Views on new Templecarrig admission policy

zanador

The argument would be made that by letting in a child of different 'ethos' ahead a child of 'ethos' then by definition this is eroding the ethos of the school.

That's why it is in the case of over subscription, as opposed to when this number/percentage is reached.

If the school wasn't full then they would have to take every child that came looking for a place, or have a REALLY good case as to why not. It is decided on a case by case basis, too.

recedite

As I said, every citizen has a constitutional right to receive equal treatment at the hands of the State. If a state owned facility wishes to exploit some loophole in the law which was put there for the benefit of religiously owned facilities, then that loophole can be challenged and would have to be amended, just as the abortion legislation was.
Constitutional law trumps legislation law, this is a basic legal principle.

You have made some good points above mango salsa, but in relation to access to education for disabilities, we are talking about second generation rights, eg the right to have wheelchair ramps installed, and these are not given the same priority as the right to be free from an overt act of discrimination.
In relation to "some legitimate objective", yes the State can override the lesser rights of the citizen in pursuit of some legitimate objective.
But can it really be said that getting people down to the church on a Sunday morning as properly active members of the COI is a legitimate objective of the State?

zanador

recedite wrote: »

As I said, every citizen has a constitutional right to receive equal treatment at the hands of the State. If a state owned facility wishes to exploit some loophole in the law which was put there for the benefit of religiously owned facilities, t

Is it a state owned facility, though? The building is, and the land, but the school is the roll number under a patron - and they lease the buildings.

recedite

patrickpc wrote: »

The part in bold above is the bit I would question as it is deliberately vague. What criterion is used to decide that (for example) letting one additional student of a different denomination into a school would cause the school to lose it's ethos ? Is some formula or a percentage figure used (for loss of ethos) and if so what is it? I think that it would be better for school's to publish the tipping point where the school's ethos becomes eroded/lost for transparency's sake.

Any thoughts ?

Yes, it strikes me that a patron could use this to restrict the numbers in the school. Lets say the facility was large enough to take 1000 pupils, they might decide to restrict it to 700 on the basis that any more would dilute the "ethos" desired by the school patron.

recedite

zanador wrote: »

Is it a state owned facility, though? The building is, and the land, but the school is the roll number under a patron - and they lease the buildings.

The owner is the entity giving the lease, and a lease is invalid if it is obtained under false pretenses.

zanador

recedite wrote: »

The owner is the entity giving the lease, and a lease is invalid if it is obtained under false pretenses.

Ok, that's a specific circumstance though, and not the same as what you were saying before about state facilities and discrimination.

Sorry to be pedantic

zanador

recedite wrote: »

Yes, it strikes me that a patron could use this to restrict the numbers in the school. Lets say the facility was large enough to take 1000 pupils, they might decide to restrict it to 700 on the basis that any more would dilute the "ethos" desired by the school patron.

Theoretically they could, I suppose, but I doubt they would as most of the schools here are fairly liberal until they are full. Also, they get more money for more pupils and it's easier to hit teacher quotas.

patrickpc

zanador wrote: »

The argument would be made that by letting in a child of different 'ethos' ahead a child of 'ethos' then by definition this is eroding the ethos of the school.

That's why it is in the case of over subscription, as opposed to when this number/percentage is reached.

If the school wasn't full then they would have to take every child that came looking for a place, or have a REALLY good case as to why not. It is decided on a case by case basis, too.

So then - the exception says that when a school is oversubscribed any child applying for a place, who is of a different ethos, is deemed an instrument of erosion to the school's ethos and hence is not on equal standing to another child of the school's ethos ??

zanador

patrickpc wrote: »

So then - the exception says that when a school is oversubscribed any child applying for a place, who is of a different ethos, is deemed an instrument of erosion to the school's ethos and hence is not on equal standing to another child of the school's ethos ??

Case by case, I don't know what the reasons would be exactly, but I guess that's about the size of it.

As long as it is stated in the admissions policy though - that's the legally binding contract

patrickpc

zanador wrote: »

Case by case, I don't know what the reasons would be exactly, but I guess that's about the size of it.

As long as it is stated in the admissions policy though - that's the legally binding contract

Did anyone read the recent article where the Children's Ombudsman, Emily Logan says ..

'..the general right currently enjoyed by denominational schools to give preferential access to children of their faith should end
...
Ms Logan notes this has been criticised by international human rights bodies including the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

She says in circumstances where a denominational school is oversubscribed, children not of its denomination, or of none, are at an unfair disadvantage.

“Children should not have preferential access to publicly funded education on the basis of their religion and that the Equal Status Act should reflect that principle.”


Is there any chance that the law will be changed to disallow ethos as an acceptance criterion?

zanador

I believe it will happen, but we're not ready for it. Look at the furor over the recent re-assignments of patronage. And how would you tell a religious school to be inclusive when by nature they are exclusive - although if they are strong in their faith it shouldn't matter.



Ruari Quinn has serious cojones but I reckon even he would balk at taking this on!

patrickpc

zanador wrote: »

I believe it will happen, but we're not ready for it. Look at the furor over the recent re-assignments of patronage. And how would you tell a religious school to be inclusive when by nature they are exclusive - although if they are strong in their faith it shouldn't matter.



Ruari Quinn has serious cojones but I reckon even he would balk at taking this on!

So - what is the fairest admissions policy - what would be the least contentious to keep the largest amount of people happy? You'll never keep everyone happy...

Maybe 2 categories.

Category 1.
First preference to siblings of students who are already enrolled and who will attend the school next year.
Category 2.
Children from the locality/feeder schools - with pre-designated boundaries.

In the event of an oversubscription then a lottery for those in Category 2.

I am not sure that giving preference to children of teachers/school administrators is fair (type of nepotism) but I am sure that teachers/school admins would disagree.

So what would be the fairest policy? Anyone?

zanador

patrickpc wrote: »

So - what is the fairest admissions policy - what would be the least contentious to keep the largest amount of people happy? You'll never keep everyone happy...

Maybe 2 categories.

Category 1.
First preference to siblings of students who are already enrolled and who will attend the school next year.
Category 2.
Children from the locality/feeder schools - with pre-designated boundaries.

In the event of an oversubscription then a lottery for those in Category 2.

I am not sure that giving preference to children of teachers/school administrators is fair (type of nepotism) but I am sure that teachers/school admins would disagree.

So what would be the fairest policy? Anyone?

In UK and US this is standard - you go to your local school and that's it. It requires secular state led education and any school who want to be different must apply and prove need.

I agree with siblings and children of staff having priority - but not management, or clergy (if we're talking TC).

And agree with the rest of yours, a lottery for the rest of the places within a defined catchment area - if the school has been sanctioned on that premise. The new North Wicklow ET has been sanctioned with no such constraints so that will be interesting too!

Check out Finland for the near perfect system

homer911

Why cant we have a centralised applications process, with parents prioritising schools of their choice, and at the same time providing all information relevant to the school's admission policy. The relevant clergy, if any, could then verify the application

At least then we would not have phantom places being blocked out by children who will ultimately go to another school..

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

As I said, every citizen has a constitutional right to receive equal treatment at the hands of the State. If a state owned facility wishes to exploit some loophole in the law which was put there for the benefit of religiously owned facilities, then that loophole can be challenged and would have to be amended, just as the abortion legislation was.
Constitutional law trumps legislation law, this is a basic legal principle.

You have made some good points above mango salsa, but in relation to access to education for disabilities, we are talking about second generation rights, eg the right to have wheelchair ramps installed, and these are not given the same priority as the right to be free from an overt act of discrimination.
In relation to "some legitimate objective", yes the State can override the lesser rights of the citizen in pursuit of some legitimate objective.
But can it really be said that getting people down to the church on a Sunday morning as properly active members of the COI is a legitimate objective of the State?

I still really don't think legally there is an an issue here at all.

The Equal Status Acts allow schools an exemption for religious based discrimination.

The difference that you keep making between private and public, is not, I don't think an issue either. In your opinion state owned schools should meet higher equality standards but I don't see how your opinion is translated into law. There is no differentiation in the Equal Status Acts between publicly owned and privately owned. I really don't see why you think there is a difference or should be a difference? I mean all hospitals in the country whether state owned or privately run have to comply with the recent abortion legislation. I am sure also when Aer Lingus was state owned that both it and Ryanair had to both comply with the Equal status acts. I fail to see why you think there is a difference in law between the two.

Of course a schools admission policy could be challenged under the constitution but what I was pointing out is that the constitutional guarantee of equality has been interpreted very weakly within the courts upto now.

recedite

Private and State owned facilities both have to comply equally with any legislation out there. But the State has extra responsibilities.
Take your example of Ryanair; they have always refused to recognise trade unions. That option is not open to Aer Lingus, even though they are only partially (majority share I think) State owned.
And the "right" to union representation is a very weak right compared to the right not to be subjected to discrimination on religious grounds. The State grants union representation to employees in other State and Semi-State owned enterprises, so it cannot treat Aer Lingus employees any differently.

stilltryingit

patrickpc wrote: »

So - what is the fairest admissions policy - what would be the least contentious to keep the largest amount of people happy? You'll never keep everyone happy...

Maybe 2 categories.

Category 1.
First preference to siblings of students who are already enrolled and who will attend the school next year.
Category 2.
Children from the locality/feeder schools - with pre-designated boundaries.

In the event of an oversubscription then a lottery for those in Category 2.

I am not sure that giving preference to children of teachers/school administrators is fair (type of nepotism) but I am sure that teachers/school admins would disagree.

So what would be the fairest policy? Anyone?

What you have described sounds fair and it's in line with what people expected when they signed up for a COI school. I think the problem is that the school is going to be over subscribed very quickly as population expands and it will have attractive facilities too. I think the school board would not want to refuse a COI child who might lose out through the random lottery. Maybe they just need to say that they are sorry not to be able to honour the original terms?I think it would be difficult not to accept an apology.

FirstIn

Apology. WHAT!
People are showing themselves to be very naive. It's a faith based school, this is the way these schools operate.

Then again perhaps they should apologise, round about the same time the RC faith based schools all over the rest of the country apologise for discriminating against kids from minority religions in their areas.

Consider this. In other faith based schools (nearly all RC) that are oversubscribed how many non RC kids are admitted? NONE, or bl**dy damn close. (They might have had a quiet year and let one COI kid in and now his sister wants in)

If TC is oversubscribed how many RC kids will be admitted? Many. TC will always be majority RC. As it stands the first year are over 80% non COI.

stilltryingit

FirstIn wrote: »

Apology. WHAT!
People are showing themselves to be very naive. It's a faith based school, this is the way these schools operate.

Then again perhaps they should apologise, round about the same time the RC faith based schools all over the rest of the country apologise for discriminating against kids from minority religions in their areas.

Consider this. In other faith based schools (nearly all RC) that are oversubscribed how many non RC kids are admitted? NONE, or bl**dy damn close. (They might have had a quiet year and let one COI kid in and now his sister wants in)

If TC is oversubscribed how many RC kids will be admitted? Many. TC will always be majority RC. As it stands the first year are over 80% non COI.

The apology would just be because they are not in a position to honour the commitment they gave to those who supported them i.e. equal access regardless of religion. A lot of people feel they were misled and would have supported another bid had they known. I imagine RC will always be the biggest group in the school but that is not what this is about. Indeed I hope the children who go there will not be aware of "who is what". An explanation and an apology would go a long way towards solving these and it is the season of goodwill.
The key difference is that other faith based schools (not just RC!) never gave a commitment to their supporters that they would keep religion out of it. Its about honour and trust and it would be great if TC could regain the trust of anyone who feels that they were misled. I am sure it's what the school board would want too.

FirstIn

I don't believe that there was ever a commitment given of equal access regardless of religion in the event of over subscription.

To be honest most knew that this is part and parcel of how admission to faith based schools works and is of no surprise.

stilltryingit

FirstIn wrote: »

I don't believe that there was ever a commitment given of equal access regardless of religion in the event of over subscription.

To be honest most knew that this is part and parcel of how admission to faith based schools works and is of no surprise.

That commitment was given at the open meetings but I think COI felt that they were giving it safe in the thought that they would not need it. I think they are taking in 132 this year, quite a few more than originally planned and I think that is so that they can take all from category 1 as well as the 12 COI children from outside Delgany/Greystones. However there is a population bulge headed to 2nd level and that means that they will now have to use religion to decide if they want to guarantee all COI applicants a place.
What is happening re Presbyterians and other minority religions? Do we know?
Would be great if the air was cleared on this before Christmas.

Annasopra

stilltryingit wrote: »

The apology would just be because they are not in a position to honour the commitment they gave to those who supported them i.e. equal access regardless of religion. A lot of people feel they were misled and would have supported another bid had they known. I imagine RC will always be the biggest group in the school but that is not what this is about. Indeed I hope the children who go there will not be aware of "who is what". An explanation and an apology would go a long way towards solving these and it is the season of goodwill.
The key difference is that other faith based schools (not just RC!) never gave a commitment to their supporters that they would keep religion out of it. Its about honour and trust and it would be great if TC could regain the trust of anyone who feels that they were misled. I am sure it's what the school board would want too.

Honestly I don't understand this. If people felt that they wanted religion kept out of it, why wouldn't tgey have backed the VEC or Educate Together? I mean there are some people complaining but surely who backed COI knew what they were getting.

There may be a few who are angry and upset but is there really "a lot"? And if they felt so strongly about this why would they have backed COI over vec or educate together?

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

Private and State owned facilities both have to comply equally with any legislation out there. But the State has extra responsibilities.
Take your example of Ryanair; they have always refused to recognise trade unions. That option is not open to Aer Lingus, even though they are only partially (majority share I think) State owned.
And the "right" to union representation is a very weak right compared to the right not to be subjected to discrimination on religious grounds. The State grants union representation to employees in other State and Semi-State owned enterprises, so it cannot treat Aer Lingus employees any differently.

Where in the law is it stated that the state has extra responsibilities?

Sorry but I still think your argument has no basis in legislation at all.

There may be a constitutional issue but as I have already explained the constitutional protections for equality have been weakly defined.

zanador

mango salsa wrote: »

Honestly I don't understand this. If people felt that they wanted religion kept out of it, why wouldn't tgey have backed the VEC or Educate Together? I mean there are some people complaining but surely who backed COI knew what they were getting.

There may be a few who are angry and upset but is there really "a lot"? And if they felt so strongly about this why would they have backed COI over vec or educate together?

I am surprised that people are surprised too! Surely this was always going to happen? I was surprised people believed them during the campaign, this is what religious ethos schools do.

People are angry because they DID believe them and now feel lied to. And there are 'a lot' as the amount of catholic and children of no faith is large.

During the campaign the CoI said that Et would favour ET children (not true) and that they would be the only ones who were fair. People signed up on that basis and now feel tricked. Also, they have experience running secondary schools whereas ET are the new kids on the block in that area. VEC were never really in the race here.

Estman

I saw this article in the Irish Times during the week:
Denominational schools should no longer have the right to discriminate in favour of enrolling children on the basis of their religion, the Ombudsman for Children has said.

You can read the full article here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/call-for-end-to-religious-discrimination-by-schools-1.1624947

d2ww

There is a danger that people will fall into the typical Irish response to seeing a queue/waiting list, namely expending all their energy trying to sneak their way to the front, rather than asking why is there a queue in the first place!
The solution remains, build more classrooms to meet demand.

recedite

mango salsa wrote: »

Where in the law is it stated that the state has extra responsibilities?

In The Constitution of the state, under FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS/Personal Rights;

Article 4 BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
2. 1° Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State.
2° No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government.
3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

France and the USA are comparable Republics with similar constitutions, and it would be absolutely unthinkable in those countries for religious discrimination to be allowed in a publicly owned school. Even in the UK, where there is no official separation between church and state it would be unthinkable.

zanador wrote: »

I am surprised that people are surprised too! Surely this was always going to happen?

No, because this is a new situation. Its the first time the State has built a new school and handed it to a religious group for management, with said religious group retrospectively trying to introduce the discrimination.
The school got its funding because of the expanding local population, not because the State wanted to further the aims of the COI.
People were entitled to believe that because the school is wholly owned by the State, that it would operate differently to existing faith schools which are privately owned by the various religious organisations and trusts.

Up until recently the only schools in public ownership were the VEC schools, and they were strictly egalitarian.

What happens next will set a precedent. If people want to accept the situation, then that is the way State education will go into the future, and discrimination will be built into the new State-owned school system.
If they refuse to tolerate the discrimination, the policy will be overturned and will never be attempted by the patron of a publicly owned school again.

I'm not directly affected because I don't have kids in primary school. But if someone who is affected starts a campaign to defend the worthy egalitarian principles enshrined in the Constitution of this Republic, I'm happy to contribute €100 towards any legal costs.

William of Ockham

This was the basis on which we supported COI patronage for Templecarrig.
It would appear the promises of inclusivity will not be kept, and this is very disappointing. (bold emphasis mine)

Taken from 2011
http://www.churchnewsireland.org/news/irish-uk-news/parents-sign-up-now-for-new-c-of-i-school-in-greystones/

'Revd Stanley says the school would not just cater for students with Protestant links. “People of all denominations and none are invited to state a parental preference for their child to have a place in a Church of Ireland run school. We have always run an open and inclusive school system and this school will be no different. The fact that this school will have an annual intake of 120 pupils each year will facilitate inclusion. '

Taken from Archbishop Jackson, 2012:
http://ireland.anglican.org/news/4272

The other great joy is, of course, the grant by the Minister for Education of a new Secondary School in Greystones, to be called Temple Carrig School. This is once again a tremendous tribute to the people of the area of Bray and Greystones and to the clergy who have proved themselves to be true community leaders. The school is to be under the patronage of the archbishop of Dublin and will in fact draw its membership from pupils who come from at least four school sectors: a Gaelscoil, an Educate Together School, Roman Catholic National Schools and Church of Ireland National Schools. This is an exciting development because it draws pupils from a very diverse range of schools into a completely new type of school. My thanks and congratulations go to the people of the community in Bray and Greystones who have done such a successful job in making this successful bid.

The new admissions policy now states:
"In the event of an oversubscription of applicants within Category 1, priority will be afforded to applicants with an active parish affiliation (as defined below in Appendix 1) with the Church of Ireland parishes of Greystones and Delgany."

Its clear that the original assertions and promises of a non biased admission policy which were made when the patronage was being sought are not being semantically violated, but its equally clear that the spirit (excuse the pun) is definitely not being honored now.

FirstIn

And if some COI kids didn't get in, say if it was run as a lottery. Where could they go locally to be educated in their own ethos?

The RC kids have St David's. The COI kids have a long bus or rail journey.

Does the above mention what would happen in the event of over subscription. I bet you it does not.

recedite

What about all the Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and all the people who have no "active affiliation" to either the RC or COI churches?
This is a State school, don't forget.