Views on new Templecarrig admission policy

recedite

If anyone has ambitions to get their child into the school for 2016 here's how to get priority, from the school website;

Grounds for priority admission The grounds on which priority admission can be claimed are as follows;
Applicants with an active parish affiliation are children who are certified to the School in a prescribed form
(available from the School Office) by the Rector for the time being of their parish as meeting each of the following four criteria;

Their immediate families are currently enrolled on the parish register

With their families they attend church services (in particular Family Services) at their parish church frequently , and

They and their immediate families are actively involved in the faith life of the church locally, and
They and their parents/guardians have declared and committed that they will be a candidate for confirmation with other children from the Parish and will complete all necessary preparations required for confirmation.

It is extraordinary that a school belonging to the State, and which is entirely publicly funded, is allowed to be used as a recruiting agent for a (minority) religious group.
But there you go. If you want a place in two years time, you'd better start playing the game now.

Meanwhile, Ruairí Quinn again issues some impotent
platitudes.

stilltryingit

I wonder if there will be an increase in attendance at services etc given the large carrot on offer? a guaranteed place in the school

Stallingrad

stilltryingit wrote: »

I wonder if there will be an increase in attendance at services etc given the large carrot on offer? a guaranteed place in the school

Hypocrisy has always been welcomed at the Church so I expect so.

recedite

It seems the State can no longer throw up it's hands and say "sorry, the Patron is responsible for policy, it has nothing to do with us."

Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore said he believes the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Louise O'Keefe case changes the view, held in Ireland up to then, that the school patron was responsible for running certain schools and not the State.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0202/501762-echr-okeeffe-ruling/

Zoo4m8

Stallingrad wrote: »

Hypocrisy has always been welcomed at the Church so I expect so.

Why would you consider hypocrisy has ' always been welcomed' at CoI ?

Annasopra

recedite wrote: »

It seems the State can no longer throw up it's hands and say "sorry, the Patron is responsible for policy, it has nothing to do with us."http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0202/501762-echr-okeeffe-ruling/

I don't see how that changes the equality laws.

recedite

The equality legislation in Ireland is flawed, because it has this built-in exemption for faith schools. IMO this "exemption from equality" clause will not last for much longer.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has demolished the imaginary firewall between the State and the Patron. The State had previously abdicated any responsibility for any school policy which violated basic human rights.

In the O'Keefe ruling, it was a child protection issue. But the right not to be subjected to unfair discrimination on grounds of race or religion is also recognised as a basic human right by ECHR.

If any prospective pupil is refused a place in TC, or any unemployed teacher is refused a job, purely because a practicing COI person has been given priority over them, then that is in effect State sponsored religious discrimination.

Compare to the recent changes in abortion legislation. The State was aware since the x-case in 1992 that the 1861 abortion act (which said that abortion was always illegal) was repugnant to the Constitution and needed updating. Successive governments ignored their obligation, but then in 2005 the State was taken to ECHR by three women, and the court held that the State would have to remove this inconsistency and clarify the circumstances when an abortion is legal. The govt. set up an expert group to review the situation, which reported back in 2010 that there was no alternative but to repeal the laws. In 2013 the legislation was repealed.
During all this time, the 1861 Act had remained on the statute book as some sort of flawed and obsolete quasi-legal statute.

Now look at what the experts are saying about religious discrimination in schools;

patrickpc wrote: »

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.”

potpourri wrote: »

Ruairi Quinn (Minister, Department of Education and Skills; Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context''It is the responsibility of the managerial authorities of schools to implement an enrolment policy in accordance with the Education Act, 1998. In this regard a board of management may find it necessary to restrict enrolment to children from a particular area or a particular age group or, occasionally, on the basis of some other criterion. This selection process and the enrolment policy on which it is based must be non-discriminatory and must be applied fairly in respect of all applicants. New schools are expected to formulate enrolment policies consistent with the criteria that applied with the award of patronage.
Where a school is awarded patronage it is expected to prioritise children from the area where the school is located on this basis. I would not expect to see any prioritisation for a particular faith group in the enrolment policy of such a school.''

Time is running out fast for the quasi-legal religious discrimination still practiced in some faith schools, even those that are actually owned by the religious group in question. The teachers are State employees and the schools are mostly funded by the State.
That's what makes it all the more incredible for the BOM/Patron of TC to brazenly introduce religious discrimination into a school that was built and paid for entirely with public money.

FirstIn

I think you're right re the time running out.

However I am at a loss to understand you're continued infatuation with the entirely funded element considering funding for the massive majority of faith based schools (majority RC) is so close to entirely.

If the land was provided by the COI church would you have a different stance?

The Bishop Basher

I see TC have posted on their website that they'll publish the numbers following the current enrollment process and that the numbers will show that the policy is inclusive.

I've had my doubts about some aspects of the policy and still do, but to be fair, it's difficult to argue with this.

The numbers won't lie.

liamf

A new letter from the school on this:

http://www.templecarrigschool.ie/UPDATE%20to%20Response%20to%20Concerns%20Raised%20around%20the%20Admissions%20Policy%202015.pdf

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

the numbers will show that the policy is inclusive...The numbers won't lie.

It would be more interesting to see the numbers being turned away; where they live, what primary schools they went to, and what religion (if any) they declared on their application forms.

As COI is a minority religion, and the school was built to take around 1000 pupils, there is no doubt that they will be able to say that the 2014 and 2015 intake of pupils represents a broad spectrum of society, local and not so local, and not exclusively COI members.
So it depends what your definition of "inclusive" is. We already know the admissions policy is discriminatory in terms of religious persuasion.

The Bishop Basher

Are you suggesting that to be inclusive they need to be turning away COI pupils ?

Egalitarian1

That question clearly demonstrates the insecurity that is at the heart of this problem.

It is a question that should have been considered before making a bid for patronage.

Why is it so inconceivable that all the children are treated equally ?

Any Body that is incapable of that, should not have put itself forward for patronage of this school.

The Bishop Basher

Egalitarian1 wrote: »

That question clearly demonstrates the insecurity that is at the heart of this problem.

Not at all. It's simply a question put to recedite to clarify that I have correctly understood the point of his post.

recedite

There are different degrees of "inclusivity" but to be fully inclusive, every child would have to be given an equal chance.
I think what most parents want is for their child to attend "a good school" where they will receive a good education and be happy. The particular religious ethos of the patron is of secondary importance.

Bearing in mind that this school is being built with state of the art facilities in a fantastic location (computer labs, science labs, playing fields, woodland nature trails etc.. ) and all of this within walking or cycling distance just at the edge of the town, it is obviously going to be very popular.
It will be superior to many of the fee-paying schools along the Dart line (and further afield) that many locals are currently attending.

But the COI is not providing these magnificent facilities, the taxpayer is. The COI itself is not paying a cent towards the school. It will actually benefit to the tune of the School Chaplain's not inconsiderable salary, which will be paid by Dept. of Education. Normally clergy are paid from church funds, so it's a net saving for them.
The COI won the patronage in a fair vote, mainly because the larger secular vote was split between the ET and the VEC. If either of these two had got the patronage, the facilities would be the same, but every child would be equal.

The Bishop Basher

So is that a yes ?

recedite

They do not need to turn away COI applicants to be fully inclusive, but it should not be inconceivable that they would.

I presume you are familiar with the history of Rosa Parks on the bus in Alabama in the 1950's?
The numbers showed that the bus was "an inclusive bus service". There were blacks on board as well as whites. Quite often there were actually more blacks than whites (because whites were more likely to own cars). As you said yourself, the numbers don't lie. The only minor quibble that the blacks had of course, was that if there was a shortage of seats, the whites got priority. Sound familiar?

FirstIn

recedite wrote: »

They do not need to turn away COI applicants to be fully inclusive, but it should not be inconceivable that they would.

I presume you are familiar with the history of Rosa Parks on the bus in Alabama in the 1950's?
The numbers showed that the bus was "an inclusive bus service". There were blacks on board as well as whites. Quite often there were actually more blacks than whites (because whites were more likely to own cars). As you said yourself, the numbers don't lie. The only minor quibble that the blacks had of course, was that if there was a shortage of seats, the whites got priority. Sound familiar?

It's the way must faith based schools operate. I'd actually go so far as to say nearly all over subscribed faith based schools will prioritise their own faith.

Also, you never answered my question
If the land was provided by the COI church would you have a different stance?

Your second to last post again outlines the monetary element. "The COI itself is not paying a cent towards the school"

Surely this is irrelevant to your argument. Or do you see it as ok for RC faith based schools to discriminate because they are not quite 100% tax payer funded.

Serrano13

Recedite, I agree that parents want a good school for their children. However, although Temple Carrig will undoubtedly have good facilities, it remains to be seen whether or not it is a good school. I wonder how many of those with places accepted in Temple Carrig took the entrance exam for St. David's last week. And how many will actually show up for first year in prefabs in September.

recedite

FirstIn wrote: »

Also, you never answered my question
If the land had been provided by the COI church would you have a different stance?

It would be a lesser injustice, put it that way. But if the COI had provided the land, built the school and intended to pay all the salaries, I would have no problem at all with their admission policy.

On the subject of Rosa Parks, two questions for those who support the TC school policy;

1. If the white Governor of Alabama had produced figures to show that there were actually more non-whites than whites using his buses, would that prove that he was running a fully "inclusive" bus service?

2. If one white person standing at a bus stop was refused entry (perhaps all the seats on the bus happened to be already taken by whites) would that prove the service was fully inclusive?

recedite

Serrano13 wrote: »

how many will actually show up for first year in prefabs in September.

All those with younger siblings to think about, and all those who believe it will be finished before Sept. 2015.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

There are different degrees of "inclusivity" but to be fully inclusive, every child would have to be given an equal chance.

An equal chance at what though ? Is it not reasonable for COI parents to
have an equal chance at achieving a faith based education for their children in the ethos to which they belong ? Or should an equal right to a good school superscede this and if so, what about the kids that don't get in ?

recedite wrote: »

I think what most parents want is for their child to attend "a good school" where they will receive a good education and be happy. The particular religious ethos of the patron is of secondary importance.

With respect, that's a big assumption on your part. For minority religions who have never had easy access to faith based schools it can be an important factor.

recedite wrote: »

Bearing in mind that this school is being built with state of the art facilities in a fantastic location (computer labs, science labs, playing fields, woodland nature trails etc.. ) and all of this within walking or cycling distance just at the edge of the town, it is obviously going to be very popular.
It will be superior to many of the fee-paying schools along the Dart line (and further afield) that many locals are currently attending.

It could have all of the above and be a crap school. Personally, I think it's likely to be an excellent school. My eldest is in East Glendalough so i've seen the way Alan Cox runs a school. He's extremely well liked and respected by everyone including parents, staff and pupils alike. The atmosphere in EGS is nothing short of special. But while I attribute a lot of that to Alan, I also attribute a lot of it to the COI ethos under which the school is run.

I think COI patronage will help make this a phenomenal school and I'm delighted that kids from all faiths, and none, will get to experience it.

recedite wrote: »

But the COI is not providing these magnificent facilities, the taxpayer is.

Yes. And COI parents are also tax payers. In fact, if we want to get pendantic about it, many COI families have had to send their children to private school to recieve a faith based education, while continuing to pay the same tax as those who had free access to faith based education in their locality. In doing so these COI parents have become net contributers so should they not have more right to places in a state funded school that provides for their religios ethos then those of majority faiths ? And what about people on benefit. They don't don't contribute to the tax pot at all so should their children be excluded ?

Come on. It doesn't work that way and we both know it. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument regarding the tax funding. It's a total red herring.

recedite wrote: »

The COI won the patronage in a fair vote, mainly because the larger secular vote was split between the ET and the VEC. If either of these two had got the patronage, the facilities would be the same, but every child would be equal.

You've said it yourself. It was won in a fair vote. The COI patronage was even supported by the local RC schools in recognition that there was no requirement for another RC school in the area. VEC and ET challenged eachother and both lost out. That's life.

I have no doubt that Temple Carraig will prove itself to be inclusive. I think they have made some mistakes with regard to the policy this year and I honestly believe we'll see that acknowledged and corrected in 2015.

I do believe that COI kids should be accomodated but I don't see how the numbers will adversely affect intake. The spread of faiths in St. Patricks would attest to this and St. Patrick's rightly has a bias towards children of COI background. Even with that and as over subscribed as they are, there is an excellent mix of all faiths and none.

I get the equality your seeking and it's a noble position but it's just not based in reality given our current system. Maybe someday all eduction in Ireland will be secular and this issue will no longer arise but it's not the case for now and to be fair it works pretty well with the majorty faith well accomodated for, minority faiths somewhat accomodated for and those of no faith seeing an improving situation year on year.

Egalitarian1

This article makes interesting reading.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/state-protection-of-protestant-fee-paying-schools-needs-to-be-challenged-1.1525591

FirstIn

Apples and oranges. This is NOT a fee paying school.

The Bishop Basher

Egalitarian1 wrote: »

This article makes interesting reading.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/state-protection-of-protestant-fee-paying-schools-needs-to-be-challenged-1.1525591

It doesn't really. It's an ill informed opinion piece that got slated in the media at the time. I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion anyway.

Egalitarian1

I agree that this is an opinionated article and do not align myself with the views of the author.

What I do find interesting though is that COI children would appear to have more state funded (or subsidised ?) options available to them, than do the other children hoping to secure a place in TC.

This is completely new to me, and I would welcome any clarification.

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

Is it not reasonable for COI parents to have an equal chance at achieving a faith based education for their children in the ethos to which they belong ? Or should an equal right to a good school superscede this.

Why not have both?
There is always East Glendalough down the road, for any that didn't get in (probably only those living outside Greystones) Most would get into TC anyway, even if they weren't given this absolute priority.
As you point out, EG is a good school and most of them go there now. What are they going to do with all the empty places there anyway when TC opens? If you take away all the kids from the feeder schools in Greystones and Delgany plus a good chunk from Newcastle, Enniskerry etc. that are also being given priority in the new 2015 admission policy, won't that leave a big hole in the EG clientele?

Swanner wrote: »

And what about people on benefit. They don't don't contribute to the tax pot at all so should their children be excluded ?
Come on. It doesn't work that way and we both know it. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument regarding the tax funding. It's a total red herring.

Of course people on benefit should have access. All citizens should have equal access to any publicly funded State facility.

Swanner wrote: »

You've said it yourself. It was won in a fair vote. The COI patronage was even supported by the local RC schools in recognition that there was no requirement for another RC school in the area. VEC and ET challenged eachother and both lost out. That's life.

Yes, divide and conquer, a classic strategy. And an alliance with the other faith school, who already had the only other secondary school in the town and were therefore ineligible to bid. Plus the non-disclosure at the time to the general public of the more unsavoury aspects of the planned admission policy. I'll grant you it was a very effective tactical campaign by the COI.

FirstIn

Recedite, re the funding and the "lesser injustice" you say in an earlier post.

Taking the Rosa Parks parallels you're trying to make.

Would you then suggest that if Rosa Parks was paying a lower fare on the bus that it would be a lesser injustice to ask her to give up her seat? Remember of course that the reason had nothing to do with fare charges.

Your noble position is weakened considerably, in my opinion of course, by your concentration on the entirely paid for aspect versus the fact that all public faith based schools are very close to entirely funded by the state.

antoniolgj

Swanner wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

But the COI is not providing these magnificent facilities, the taxpayer is.

Yes. And COI parents are also tax payers.

Yes we are, and some of us pay quite a lot for this so called "free" education...

recedite wrote: »

Yes, divide and conquer, a classic strategy.

Well VEC and ET divided themselves, TC has nothing to do with this...

recedite

FirstIn wrote: »

Would you then suggest that if Rosa Parks was paying a lower fare on the bus that it would be a lesser injustice to ask her to give up her seat?

No, because she was a citizen travelling on State public transport, so just as entitled as anyone else to a seat, whether paying half fare or full fare.
If she was refused a seat on a privately owned bus, say one owned by the KKK, that would be a lesser injustice. That is closer to the comparison you are trying to make.