Faith Schools Segregating Migrant Children

Phill Ewinn

We've had economic migrants moving here and placing children in schools with little or no English. Hardly surprising they're being turned away. What do you want? Local children to start after school grinds at six years old because teachers are too busy dealing with other children who don't speak English?

Education is a massive investment for parents. Some people don't want that investment screwed up.lo

jank

seamus wrote: »

But there's no reason why it couldn't or shouldn't..

Ah seamus, we both know why. Its just like saying cant we just stop war and end world hunger.

seamus wrote: »

There is a massive issue at the moment, especially in poorer areas where segregation is surreptitiously being enforced as catholic parents send their kids to the local catholic school and most of the migrants' children have to attend the ET or other secular school because the catholic school turns them away.

Isn't this what the endgame should look like. Catholic kids in catholic schools. Others in non catholic schools. Indeed if it continues like that then after a while catholic schools will be rather empty drab places.

Peregrinus

jank wrote: »

Well, I think that the fact the almost 1/3 of the popluation attend a non governmental school is a clear indication that many many people are not that thrilled to go with the local state run school. Many would rather pay (some fees are over $20,000 a year) a large sum to avoid such a school. I am not tainting all state run schools as rubbish but the fact is that rubbish schools are more often then not state run. On average they underperform while spending the same amount of money per child. Indeed many private schools spend less per child then the government does and get better results.

You seem to be assuming that the 30% who choose a church school do so because they think the state school is crappy, but discounting the possibility that any of the 70% who choose a state school do so because they think it’s better than the church school. Neither of those assumptions looks particularly realistic to me, and certainly you haven’t produced any evidence for either of them.

My impression is that, if parents find the choice of schools difficult, that’s mostly because both options are usually pretty good.

Yes, the church schools are fee-paying, and this does distort the choice somewhat. But, at primary level, which is what the OP is talking about, your $20,000 figure is ridiculous. (And it would be pretty untypical at secondary level, too.) Catholic primary school fees in Perth, where I live, range from $500 to $3,500 per year. The average is apparently about $1,900. That’s not a trivial amount, but it’s an amount many parents can afford without too great a hardship, and the proportion of the 70% in state schools who have been driven there by poverty and hunger is not great. The great bulk of the 70% in state schools are there because that is their preference.

jank

Penn wrote: »

What should happen is that schools should not be allowed to refuse children based on them having a different or no religion, and in a religious school when the religious children are being thought about their religion, there are adequate resources in place where the non-religious or children from another religion are given extra lessons or helped further with their work.

This would also reduce the need for parents who aren't religious to have their children baptised in order to get them into the local school.

Isn't this what is happening already bar some highly published incidents?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Discriminate on what? Religion? Thats a niave way of looking at it.

The church seems to be quite happy to discriminate on those grounds.

Don't forget that's why all the blacks and other immigrants were told to get lost.

I'm not quite sure how you can't see this is open, blatant, unapologetic discrimination.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The issue in Ireland is that there is often no alternative but to send ones children to a faith based school so children who do not share that faith are overtly or subtly marked out as different by the system.

Yes, and I think that's the real greivance with the Irish system. But I think the question of cultural diversity is a bit of a red herring. It would be entirely possible to make Irish schools more diverse without tackling that problem. Conversely, tackling that problem won't necessarily do much for diversity.

seamus

jank wrote: »

Ah seamus, we both know why. Its just like saying cant we just stop war and end world hunger.

Eh, not really. War and world hunger are complicated issues. This isn't. It is quite literally possible for the government to snap their fingers and take control of schools overnight.

Isn't this what the endgame should look like. Catholic kids in catholic schools. Others in non catholic schools. Indeed if it continues like that then after a while catholic schools will be rather empty drab places.

No? The endgame should look like a place where you have public schools in which all children are treated equally when it comes to access to that school and freedom from religious pressure.

Parents equally should have the choice to send their children to private schools which accommodate their exceptional educational needs, be they catholic, muslim, voodoo, scientologist, etc.

There's no need to segregate catholic children from the rest. The state must treat all children equally.

jank

Peregrinus wrote: »

Unless you're going to have a rule that all schools must admit everyone who applies, regardless of the capacity or resources of the school, then they must discriminate on some basis in order to select the applicants who will actually be admitted.

If your object is racial or cultural diversity, there's no guarantee that eliminating selection on the basis of faith will result in a more diverse school population; it depends on (a) how closely faith aligns with race or culture, (b) what selection criterion is substituted for faith, and (c) how closely that criterion aligns with race or culture. As I've argued based on the Australian experience, it's not impossible that eliminating faith as a selection criterion could make the diversity situation worse, not better.

I can;t avoid the suspicion that people who attack selection on the basis of faith because it undermines diversity are more concerned about attacking faith-based education than they are about promoting diversity. If your object is the promotion of racial, social or cultural diversity, then the rational course is to adopt selection criteria which affirmatively promote racial, social and cultural diversity. Simply rejecting criteria which refer to faith suggest that a different agenda is at work.

Agree with this and must remind people to read the article posted where these facts are mentioned. Getting rid of a faith based criteria for schools will not magically integrate migrants or any other people into a soceity.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Agree with this and must remind people to read the article posted where these facts are mentioned. Getting rid of a faith based criteria for schools will not magically integrate migrants or any other people into a soceity.

However, removing the Faith based ethos as a determining factor for admission to the only State funded school in the locality will help end the sectarian nature of Irish society where it is assumed everyone is a Catholic.

jank

seamus wrote: »

Eh, not really. War and world hunger are complicated issues. This isn't. It is quite literally possible for the government to snap their fingers and take control of schools overnight..

Including confiscating private property? My, I suppose a Communist take over is fairly simple alright! Feck a go slow approach let just tear up the constitution....

"A snap of their fingers".... really?

seamus

Haha, maybe I shouldn't have put "literally" there, force of bad habit. "Figuratively" obviously being the intended word. You don't need to confiscate the property, simply change the law to prevent schools receiving state funding to discriminate based on religion or run the school with a religious ethos.

Also nothing stopping them from CPOing every school in the country overnight. Not that difficult, but it's not the optimal solution.

Worth noting that the current situation is already in breach of the constitution as the state guarantees not to endow any religion.

jank

robindch wrote: »

The church seems to be quite happy to discriminate on those grounds.

Don't forget that's why all the blacks and other immigrants were told to get lost.

I'm not quite sure how you can't see this is open, blatant, unapologetic discrimination.

Has there been a reported incident where a black person who was a catholic got refused entry to that school solely because of their skin colour?

hardCopy

seamus wrote: »

Haha, maybe I shouldn't have put "literally" there, force of bad habit. "Figuratively" obviously being the intended word. You don't need to confiscate the property, simply change the law to prevent schools receiving state funding to discriminate based on religion or run the school with a religious ethos.

Also nothing stopping them from CPOing every school in the country overnight. Not that difficult, but it's not the optimal solution.

Worth noting that the current situation is already in breach of the constitution as the state guarantees not to endow any religion.

I really don't see any major problem with this approach. Just nationalise all schools and ban prayer in school.

If parents still want their kids indoctrinated let them start a new completely privately funded catholic school.

Penn

jank wrote: »

Isn't this what is happening already bar some highly published incidents?

No, because as evident by the article in the OP, schools are still discriminating based on religion. That's the crux of the issue. And schools which do allow non-catholic children often don't have the resources to allow the non-religious children to have proper extra study while the other children are having religion class. I believe people here have previously said how their children were not supposed to be taught religion, but were without their permission, likely due to a lack of proper resources or standard practice in place for such occasions.

robindch

jank wrote: »

Has there been a reported incident where a black person who was a catholic got refused entry to that school solely because of their skin colour?

Brian Shanahan

jank wrote: »

Yes, for state owned schools. However there will always be schools run by religious organisations who will offer education through a certain ethos whatever that may be. In a free and liberal society one cannot deny that right to others just because you don't want it yourself. So my original question is still valid, isn't this the natural course education will take in the future?

This incident is more of a question of inadequate education resources rather than religion.

In a secular society if a person wants an exclusively religious education they'll have all the opportunities they want to send their children to private, fee paying religious school, which is outside the state education system.

Of course the state can deny qualifications from such schools if they are overly religious and divert too far from the national curriculum (e.g. by teaching creationism).

State owned schools should only include religious education only as it has an impact on other subjects and as a part of general cultural studies.

Knasher

jank wrote: »

Discriminate on what? Religion? Thats a niave way of looking at it. In most countries you are discriminated against attending a number of public schools because you dont live in that area.

There is a public school in your postcode/parish so that is the school you have to attend. A secularists wet dream. Might be grand for some, yet as you can imagine some people would be unhappy with this as there might be a better school a few miles up the road yet they cannot attend because they dont live in that area. Just go look at the issues with the public school system in the United states. What is your solution to that problem?

I don't see what your point is. Are you essentially saying that because removing religious based discrimination won't fix every problem, we shouldn't do it even though it will fix some problems.

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can;t avoid the suspicion that people who attack selection on the basis of faith because it undermines diversity are more concerned about attacking faith-based education than they are about promoting diversity. If your object is the promotion of racial, social or cultural diversity, then the rational course is to adopt selection criteria which affirmatively promote racial, social and cultural diversity. Simply rejecting criteria which refer to faith suggest that a different agenda is at work.

You can put your suspicions aside, Peregrinus. The issue of schools and discrimination is openly one of - if not THE biggest gripe regualrs on this forum have with the church/state system in Ireland. It's also at the core of the issue, meaning that posters here are entitled to have a further gripe with the situation within the context of this thread - i.e. that immigrants are also getting the hump from the church. It's called empathy, I think.

jank wrote: »

Discriminate on what? Religion? Thats a niave way of looking at it. In most countries you are discriminated against attending a number of public schools because you dont live in that area.

There is a public school in your postcode/parish so that is the school you have to attend. A secularists wet dream. Might be grand for some, yet as you can imagine some people would be unhappy with this as there might be a better school a few miles up the road yet they cannot attend because they dont live in that area.

Do you believe having religion a criteria makes this a better system? Surely it just opens the system up to manipulation and encourages people making false declarations about their kids' religion?

jank wrote: »

Just go look at the issues with the public school system in the United states. What is your solution to that problem?

No, and none.

Brian Shanahan

jank wrote: »

Including confiscating private property?

Considering how much money has been spent on school property by the state and local communities over the years compared to the amount spent by the church, can you even call it private property any more?

I know for my local, religiously run, primary school, that it was previously a state-run (before independance) national school with no church ties, which only fell into the church's lap after independance because early governments were being hectored by the priesthood to turn over all schools to them. At no stage did the church make a payment for the land or buildings nor did it ever make an investment for necessary changes and repairs to the school.

Bannasidhe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Considering how much money has been spent on school property by the state and local communities over the years compared to the amount spent by the church, can you even call it private property any more?

I know for my local, religiously run, primary school, that it was previously a state-run (before independance) national school with no church ties, which only fell into the church's lap after independance because early governments were being hectored by the priesthood to turn over all schools to them. At no stage did the church make a payment for the land or buildings nor did it ever make an investment for necessary changes and repairs to the school.

Not to mention the 90 million euro the Christian Brothers are getting from the State to build schools - schools that will then come under the control of the Edmund Rice Trust which refuses to allow an ET school to use a vacant building as that are not Catholic....

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/90m-payout-row-over-vacant-school-29077025.html

PopePalpatine

jank wrote: »

Including confiscating private property? My, I suppose a Communist take over is fairly simple alright! Feck a go slow approach let just tear up the constitution....

"A snap of their fingers".... really?

Well, those schools might help to make up the Church's contribution to compensating victims of abusive priests/nuns/monks, as they have been ordered to do so by the State.

jank

hardCopy wrote: »

I really don't see any major problem with this approach. Just nationalise all schools and ban prayer in school.

If parents still want their kids indoctrinated let them start a new completely privately funded catholic school.

How much would that cost the state which isn't exactly flush with cash at the moment.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

How much would that cost the state which isn't exactly flush with cash at the moment.

It can afford to give 90 million to the Christian Brothers.

Popinjay

Peregrinus wrote: »

they confirm that this is a recognised pattern.

Indeed...

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/private-schools-used-for-cultural-quarantine-20120306-1uieg.html


http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2011/05/ho.html

Good old 'White Flight'

jank

Penn wrote: »

No, because as evident by the article in the OP, schools are still discriminating based on religion. That's the crux of the issue. And schools which do allow non-catholic children often don't have the resources to allow the non-religious children to have proper extra study while the other children are having religion class. I believe people here have previously said how their children were not supposed to be taught religion, but were without their permission, likely due to a lack of proper resources or standard practice in place for such occasions.

No its not the crux of the issue.

There is no reason to believe if all catholic schools were overnight told to admit any child regardless of religious background for these issues would be resolved, unless you ban religious education in all schools regardless of the schools ethos or patronage.

Read the article.

Speaking to the Galway Independent, Integration Centre Director of Public Affairs Helena Clarke said migrant children are often channelled into certain schools as around one in five schools in Ireland reach capacity and so impose selection criteria for enrolment that result in a small number of migrants being admitted.

If its an issue of resourcing, well its an issue of resources. Afaik Mr. Quinn is the minister for eduation not the RCC. As mentioned these kids are getting an education, they are not stuck at home.

These include giving priority to pupils whose siblings are pupils, or Catholic schools prioritising Catholic residents of a parish. Ms Clarke explained that, while the “clustering” issue is complex, religion is one of the contributing factors being used “to keep migrants out of certain schools”.

Along with the fact the these schools are usually full! Again its a resource's issue more than anything else.


On a side note, not really a wide ranging survey, only 3 schools surveyed in the city of galway? Very very selective i'd say to pre-determine the outcome.
We have no idea if these 'nasty' catholic schools have or have not accepted migrant children. Any numbers out on this?

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It can afford to give 90 million to the Christian Brothers.

Have some more straw....

How much would it cost the state to nationalise all the schools in Ireland. I am serious here!

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Have some more straw....

How much would it cost the state to nationalise all the schools in Ireland. I am serious here!

Define 'nationalise'?

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Define 'nationalise'?

Take full ownership of the grounds, buildings, capital and all assets owned by the schools.

jank

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, those schools might help to make up the Church's contribution to compensating victims of abusive priests/nuns/monks, as they have been ordered to do so by the State.

So you have no issue with the state confiscating private property? I expect as does everyone the church to pay up its fair share of compensation. I have no issue with that but I dont want to live in a place where the state has the power to confiscate a persons property on a whim. Ownership of property is the keystone of liberal western society.

jank

Knasher wrote: »

I don't see what your point is. Are you essentially saying that because removing religious based discrimination won't fix every problem, we shouldn't do it even though it will fix some problems.

Removing religious based discrimination wont cure the issue at hand we are discussing.