especially, before he or she actually starts school. Once your child starts though, you can be more open about your actual religious beliefs, rather than the religious beliefs you have to pretend to have so that your child can receive an education at a school paid for by the state, but controlled by an unelected religious gerontocracy.

getz

Dades wrote: »

Well, they could ask people for a start.

Looking at the application records for every school in the country is hardly going to answer that question. People apply to schools because of any number of reasons, the vicinity and reputation being the primary ones I'd imagine.

And it's all very well standing up for your personal views and beliefs until when the music stops, and your child is the last one standing without a school.

in england a faith school can loose its goverment funding unless it meets its required intake numbers of other faiths,the catholic girls schools never seem to have a problem as muslim parents are keen to send their girls to all girls schools.

Jogathon

robindch wrote: »

It's completely up to the school itself and the board of management and they can decide pretty much whatever policy they like.


The Educate Together schools publish their enrolment criteria and are fully open about where kids are in the queue for places. Schools controlled by religious organizations, however, are much less open -- for obvious reasons -- and may choose not to publicize their criteria, or let parents know how likely their child is to get a place, or indeed, anything at all.

All schools have an enrolment policy that must be available if requested.

robindch

Jogathon wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Schools controlled by religious organizations, however, are much less open -- for obvious reasons -- and may choose not to publicize their criteria

All schools have an enrolment policy that must be available if requested.

Thanks. I wasn't aware it was a legal requirement.

What I was referring to was the willingness of schools controlled by religious groups to publicize their enrolment policies; ie, they're not always available on websites and so on.

ET schools, on the other hand, will typically have their policies available on the internet. A quick google here for "educate together" and the first two schools that come up have published their enrolment policies here and here). While the ET mother ship publishes its general enrolment policy as well.

Dades

Jogathon wrote: »

All schools have an enrolment policy that must be available if requested.

Nobody can be sure what goes on within school boards when after the obvious candidates have been selected there's 100 kids looking for 20 places.

That said, I've found that most schools are reasonably open about enrollment policies, even when they are blatantly discriminatory.

yellowlabrador

yellowlabrador wrote: »

Why? you presumably also don't want your child to do their communion.
Just be upfront and state your position. I'm sure you won't be the only one. Another option would be the local CofI school, they don't ask.
How can the authorities guess at demand if people keep doing the same old thing without standing up for their views and beliefs?

Yes they do, I live right beside a COI school, and places are reserved for COI first, then other Prodestants, than RC, and then everybody else. COI kids also take preference over siblings.

deelite

I was asked for my son's baptismal Cert when he was in 6th class not when enrolling- it was only required for confirmation not communion. Personally I would ring the school and tell them your situation.

Zamboni

Zulu wrote: »

Hi folks,
does anyone know if you are required to prove your child was christened in order to get them into a catholic primary school?

We don't wish to christen our child, however, we do wish to get them into the local primary school.

I've no particular qualms lying about having had the child christened in order to get them in tbh, but will I be asked to "prove" it?

I'm sure I'm not the first person who though of this?
Cheers.

I would ask you to enrol in Educate Together schools if there is one within your vicinity.
The more people that continue to place children in religious schools, then nothing will ever change.
This is something worth a fight - but I agree with Dades, there comes a point in the battle where rights/wrongs become unimportant in comparison to the childs education.
It is easier to increase Educate Together school places than it is to change current religious schools policies and/or remove the Equality Act exemption for religious schools.
It is the route Ruairi Quinn is taking and I agree with him.

Zamboni

Dades wrote: »

And it's all very well standing up for your personal views and beliefs until when the music stops, and your child is the last one standing without a school.

Very important point - And whilst I agree with you, I also believe that if you do yield and enrol your child in a religious school then you have no right to complain about a lack of secular education in Ireland.
I really feel sorry for the rural population who have no choice.

Zulu

Zamboni wrote: »

I would ask you to enrol in Educate Together schools if there is one within your vicinity.

That's not really helpful at all - but thanks.

Zamboni

Zulu wrote: »

That's not really helpful at all - but thanks.

No bother.
Just as a matter of interest - Is lying to get something you want a moral lesson you plan on teaching your child or would this proposed discretion be something you would keep hidden from them?

Rev Hellfire

Zamboni wrote: »

if you do yield and enrol your child in a religious school then you have no right to complain about a lack of secular education in Ireland.

That's all fine and dandy assuming you do have a choice, with both parents typically working or the practicalities of getting said offspring to an alternative school there may not be a realistic choice.

Zamboni

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy assuming you do have a choice, with both parents typically working or the practicalities of getting said offspring to an alternative school there may not be a realistic choice.

If you are not prepared to fight then you are not entitled to moan.
The individual can decide their own where there priorities lie.

Zulu

Zamboni wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest - Is lying to get something you want a moral lesson you plan on teaching your child...

Just as a matter of interest - is antagonising people something you always take a preference for? Or do you try to be helpful on occasion?

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, why is a baptismal cert required at all? Isn't it possible that a child could have been baptised in such a way that no certificate is available? Don't lay people sometimes baptise children shortly after birth if they fear that the baby might not live very long? (I don't know this for sure, I just guessing here.)

There are procedures in hospitals and such places for registering emergency baptisms.

It can happen that someone who has been baptised has no baptismal certificate, but it’s extremely rare. But, say, the parish office is burned down and the register of baptisms is destroyed. In a case like that you can get a certificate from the church authorities to say that the register was destroyed, and a witness to the baptism makes a statutory declaration to say that yes, little Fiachra was baptised in that very church shortly before the fire, and that will generally be acceptable.

swampgas wrote: »

It just seems bizarre that in this one aspect of Irish life you have to have a piece of paper to prove that a particular religion has claimed you - just saying so isn't enough.

Not nearly as bizarre as asking for a child’s birth certificate, when you can tell just from looking at the child that it was indeed born!

Rev Hellfire

Zamboni wrote: »

If you are not prepared to fight then you are not entitled to moan.
The individual can decide their own where there priorities lie.

Thanks but I think I'll skip the home schooling, capitulate and keep my job so I can finance them through school and hopefully college :rolleyes:

swampgas

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are procedures in hospitals and such places for registering emergency baptisms.

It can happen that someone who has been baptised has no baptismal certificate, but it’s extremely rare. But, say, the parish office is burned down and the register of baptisms is destroyed. In a case like that you can get a certificate from the church authorities to say that the register was destroyed, and a witness to the baptism makes a statutory declaration to say that yes, little Fiachra was baptised in that very church shortly before the fire, and that will generally be acceptable.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

Not nearly as bizarre as asking for a child’s birth certificate, when you can tell just from looking at the child that it was indeed born!

Okay, I know your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek with that one. :pac:

seamus

Zamboni wrote: »

If you are not prepared to fight then you are not entitled to moan.
The individual can decide their own where there priorities lie.

While I agree on principle with the concept, it's not always the way to go when there are time constraints in the fight.

For an adult who might be fighting for their right to enrol in a college course, they have ten years or more in which to take that fight. Fighting for the right to a secular education for your child is important, but the problem is that children don't freeze in place during that time - a child still exists which requires education. And the child's education takes priority over the principle of a secular education.

So there are times when the correct thing to do is play by the system's rules while simultaneously opposing those rules. Arguably that's the correct thing to do in most cases, that's how civil society should work.

In some regards it can be argued that paying lip service to the rules can be a form of protest, by undermining those rules and their purpose. If parents get their children baptised for enrolment but then actively ignore/refuse everything else religion-based, it makes a complete mockery of the baptism requirement and the schools will be forced to change.

UDP

Do schools accept photocopies of birth certs or do they demand the originals?
If they accept photocopies then I would go down the route of photoshopping some one else's birth cert to change the child's name (photocopying the photoshopped certificate to make it look more authentic). Then once accepted tell them you don't want your child involved in anything that is catholic.

Zamboni

seamus wrote: »

In some regards it can be argued that paying lip service to the rules can be a form of protest, by undermining those rules and their purpose. If parents get their children baptised for enrolment but then actively ignore/refuse everything else religion-based, it makes a complete mockery of the baptism requirement and the schools will be forced to change.

I wish I had your optimism seamus.
I would respectfully point out that it does, however, appear to be a justification for inaction by people who espouse secular ideals.

robindch

Zamboni wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest - Is lying to get something you want a moral lesson you plan on teaching your child or would this proposed discretion be something you would keep hidden from them?

In the context of a state policy which can require parents to lie in order to ensure that their kids receive the education that the constitution provides for, dishonesty is a unpleasant, but entirely rational, policy.

If I had to lie about religious belief in order to get my child educated, I'd be quite happy to do it and equally happy to tell everybody that I had, once my child had secured a place at a state-funded school.

Dades

Children don't want to be pawns in a game chess played out by adults. My kids want to go to school with the kids on their street, and in Montessori. They want to car-pool with the neighbours and trick-or-treat outside their own house at Halloween.

There's more than enough cultural catholics to fill any void left by non-believer's children in popular local schools, so taking one for the team is a pointless exercise except in your head.

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest - Is lying to get something you want a moral lesson you plan on teaching your child or would this proposed discretion be something you would keep hidden from them?

Disingenuous and uncalled for. Less of this, please.

swampgas

I think Zamboni has a valid point (which was put a little too bluntly, IMO), but misses the bigger issue that adults are being forced to compromise themselves in the best interests of their children. I doubt many parents in this situation are too thrilled about it.

The real problem here is the fact that parents in this country have so little control over the schools that their taxes provide and that their government is supposed to manage and regulate. That many parents have to go through the charade of pretending religious adherence simply to gain access to schools, and that there seems to be bugger all that they can do about it, is a pretty sad indictment of the Irish political system.

ShooterSF

Actually I'd say the problem is that we only look to parents input on this issue when it's a society wide concern. Just because I don't intend to produce direct offspring doesn't mean I won't have interaction with other people who have come through this education system. The time to fight is not when you have a kid or even when you are thinking of having one but the moment you realise the problems mass amounts of our population going through religious instruction will affect your life sooner or later.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

1. Zulu does not suggest that he (she?) as willing to lie to get the child into school, or that he needs to do so; he is willing to lie to get the child into a particular school.

2The lie he contemplates telling is not a lie about the child, but about himself. He does not intend to say falsely that the child was baptised; he intends (if necessary) to tell falsehoods about his own beliefs and intentions in order to get the child baptised, after which he can say truthfully that the child has been baptised.

3. It’s an interesting moral question whether telling a lie about yourself is less bad than telling a lie about someone else, but it is not our business to pass judgment on Zulu. But there’s a practical dimension to this; if Zulu, as suggested by some, photoshops a plausible looking baptismal cert and presents that to the school, he is not only lying but also committing forgery, which is a crime (and quite a serious one). Obviously Zulu might make a judgment about whether the crime will be detected and, if detected, prosecuted, but it’s an issue that should at least be considered. Plus, the child may be more likely to be expelled for being admitted on the basis of falsified documents than to be expelled because, although baptised, it turns out that they are not being raised as Catholics. The latter situation is quite common in Catholic schools; the former vanishingly rare, and therefore likely to be regarded as much more shocking.

4. The justification about lying to get into school on the basis that it is necessary to do so to vindicate the constitutional right to an education is I think weaker if the lie is told to secure entry to a particular school, as here.

5. The justification also needs to take account of the fact that lying to secure entry to a school deprives someone else of a place to the school – someone who, if the truth were told, would be awarded the place. This is not a “victimless crime”.

iguana

I think Zamboni's point is highly relevant tbh. If this is about getting your child an education you have to bear in mind as a parent that ultimately you are likely to be their greatest educator. Is lying to get your own way really one of the first lessons you want to teach them? Because they won't remain children forever, one day they will become aware of what you did and it may very well colour their view of you and how they should conduct themselves in the world. I don't believe there is a definitive right or wrong to that question. It's a subjective situation and different people will have different opinions on what the right or wrong thing is to do. But it's best to accept that it is a questionable act and examine it from each possible angle, acknowledging that it is questionable and your first instinct may not be the right one. It also is a decision that will play a part on what happens to our society as a whole and as such we need to accept that non-parents and not yet parents have a right to voice their opinion because our decisions impact them too.

As for the importance of the child's education in those first years at school, well we are talking about the early years of primary school. It's a pretty basic level of education and a lot of colouring and playing with marla. Nothing a parent as articulate as those who have posted on this thread wouldn't be able to teach their child at home, even if they work during the week.

Dades

iguana wrote: »

Is lying to get your own way really one of the first lessons you want to teach them? Because they won't remain children forever, one day they will become aware of what you did and it may very well colour their view of you and how they should conduct themselves in the world.

And one day they may be run over by a truck cycling home from a school 3 miles away because you wouldn't swallow your pride and send them to the RC school around the corner. We could wave hypotheticals around all day.

This high-horsery about "lying to get your own way one of the first lessons you teach you children" is just unhelpful. It ignores the real-life sacrifices parents go through every single day for their kids. It drags such dilemmas as "what school?" that keep mummies and daddies awake at night down to a level of dishonesty reserved for con men and bankers.

Leaving aside your cultural catholics, decisions like these don't get made lightly. Particularly now, as it seems you'll be judged by both sides.

seamus

"Lying" is a very simplistic way of putting it.

I prefer "civil disobedience", and yes I think it's important to teach children that civil disobedience is perfectly fine provided that you are combatting a social or civil injustice.

There's also far too much made of this kind of "what will your children think" nonsense. I saw someone on another thread comment about how betrayed he felt when he found out there was no Santa and that "lying" to children about Santa was inherently wrong. Give. me. a. fncking. break.

If a child grown adult is unable to see that you made the choices which you believed were in their best interests, then tough sh1t tbh.

Ickle Magoo

Depends entirely on the school what their particular enrolment protocols are Zulu. We applied to loads of schools around us in case they didn't make it into the local ET and some just asked if they'd been baptised, others said not to bother applying if we couldn't provide a baptismal cert...

That said, if you are desperate the child attend that particular school, it might be worth finding out from other parents in the area what the enrolment criterion actually is, rather than asking the school or relying on what they publicly state...which as we found out, isn't always the whole story.

Best of luck

Obliq

Jogathon wrote: »

Check the enrolment policy of the school. Distance to the school is often listed very high up in the criteria. And ask in the school if they have capped their registration, or if they accept all.

I'd say get someone else to ask, so you don't have to answer awkward questions - in case you have to fake it later

iguana

The fact is that twenty years ago there were already a significant minority of parents who would have preferred to not baptise their children but did so in order to secure a school place (both particular school and any school at all). If they had stood up for their beliefs then the growing minority of people who existed 10 years ago would not have been faced with a choice to make, as the system would have started to reform. If more of the parents from 10 years ago had stuck up for what they believed in, today's parents wouldn't face this dilemma. The only reason we are seeing the small changes that are coming about is because of the few parents who refused to back down. And if we don't do something about it now, 10 years from now the children of the first lot of parents will be stuck in this situation.

At some point someone has to stand up to the system and change it. That's going to achieve more than trying to maintain that quietly playing into the hands of those who benefit most from this system is somehow civil disobedience. Being a parent is not an excuse for giving up trying to change things. If anything it's all the more reason to try to change things. Otherwise all we are doing is leaving our children to fight the battles we backed out of.

Obliq

You make a very good point Iguana. Don't really feel I can comment though as I can both stand up for my beliefs AND get a school place for my child in these parts. The schools are so small they'll take anyone

byhookorbycrook

All schools must have an enrolement policy and must make it available. Most Catholic schools take children of all religions and none.If places are limited, the school may prioritise by the criteria in their policy. Our school is Catholic, but we operate first come,first served and siblings then,as our policy. Best bet OP is to contact the local school and ask for their policy.

Zamboni

ShooterSF wrote: »

Actually I'd say the problem is that we only look to parents input on this issue when it's a society wide concern. Just because I don't intend to produce direct offspring doesn't mean I won't have interaction with other people who have come through this education system. The time to fight is not when you have a kid or even when you are thinking of having one but the moment you realise the problems mass amounts of our population going through religious instruction will affect your life sooner or later.

You're right in theory but...
There is no political will to further secularise the Irish Education system outside Ruairi Quinn's narrow ability to provide patronage and schools to non/multi-denominational groups - which is done on a local demand basis.
The reality is the people on the ground campaigning and demanding non/multi-denominational school places are the parents.
Nobody else gives a flying fiddlers.
The reason you got thanks on your post is because people don't have to actually DO anything - they can just sit back on their keyboards and agree with you. They just like the idea. They will do sweet FA.

I acknowledge that I have been blunt on this thread (and iguana has been far more diplomatic than I) but it is a damned frustrating issue.
Especially when the very people you would expect support from are going for the same same approach that simply achieves a status quo.
And it appears that folks are none too happy about having this uncomfortable fact pointed out.

Zamboni

iguana wrote: »

At some point someone has to stand up to the system and change it. That's going to achieve more than trying to maintain that quietly playing into the hands of those who benefit most from this system is somehow civil disobedience. Being a parent is not an excuse for giving up trying to change things. If anything it's all the more reason to try to change things. Otherwise all we are doing is leaving our children to fight the battles we backed out of.

Well said.

Dades

Zamboni wrote: »

And it appears that folks are none too happy about having this uncomfortable fact pointed out.

Personally the only thing that I was none to happy about was this bollocks about "lying to get what you want".

You have valid points about what needs to happen to force change but it's your lack of empathy for what can be a very tough time for parents that has put you at odds with people here.

yellowlabrador

This battle was much tougher 20 years ago when my children started school.
I went about it quietly and because it was a rural school and the only one in the area and there were a few CofI children there it happened.
Some of my experiences as an atheist 20 years ago?
I was refused permission to see the doctor at an outpatients clinic because I wouldn't fill in my religion on the registration form. None was not an option.
I was requested to lie by the receptionist. I realised that she was just ignorant and went home and wrote to the UHC. I got an apology.
Another experience was the look of wonder when I told a gathering of neighbours that I had no religion. It hadn't actually crossed their mind that it was possible. I was seen as a bit exotic and people were keen to talk to me about it.
I've actually worked for religious organisations and believe me, truth goes a long way in getting respect. You don't have to be a raging atheist, if you give respect, you'll get respect

(that is apart from one of the local parish priests, if looks could kill, I'd be stone dead)

robindch

yellowlabrador wrote: »

if you give respect, you'll get respect

Doesn't work with fundies.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

"Lying" is a very simplistic way of putting it.

I prefer "civil disobedience", and yes I think it's important to teach children that civil disobedience is perfectly fine provided that you are combatting a social or civil injustice.

Gosh, I think you’re being a bit kind to yourself (or to Zulu) there.

The defining characteristic of civil disobedience is that it’s open and overt. Its purpose is to apply pressure on those in power, to force them to change an unjust law by highlighting the injustice of that law. And (M. K. Gandhi was particulary strong on this point) those engaging in civil disobedience should not seek to avoid the punishment they incur for lawbreaking; that’s an essential part of their witness to injustice. It also undelines that law, and the rule of law, is important, which is precisely why there is a moral imperative to correct unjust laws.

What Zulu suggests does not involve being open; it involves lying. Lying doesn't call attention to the injustice; it covers it up. And Zulu isn't even lying to get the non-religious education for his child that he might feel is his right; he's lying to get him into a religious school.

As others have pointed out, far from applying pressure to change the system, this is lying to support and reinforce the system. It’s pretty much the polar opposite of civil disobedience.

I think if there’s a justification for the course that Zulu is contemplating, it lies in Zulu’s obligation to his child. We can argue, I think, that Zulu’s desire and duty to get the best possible educational situation for the child justifies a great many lesser evils. Or, if it does not justify them, it should at least lead us to understand Zulu’s position, and perhaps to empathise with him.

But presenting it as an act of civil disobedience would, to be honest, tend to alienate and dissipate that sympathy and understanding, since it is so clearly not an act of civil disobedience.