Labour party could make harder to get into an ET school for some people

Tim Robbins

The Labour party wish to get rid of first come first served for school places.
See here: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/school-admissions-bill-battle-looms-over-rules-on-past-pupils-1.2166728


Why does this matter?

Because if you know you don't want to get your child baptised, you will run to the Educate Together school as soon as your child is born and put your child's name down. You are then given a number which operates on first come first served.

So you have an indication if you have a place or not 5 years in advance.

As a parent of non baptised parents, I can tell you there are plenty of people who do baptise their kids and then hum and haw over whether to go to an Educate Together school or a Catholic one and then might decide at the last minute the Educate Together school for their own reasons. If they don't get a place they don't care as much and just go to the Catholic one.

Now, because of the queuing system being removed people who are almost indifferent to getting a place for their kid and apply late will get the same priority as people who know 100% they don't want their kids near a catholic school and are prepared to commit 5 years in advance to that.

The losers here are non-religious. You currently have 92% of schools rejecting you and a good chance in the other 8% if you get in early. Now you will still have 92% of schools rejecting you and you won't know what your chances with the other 8%.

Ridiculous.

Qualitymark

What's an ET school?

shruikan2553

Thats makes no sense, at first we have

It is aimed at making school enrolment more structured, fair and transparent. All school admissions policies will be obliged to include a statement that they shall not discriminate on the basis of any of nine grounds: gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, disability, race, Traveller community grounds or special educational needs.

Which is good, then we have

Yes. The existing provisions in equality legislation are provided for. Religious schools can give preference to children of a particular faith in preference to others.

Which means they are discriminating based on religion despite saying

they shall not discriminate on the basis of any of nine grounds: gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, disability, race, Traveller community grounds or special educational needs.

It's one or the other.

Penn

Qualitymark wrote: »

What's an ET school?

If you misbehave, the principal phones home.

Qualitymark

Ahhh, after ages racking my brains, I have it - Educate Together. Why must people use these acronyms and assume everyone else will understand?

robindch

Qualitymark wrote: »

[...] Why must people use these acronyms and assume everyone else will understand?

ET is a fairly standard abbreviation around these here parts

Hotblack Desiato

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ahhh, after ages racking my brains, I have it - Educate Together. Why must people use these acronyms and assume everyone else will understand?

If you ever go look on Mumsnet your head will explode.

shruikan2553

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you ever go look on Mumsnet your head will explode.

That would be the case with or without abbreviations

lazygal

shruikan2553 wrote: »

That would be the case with or without abbreviations

I was just saying to dh that where dd and ds will go to school is a worry.

Qualitymark

What the f?

Brian Shanahan

Bad Horse wrote: »

If you misbehave, the principal phones home.

Bah-dum-tish!

pauldla

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Bah-dum-tish!

You mean BDT, surely.

Dravokivich

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because if you know you don't want to get your child baptised, you will run to the Educate Together school as soon as your child is born and put your child's name down. You are then given a number which operates on first come first served.

So you have an indication if you have a place or not 5 years in advance.

Why!? Just why are you registering a child to a school before you've even got the hang of changing their nappies?

It is insane. Kids should only be registered during the year leading up to when they are going in. The more people who do this the more "normal" that ridiculous carry on becomes.

lazygal

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why!? Just why are you registering a child to a school before you've even got the hang of changing their nappies?

It is insane. Kids should only be registered during the year leading up to when they are going in. The more people who do this the more "normal" that ridiculous carry on becomes.

Because some schools are first come first served so if you leave it till.the year before you won't get a place.

Carawaystick

lazygal wrote: »

Because some schools are first come first served so if you leave it till.the year before you won't get a place.

Really?
Care to post a link to an admissions policy

lazygal

http://www.portobelloetns.org/enrolment.php


I know of parents who had their children's names down for.schools such as this as soon as they had a PPS number. All schools set their own enrolment policies.

Qualitymark

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.portobelloetns.org/enrolment.php


I know of parents who had their children's names down for.schools such as this as soon as they had a PPS number. All schools set their own enrolment policies.

Perhaps it's time for the State, which funds the schools and examines their results, to set the enrolment policies?

I met a friend recently whose utterly non-religiously-affiliated son had got his baby baptised into his grandfather's religion, because a child baptised into *any* faith has a chance of getting into a school, whereas (she told me) a completely non-aligned child has no chance. This is bats.

lazygal

Qualitymark wrote: »

Perhaps it's time for the State, which funds the schools and examines their results, to set the enrolment policies?

I met a friend recently whose utterly non-religiously-affiliated son had got his baby baptised into his grandfather's religion, because a child baptised into *any* faith has a chance of getting into a school, whereas (she told me) a completely non-aligned child has no chance. This is bats.

The school patronage system won't change any time soon. Personally we'd rather home school than baptise. The school system here is one reason we'd consider moving abroad.

expectationlost

I can see why this is being criticised, but, the point is that it will help more mobile people, be they immigrants or people who need to move for work, or move to get a house they can afford, people who can decide 5 years in advance where they're child is going to go to school are in a very privileged place, schools filling up ~5 yrs in advance is a very restrictive policy that boxes out so many people.

magicbastarder

yep, there are probably plenty of people in a position where they'd like to move, but can't because their kid will be dumped back to the bottom of a list. yes, the move would have negative impacts in some areas, but it's a generally positive move, and the benefit will be hopefully cemented when the baptismal preference gets busted.

Hotblack Desiato

There's nothing positive in this for non-religious parents when the vast majority of non-ET schools are still allowed to discriminate against their kids - and there is zero political appetite to change that.
Hopping onto an ET waiting list soon after birth is these parents' only hope in many cases.

(No hope for us - No ET!)

Dravokivich

lazygal wrote: »

Because some schools are first come first served so if you leave it till.the year before you won't get a place.

And I'm saying that's wrong.

In a more mobile society, where a lot of homes are rented, it's kinda of hard to know you'll still be in the area 5 years later. Then you're bumped back in a list because there's a whole lot of other kids registered that they need to confirm are still in the area as the place is being held for them.

My girlfriend registered our kid to a local school when he was 2 months old and he's in a waiting list! I don't like the idea that leads to it at all. It's a mad frenzy.

Hotblack Desiato

It's distasteful yes, but ETs can't discriminate on the basis of religion or non-religion, so how are parents who really want an ET education going to get priority over those who aren't really bothered?

The problem is that religious patronage schools are still allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, and that there are far too few alternatives to religious patronage schools. That's why there are waiting lists.

There aren't really a lot of great options with admission policies. We could go down the catchment area route as in the UK, but that perpetuates and accentuates perceived social disadvantage and parents game the system to get into 'better' schools. The only real way out of this mess is to ensure that all schools are equally welcoming to children of all religions or none (preferably, non-denominational, but strong opt-out rights at a minimum), mixed gender, have equally high standards, cater equally well for children of special needs and from non-English speaking homes, and aren't dependent on parents for additional income or fund-raising. It's a pipe dream though.

Qualitymark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We could go down the catchment area route as in the UK, but that perpetuates and accentuates perceived social disadvantage and parents game the system to get into 'better' schools.

Other countries have the catchment area approach, and make it work. One solution is to give extra funding for teachers and support and homework clubs to schools where the kids start with an educational disadvantage.
(A friend of mine teaches chess in US schools - the kids' general educational results improve when they learn and play chess, as they do when kids learn and play violin. She charges rich schools a high fee and poor schools a low fee; the Robin Hood method, you might say, except she's not robbin', she's givin'.)

silverharp

What % of Catholic schools do not ask for baptismal certs? Just asking as our local girls national school doesn't ?

seamus

Actually I'm in favour of abolishing waiting lists for exactly the reasons outlined in the OP - people who happen to be able to put their child down for the school they want, five years in advance, can do so.

Those who move into the area or otherwise don't have the foresight to rush down to the local school five minutes after the child is born, lose out. It's auctioning off school places to those in the best circumstances and it's ridiculous. Even more ridiculous when you consider that some secondary schools operate waiting lists, 12 years before a child will start with them.

Of course, the religious exemption is still a complete joke. I could live next door to the school and my child will get bumped down the list below a child who lives 2km away because some weird celibate man once poured water on that child's head and made some voodoo incantations.

Places should be offered on the basis of proximity and little else. Every year you redraw every schools' catchment area based on the volumes and locations of people who have applied for access to public schooling and children are assigned a place to the school closest to them which has sufficient capacity. None of this parish or townland bull****. If you live on the edge of D6W but you're 300m from a D24 school, then you're probably going there.
At best dispensation should be made for children whose siblings are currently attending a school, because parents having to split the school run across two schools is crazy.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Places should be offered on the basis of proximity and little else. Every year you redraw every schools' catchment area based on the volumes and locations of people who have applied for access to public schooling and children are assigned a place to the school closest to them which has sufficient capacity.

What happens in the UK is that the granny's address gets put onto the application if it's closer to a 'better' school.

Fake baptisms going on to get into 'faith schools' too

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What happens in the UK is that the granny's address gets put onto the application if it's closer to a 'better' school.

Fake baptisms going on to get into 'faith schools' too

Yep. Happens here too. Because we've done it.

Difference in the UK is that it's a criminal offence if you get found out. And people often do.

You could always operate a CAO-style system where parents put down their schools in order of preference and they're awarded based on proximity.

Start collecting PPSNs and cross-referencing with revenue and DSP and you'll find that the trick of using granny's address becomes very hard to get away with.

lazygal

I know people who've put the grannies address down to get into our local schools because it's those living in the parish who get priority, not those who are baptised.
This isn't just about admission policies either. I'm dubious about certain aspects of the learn together programme and educate together schools. I'd rather know my children won't be indoctrinated in a state funded school, than have even more pointless fragmentation and duplication of schools on religious and gender grounds.

silverharp

lazygal wrote: »

I know people who've put the grannies address down to get into our local schools because it's those living in the parish who get priority, not those who are baptised.
This isn't just about admission policies either. I'm dubious about certain aspects of the learn together programme and educate together schools. I'd rather know my children won't be indoctrinated in a state funded school, than have even more pointless fragmentation and duplication of schools on religious and gender grounds.

I started by just saying to my kids there is no god and they accept that. Recently I started showing my eldest all the atheists YouTube channels and general science programmes and he finds them interesting , debunking Noah and the rest, it makes him think about science history ethics etc.
If they are stuck in a class where god does and says stuff then it will teach them to be critical and not just believe things because the teacher says it.

Qualitymark

I know people in London who moved house because they wanted their children to attend an excellent school. Not rich people.

lazygal

There's people here who do that too. I didn't have children and hadn't even met my husband when I bought, but the local schools were on my radar anyway. There's an area near us that we've ruled out moving to because of the schools, both primary and secondary.

Bristolscale7

I've often argued that Educate Together should adopt policies to discriminate in favor of people who support its ethos just as the religious schools do. It's worth a motion at the next ET AGM.

Bristolscale7

Carawaystick wrote: »

Really?
Care to post a link to an admissions policy

Any Educate Together school. Google it for yourself and be informed.

robindch

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I've often argued that Educate Together should adopt policies to discriminate in favor of people who support its ethos just as the religious schools do.

As somebody once said, the best response to the unhelpful is to avoid reducing oneself to their level.

As their name suggests, Educate Together are there not to divide people according to what ideas its members claim to believe, but to bring people together.

The enormous popularity of ET schools suggests this non-judgmental inclusivity bears fruit.

Bristolscale7

robindch wrote: »

As somebody once said, the best response to the unhelpful is to avoid reducing oneself to their level.

As their name suggests, Educate Together are there not to divide people according to what ideas its members claim to believe, but to bring people together.

The enormous popularity of ET schools suggests this non-judgmental inclusivity bears fruit.

Nah, it's a bull**** policy.

I was at a PA meeting for an ET school last winter and had to listen to three people bitch for half an hour about how they wanted the "Winter Concert" to be renamed the "Christmas Concert." These three parents all live across from the school and chose the ET for no other reason than convenience--they freely admit it. They contribute nothing to the school other than the capitation grant from their kids--they don't fund raise they don't volunteer for library--yes they're useless. Meanwhile a family that lives thirty minutes away could not get their child into the ET school because they were new--as in two years--to the area. This is a family that would have been committed and engaged for the duration of their association with the school. Nope, they were sent packing.

Qualitymark

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Nah, it's a bull**** policy.

I was at a PA meeting for an ET school last winter and had to listen to three people bitch for half an hour about how they wanted the "Winter Concert" to be renamed the "Christmas Concert." These three parents all live across from the school and chose the ET for no other reason than convenience--they freely admit it. They contribute nothing to the school other than the capitation grant from their kids--they don't fund raise they don't volunteer for library--yes they're useless. Meanwhile a family that lives thirty minutes away could not get their child into the ET school because they were new--as in two years--to the area. This is a family that would have been committed and engaged for the duration of their association with the school. Nope, they were sent packing.

I was in a shop once and the assistant was really stupid. I don't go into shops any more, wouldn't waste my time. All shops are full of eejits.

robindch

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I was at a PA meeting for an ET school last winter and had to listen to three people bitch for half an hour about how they wanted the "Winter Concert" to be renamed the "Christmas Concert."

I can't immediately see why three bad-tempered people who appear clueless about ET allowed you to conclude that the entire ET movement is a waste of time.

eviltwin

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Nah, it's a bull**** policy.

I was at a PA meeting for an ET school last winter and had to listen to three people bitch for half an hour about how they wanted the "Winter Concert" to be renamed the "Christmas Concert." These three parents all live across from the school and chose the ET for no other reason than convenience--they freely admit it. They contribute nothing to the school other than the capitation grant from their kids--they don't fund raise they don't volunteer for library--yes they're useless. Meanwhile a family that lives thirty minutes away could not get their child into the ET school because they were new--as in two years--to the area. This is a family that would have been committed and engaged for the duration of their association with the school. Nope, they were sent packing.

I can kinda see where you are coming from. My son's ET has a fair amount of Catholics despite there being plenty of Catholic schools in the area. The school is massively over subscribed so it means some non Catholics have missed out. But the ethos of ET is that everyone is equal so it wouldn't make sense to deny places to Catholic children.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

As somebody once said, the best response to the unhelpful is to avoid reducing oneself to their level.

As their name suggests, Educate Together are there not to divide people according to what ideas its members claim to believe, but to bring people together.

The enormous popularity of ET schools suggests this non-judgmental inclusivity bears fruit.

The enormous popularity is helped by the up to 50% of children in ETs who take catholic sacraments.

What the hell are they doing there? 90% of primary schools cater explicitly for them, but there they are wasting places in ETs that other people value highly but can't get their kids into.

Qualitymark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The enormous popularity is helped by the up to 50% of children in ETs who take catholic sacraments.

What the hell are they doing there? 90% of primary schools cater explicitly for them, but there they are wasting places in ETs that other people value highly but can't get their kids into.

Surely "Educate Together" suggests inclusivity?

Getting back to the question of whether school choice should be locality-based, one big advantage is that your kids' friends will be local, in this case. If you bring your children 10km across the city to school, and later if your children take buses or cycle that 10km, there's a good chance that their friends will be from all the way over there. This means that as they get older, they're likely to be spending a lot of time far away from home. Much nicer to have their friends within walking distance.

lazygal

I don't think educate together should facilitate indoctrination after school hours. It's one of the main issues I have with our local one. Those doing sacramental preparation are lined up during home time so it's immediately obvious who's "doing communion" and as its the majority of children it leads to others feeling left out. That and the learn together programme makes me feel.educate together is being religious to suit.department of education rules and wishes and will mean my children will never have a real secular option for education.

Qualitymark

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think educate together should facilitate indoctrination after school hours. It's one of the main issues I have with our local one. Those doing sacramental preparation are lined up during home time so it's immediately obvious who's "doing communion" and as its the majority of children it leads to others feeling left out. That and the learn together programme makes me feel.educate together is being religious to suit.department of education rules and wishes and will mean my children will never have a real secular option for education.

Yes, I don't see 'sacramental preparation' as the business of schools at all. Surely that should be done in Sunday School?

lazygal

Qualitymark wrote: »

Yes, I don't see 'sacramental preparation' as the business of schools at all. Surely that should be done in Sunday School?

Yeah it's not like every town has a building for the purposes of indoctrination in existence already or anything.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think educate together should facilitate indoctrination after school hours. It's one of the main issues I have with our local one. Those doing sacramental preparation are lined up during home time so it's immediately obvious who's "doing communion" and as its the majority of children it leads to others feeling left out. That and the learn together programme makes me feel.educate together is being religious to suit.department of education rules and wishes and will mean my children will never have a real secular option for education.

I don't have an issue with that. Our school does this kind of thing for everything from English lessons to sport and music. The school aren't involved, they just provide a room for an outside agency to use. In most ET schools diversity is the norm anyway so the kids are well used to classmates doing cultural or religious things they don't. Even in a school system with no religion our kids will be exposed to different people, it's a good thing.

SpaceTime

Qualitymark wrote: »

Yes, I don't see 'sacramental preparation' as the business of schools at all. Surely that should be done in Sunday School?

Welcome to Ireland! Remember; the local time in the school system is approximately 1856 AD.

Please remember to adjust your calendars and expectations accordingly!

Hotblack Desiato

Qualitymark wrote: »

Surely "Educate Together" suggests inclusivity?

Oh yes, it was a rant really, but there is nothing like enough (in number and geographic distribution) of non-RC schools, and nothing like enough places within those schools, so lots of non-catholic and non-religious parents have no choice at all but to send their kids to an RC school.

Meanwhile the RC parents have it both ways, priority in 90% of schools while still being able to get their kids into ETs as easily as anyone else.

Getting back to the question of whether school choice should be locality-based, one big advantage is that your kids' friends will be local, in this case. If you bring your children 10km across the city to school, and later if your children take buses or cycle that 10km, there's a good chance that their friends will be from all the way over there. This means that as they get older, they're likely to be spending a lot of time far away from home. Much nicer to have their friends within walking distance.

Absolutely and that's one of the major advantage of having truly inclusive schools.

We'd rather send our kids to a non-denominational school but they don't exist, next up an ET but there are none within a few km, and those are full anyway. The nearest school to us is a small CoI school and it's very good, and it's mixed gender too which we prefer. There are a lot of kids of all sorts of religions there and they don't seem to push religion too much at this age, they do take it seriously in 5th and 6th class (Bible studies) but this is strictly optional and at the end of the school day.

We were lucky to get our daughter in there as they only take in half a class of junior infants a year, and non-religious kids with no sibling already there are right at the bottom of the admissions policy list. Luckily for us the school wasn't full then but it is now, and our son will only start in Sept because of the sibling rule.

Second level is a disaster in this area though, no options at all except single-sex RC schools and they put quite an emphasis on religion from what we hear. No other English-medium options at all.

Bristolscale7

ET's first come, first served policy discriminates against travellers, newly arrived immigrants, and foster children.

robindch

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

ET's first come, first served policy discriminates against travellers, newly arrived immigrants, and foster children.

Can you outline an admissions policy which "discriminates" against fewer people?

Bristolscale7

robindch wrote: »

Can you outline an admissions policy which "discriminates" against fewer people?

Straight geographically based lottery.

Zamboni

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Straight geographically based lottery.

There is no correct answer to this problem.
Your solution could results in parents with children in 3, 4 or 5 schools whilst trying to get to work so now you've managed too discriminate against working parents.