Atheist Priority

expectationlost

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2012/1113/1224326520426.html

I don’t have an issue with Catholics going to Educate Together schools, not at all. I have a problem with the fact that there is no system of entry to these schools that favours children, like my son, who have no other option.

First come, first served favours children of parents who are clued into education, children of parents who have lived in an area for a long time, children who have siblings in a school and whose parents know how competitive entry is.

this is an issue with all schools, and as the comments note, it would ok to wait a year.

again i really don't like these articles from the irish times there's no facts, sceptical of her and the idea. this and new atheism article they delight in making us look bad

Rev Hellfire

When it comes to any school which is over subscribed the system "favours children of parents who are clued into education".
Anyway I'm not sure atheists should get special treatment, that would make them no better than the religious schools which give priority based on religion.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

1. My first-choice school for my child has a higher likelihood of also being other parents’ first-choice school for their children, since the qualities that attract me are quite likely to attract others also (and the deficiencies that repel me from other schools are quite likely to repel others also). I think this is inevitable, and I think it’s something I need to recognise, rather than to complain about.

2. This means that entry is going to be competitive, and the winners of the competition will be those who recognise that there is a competition, and who understand how best to compete. In other words, as the writer puts it, “those in the know”. I don’t see that this can be avoided. Good schools (however we understand “good”) will be popular.

3. I’m a little confused by her claim, in the second paragraph of her piece, that her son has “no other option” than to attend the Educate Together school, in light of her statement, several paragraphs later, that she is “reasonably certain” that her son “wouldn’t be refused” by at least two local Catholic schools, and one local Protestant schools. The implication is that her son does have other options; they’re just not her preferred option.

4. She feels that her son should get priority in his application to the ET school because he needs to go to that school more than the Catholic and Protestant children who have applied. But, given that the other schools will offer him places, his “need” to go to the ET school really comes down to her very strong preference for that school. In other words, she’s arguing that schools should prioritise the children of parents who really, really want that school for their child over the children of parents whose preference for the school is more marginal.

5. I’m not sure that this is practicable. How is a school to measure the strength of a parent’s preference? If entry is competitive, then obviously all parents will profess an extremely strong preference; that won’t get us very far.

6. Another way to look at the matter is that she is suggesting that the ET school should tailor its admission criteria to be the inverse of the admission criteria of the various denominational schools. Those who come lowest in the denominational schools’ pecking order - even if, as she concedes, they would get a place there - should come highest in the ET schools’ criteria. But this effectively leaves the ET admission criteria being decided by the denominational schools - which is not, I think, very satisfactory from the ET point of view.

7. She concedes that the religious schools have a right to set their own admissions criteria, but has difficultly conceding the same right to the ET school. ET’s philosophy is to guarantee equality of access and esteem to children irrespective of their social, cultural or religious background. That’s just not consistent with an entrenched priority in the admission criteria for atheist/agnostic/non-religious children over religious children.

8. The real problem here, I suspect, is not the admission criteria but the size of the school. It seems that this boy is likely to be offered a place in not one but three denominational schools, despite being very low down in their priorities. But he won’t be offered a place in the ET school despite ticking many of the right boxes - lives in the catchment area, name down more or less since birth. Unless there’s something we’re not being told, the likely reason why this child is not being offered a place is that there aren’t enough places. The school needs to get bigger, not to have a new enrolment policy.

sbsquarepants

I'm not that well versed in the exact rules, but i thought the whole idea of educate together was that it was egalitarian, that it didn't discriminate or favour any 1 creed or colour over any other?
Surely putting catholics to the back of the list would be a total contravention of this?

Shenshen

I can understand where she's coming from, as a non-religious parent her child will inevitably have significantly reduced options in Ireland's education system.

However, I disagree with her that because of this, her child should get preference over others in the ET school. Essentially, she's asking the school to discriminate against other children because her child is being discriminated against. From her personal point of view, that may seem fair, but objectively it's not.

The sad thing is, the only way to fix this is to remove the stranglehold that the churches have over the education system, and that's a long-term plan that will not help her child right here and now.

Dades

I absolutely see where she's coming from, although I think you need to actually put yourself in her position to see what prompted her to write this letter.

That said, I agree with those who have said that it's not right to address discrimination with more discrimination, and that the very purpose of ET schools is to be egalitarian.

I wonder how the catholic figure in the ET school is calculated. Is this the number of kids doing their sacraments, or just the number of kids who have a bit a paper their parents might have got because granny wanted it?

Peregrinus wrote: »

3. I’m a little confused by her claim, in the second paragraph of her piece, that her son has “no other option” than to attend the Educate Together school, in light of her statement, several paragraphs later, that she is “reasonably certain” that her son “wouldn’t be refused” by at least two local Catholic schools, and one local Protestant schools. The implication is that her son does have other options; they’re just not her preferred option.

From my reading, what she suggests is that her kid wouldn't be refused outright, but is unlikely to be offered a place regardless as due to their criteria he would be bottom of the list.

mikhail

Dades wrote: »

I absolutely see where she's coming from, although I think you need to actually put yourself in her position to see what prompted her to write this letter.

We're perfectly capable of empathising with her situation, and the worry it could be causing her.

Unquestionably, her situation is unacceptable. Her solution is still wrong though. The solution to discrimination is not more discrimination, but less.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

I wonder how the catholic figure in the ET school is calculated. Is this the number of kids doing their sacraments, or just the number of kids who have a bit a paper their parents might have got because granny wanted it?

Honestly, it’s like Pavlov’s dog on this board. As soon as a religious identification is mentioned, somebody will question it, usually in snide or derogatory terms, even - as in this instance - we're talking about people who have made the choice to send their children to an ET school. Oddly enough, this doesn’t seem to happen so much when a non-religious identification comes up.

The figure here represents the religious self-identification of the “primary caregiver” (usually the mother). The primary caregiver of 50% of the kids in ET schools identified themselves, when asked for the purposes of the survey, as Catholics. About 20% identified themselves as of other religions, and 30% as having no religion.

Furthermore, of the children in ET schools whose primary caregiver had a religious affiliation, 42% attended church weekly or more often (in Catholic schools, 53%; in minority denomination schools, 47%). The primary caregivers of children in ET schools were as likely as in Catholic schools to answer “very much so” or “extremely” when asked if they would describe themselves as religious or spiritual persons (but the secondary caregivers (fathers, mostly) were less so).

Dades

Really, Peregrinus, you could have just posted the stats without getting in a huff about some imagined slight.

It was a valid question just using two polar examples to clarify what I was asking.

Zillah

I hear you're a racist now Father Dades.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

Honestly, it’s like Pavlov’s dog on this board. As soon as a religious identification is mentioned, somebody will question it, usually in snide or derogatory terms, even - as in this instance - we're talking about people who have made the choice to send their children to an ET school. Oddly enough, this doesn’t seem to happen so much when a non-religious identification comes up.

thats because one is a sky god cult and the other is none of that.

Galvasean

I would be against such 'positive discrimination' for non-Catholics personally. The last thing we want is to create an even bigger 'us vs them' mentality. It would make ET schools appear anti-Catholic as opposed to pro-everybody.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

Really, Peregrinus, you could have just posted the stats without getting in a huff about some imagined slight.

It was a valid question just using two polar examples to clarify what I was asking.

Well, fair enough, but the generally derogatory language about other people’s religious identification is a pretty constant theme here, and I’m not sure that it’s healthy.

Over on the “Ireland now on top ten atheist countries” thread, for example, we have similar rants, and associated cheerleading, about the (quite large) cohort of the population who apparently characterize themselves as “not religious”, but not as “convinced atheists”.

I think I have two observations about this:

First, it comes across as deeply insecure. People who don’t share atheist beliefs are perceived as a threat. They must be be attacked, belittled, undermined. Even if atheists are asking why poeple don’t share atheist convictions, they must frame the question in a way which suggests a certain answer.

Secondly, it makes for a discourse which actively discourages any kind of critical self-examination. It’s obviously a possibility that people who don’t identify as atheist have considered the atheist position and found it wanting; it fails to satisfy something in them; it fails to answer some question or address some concern they have. There is, from their perspective, some inadequacy in atheism. But the discourse here about that is too often framed in ways which suggest that the deficiency must always be in them. And that’s not good.

(And the third of my two observations is that this attitude among atheists possibly helps to explain why Irish unbelievers and non-religious people are so reluctant to identify themselves as atheists. They don’t want to associate themselves with such an apparently insecure bunch.)

mikhail

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, it comes across as deeply insecure.

How it seems ot you is entirely subjective. I don't think it's insecurity so much as frustration at a system that discriminates against us because the apathetic majority side against us for no reason.

Secondly, it makes for a discourse which actively discourages any kind of critical self-examination.

That sort of argument has been done to death on this forum. Bono forbid we ever come to any conclusions around here.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, fair enough, but the generally derogatory language about other people’s religious identification is a pretty constant theme here, and I’m not sure that it’s healthy.

Over on the “Ireland now on top ten atheist countries” thread, for example, we have similar rants, and associated cheerleading, about the (quite large) cohort of the population who apparently characterize themselves as “not religious”, but not as “convinced atheists”.

This is because we have hordes of people who never go to mass, use contraception, have sex outside marriage and generally haven't a clue about catholic doctrine who still called themselves catholics, and in doing so continue to prop up the church's interference in state affairs. Primarily in education - the continued interference with and sanctioned discrimination within is a disgrace.

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, it comes across as deeply insecure. People who don’t share atheist beliefs are perceived as a threat. They must be be attacked, belittled, undermined. Even if atheists are asking why poeple don’t share atheist convictions, they must frame the question in a way which suggests a certain answer.

If we lived in a world where religious beliefs - or more importantly - the religious beliefs of others didn't impact your life, then there'd be no need to go on any sort of offensive.

Religious people are not being attacked, belittled, undermined without reason - they're being asked to substantiate their beliefs which impact on all our lives. Every poster here has the same right of reply and if beliefs stand up to scrutiny, then great.

Forgive me for ressurrecting and old favourite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, it makes for a discourse which actively discourages any kind of critical self-examination. It’s obviously a possibility that people who don’t identify as atheist have considered the atheist position and found it wanting; it fails to satisfy something in them; it fails to answer some question or address some concern they have. There is, from their perspective, some inadequacy in atheism. But the discourse here about that is too often framed in ways which suggest that the deficiency must always be in them. And that’s not good.

Somebody looking for answers to anything in atheism is looking in the wrong place. And the only way to show inadequacy in atheism would be to provide evidence of a god.

If someone fails to grasp this, a poster here will point it out. If someone decides to look elsewhere because the want "something more" then so be it. It's clear they're less interested in reality than finding a comfortable world view (even though we have loads of threads about how atheists here find their own meaning, joy and wonder in life). It is a deficiency of logic to choose a truth on the basis of how comforting it is.

Peregrinus wrote: »

(And the third of my two observations is that this attitude among atheists possibly helps to explain why Irish unbelievers and non-religious people are so reluctant to identify themselves as atheists. They don’t want to associate themselves with such an apparently insecure bunch.)

Who are these people and how do you come to this conclusion? I don't give a damn whether people call themselves atheists or not. I don't subscribe to AI's agenda of promoting atheism. I just want non-believers to stop calling themselves catholic so that we might shake off the mantle of the church some time this century.

expectationlost

peregrinus never failing in his sole mission to derail threads

Galvasean

Peregrinus wrote: »

(And the third of my two observations is that this attitude among atheists possibly helps to explain why Irish unbelievers and non-religious people are so reluctant to identify themselves as atheists. They don’t want to associate themselves with such an apparently insecure bunch.)

Something tells me if they were so concerned with not wanting to be associated with a 'bad bunch' they wouldn't be ticking Catholic on the census and associating themselves with an organisation that tries to hide paedophiles from justice. I think you are thinking into it a bit too much (especialy since that was the third of your two ppoints[/silly pedantry]).

Zamboni

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not that well versed in the exact rules, but i thought the whole idea of educate together was that it was egalitarian, that it didn't discriminate or favour any 1 creed or colour over any other?

Educate Together unintentionally discriminates against children born at a certain time of the year.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

The figure here represents the religious self-identification of the “primary caregiver” (usually the mother). The primary caregiver of 50% of the kids in ET schools identified themselves, when asked for the purposes of the survey, as Catholics. About 20% identified themselves as of other religions, and 30% as having no religion.

Furthermore, of the children in ET schools whose primary caregiver had a religious affiliation, 42% attended church weekly or more often (in Catholic schools, 53%; in minority denomination schools, 47%). The primary caregivers of children in ET schools were as likely as in Catholic schools to answer “very much so” or “extremely” when asked if they would describe themselves as religious or spiritual persons (but the secondary caregivers (fathers, mostly) were less so).

people usually provide a link if they going to quote a report

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

people usually provide a link if they going to quote a report

True. I'm a lazy bastard.

Here you go: http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3622

(Takes you to a page with a link to a PDF of the report.)

Hotblack Desiato

I agree with her suggestion.

Her child is, because it is of no religion, automatically bottom of the list at every religious school.

They are lucky enough to have the option of ET available to them (most don't) but, because of her child's birth date it's bottom of the list there too.

This is completely unfair. It's all very well to say that discrimination is wrong, but in a situation where every other school in the land is allowed to discriminate against atheists, ET should recognise and do their bit to correct this.

Also to say that a child should just sit out a year is wrong. A year is a very long time in a child's life at that age and if they are ready to go to school it will adversely affect their education to be not let do so. I remember when being 'kept back' was a big threat, a punishment, why should she keep her child back just because of the f-ked up education system we have?

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

. . . This is completely unfair. It's all very well to say that discrimination is wrong, but in a situation where every other school in the land is allowed to discriminate against atheists, ET should recognise and do their bit to correct this.

But every other school in the land is also allowed to discriminate in favour of atheists; it’s just that none of them choose to do so.

I think this woman’s desire for a school which prioritises non-religious children is entirely understandable, and perfectly legitimate. It’s just that the ET school is not that school, and the ET school has no special obligation to become that school in order to please her. Why should the ET school have to compromise its ethos to suit her when the Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and Jewish schools don’t have to?

Rev Hellfire

ninja900 wrote: »

This is completely unfair. It's all very well to say that discrimination is wrong, but in a situation where every other school in the land is allowed to discriminate against atheists, ET should recognise and do their bit to correct this.

Such an action would only further validate the religious stance taken by the other schools. Anyway where do those from non-mainstream religious faiths fit into this, are they before or behind non-religious kids for entry to ET schools in your new order ?

mikhail

ninja900 wrote: »

Also to say that a child should just sit out a year is wrong. A year is a very long time in a child's life at that age and if they are ready to go to school it will adversely affect their education to be not let do so.

That's not true. Kids who start their formal education later catch up quickly and show no adverse effects later on. I'd quote the source study, but I read it some years ago and can't put my finger to it.

the culture of deference

Welcome to the year 2012,

I have the opinion that the government should control education in this country. There should be no form of religion in schools.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

But every other school in the land is also allowed to discriminate in favour of atheists; it’s just that none of them choose to do so.

I'm going to need some proof to back up that statement since my understanding is that under Dept. of Education rules it it impossible to have a secular school in Ireland unless it is completely private and receives no State funding.

Seems to me discrimination against Atheists is built into the system so how can schools discriminate in favour of Atheists????

mikhail

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm going to need some proof to back up that statement since my understanding is that under Dept. of Education rules it it impossible to have a secular school in Ireland unless it is completely private and receives no State funding.

Seems to me discrimination against Atheists is built into the system so how can schools discriminate in favour of Atheists????

The Educate Together schools are secular. I think they're obliged to teach about religion, if that's what you mean, but they teach about religion, not indoctrinate the dogma of one of them.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

But every other school in the land is also allowed to discriminate in favour of atheists; it’s just that none of them choose to do so.

lets deal with real discrimnation rather then imagined Peregrinus, and at the moment this women can't find a non-religouos school for her son.

Bannasidhe

mikhail wrote: »

The Educate Together schools are secular. I think they're obliged to teach about religion, if that's what you mean, but they teach about religion, not indoctrinate the dogma of one of them.

Technically making them multi-denominational.

Still waiting for proof that 'every other school in the land is also allowed to discriminate in favour of atheists' which was Peregrinus' very definitive statement.

Galvasean

Perhaps that is exactly what Ireland needs? A school that opemly discriminates in favour of atheists due to its 'ethos'. You can imagine there would be uproar and legislation drafted to make it change its stance in no time. Then they'd have to make the schools that discriminate in favour of Catholics change too.
It's just crazy enough to work...

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But every other school in the land is also allowed to discriminate in favour of atheists; it’s just that none of them choose to do so.

AFAIK the Dept.of Education funds denominational schools and multidenominational schools, but not non-denominational schools. As the atheist kids would be classified as non-denominational, it is hard to see how any school could legally have an admissions policy to favour them, unless it was entirely privately funded.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think this woman’s desire for a school which prioritises non-religious children is entirely understandable, and perfectly legitimate.

Most people on this thread seem to think it is understandable, but not legitimate. Hence the atheists seem to be taking "the high moral ground" from the religious folks on this one