Census 2016

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

when was the last time there was a poll commissioned to ask about attitudes towards catholic patronage towards schools, etc. etc.; the sort of detail they don't have room for in the census?

There was a fairly large consultation exercise on this commissioned by the Dept of Education a couple of years back, in connection with the (as-yet-unrealised) proposal to transfer schools from Catholic to other patronage in response to changing parent demands. It was much discussed on this board at the time. It wasn't a national survey; it focussed on a number of school districts (I think 38) where the Department felt there was unmet demand for non-Catholic patronage, and it involved surveying the parents of school-age and pre-school age children about their patronage preferences, with a view to identifying whether there was enough unmet demand for non-Catholic patronage to justify transferring (at least) one school in the district to non-Catholic patronage.

No surprise; actual provision of Catholic-patronage places exceeded the demand for Catholic patronage places. On the other hand, Catholic patronage was, by a long measure, by far the favoured patronage model of parents in, if I remember rightly, all but one of the 38 districts surveyed.

Shrap

Peregrinus wrote: »

No surprise; actual provision of Catholic-patronage places exceeded the demand for Catholic patronage places. On the other hand, Catholic patronage was, by a long measure, by far the favoured patronage model of parents in, if I remember rightly, all but one of the 38 districts surveyed.

There's only one chance of changing that preference, and that's by obliging all schools to drop extra-curricular faith formation practice during school hours. I believe the favouring of Catholic patronage is artificially generated by parents being able to rely on their school to drag their kids through communion and confirmation practices.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, State agencies generally don’t care about religious practice, as opposed to religious identification; if they don’t need the information why would they collect it?

What is the use of asking peoples religious identification if you admit that it has no bearing on with their religious practise? It would be like asking people how many kids they would like to have and using that to measure population.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That does imply, though, that you have no interest in knowing how many or what proportion of non-religious people hold atheist or agnostic views or, at any rate, you don't think the census should attempt to capture that information. Is that in fact the case?

If, as per your earlier argument, the government doesn't need to know the difference between fundie, honest-to-god-bothering, No-voter catholic and a-la-carte, "I'm 30 and having a church wedding because I'm afraid of my mammy" catholic, then why would it need to know the difference between atheists and agnostics or the like?

kylith

Shrap wrote: »

Simplest way to ask the question would be:

Are you a member of any religion?

Yes _
No _

If yes, state religion
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The problem I would have with that is that the same people who would tick 'Catholic' because they were baptised even though they never go to mass would tick 'Yes', just because they were baptised.

I really think that it should be 'Are you a practicing member of any religion'.

Hotblack Desiato

I have no religion, so I ticked 'no religion'. Atheism is not a religion.

Peregrinus

Shrap wrote: »

There's only one chance of changing that preference . . .

How is that the business of the state? I'm a republican; I think citizens should form their own values and preferences. It is generally no business of the government to try and change these.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is the use of asking peoples religious identification if you admit that it has no bearing on with their religious practise?

I didn't say it has no bearing on their religious practice. I said the state's reasons for collecting the data do not include wishing to know about people's religious practice.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If, as per your earlier argument, the government doesn't need to know the difference between fundie, honest-to-god-bothering, No-voter catholic and a-la-carte, "I'm 30 and having a church wedding because I'm afraid of my mammy" catholic, then why would it need to know the difference between atheists and agnostics or the like?

You're right, it doesn't. I'm curious to know this, but I have to concede that there is no reason why taxpayer funds should be spent collecting this information through the census. But to the extent that it does emerge from the census, that interests me.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn't say it has no bearing on their religious practice. I said the state's reasons for collecting the data do not include wishing to know about people's religious practice.

All they're getting at the moment is 'I am somewhere on the spectrum between being a devout follower of religion X, and having been inducted as an infant into X but have since rejected it but regard X as a cultural label and/or my mammy filled it in for me'

I'm wondering how much use, if any, the answer to such a vague question is in relation to the setting of any government policy.

Looking at non-church marriage statistics would be a much more useful (although still far from perfect) indicator of what the demand in the near future for non-religious education is going to be.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

All they're getting at the moment is 'I am somewhere on the spectrum between being a devout follower of religion X, and having been inducted as an infant into X but have since rejected it but regard X as a cultural label and/or my mammy filled it in for me'

I'm wondering how much use, if any, the answer to such a vague question is in relation to the setting of any government policy.

Well, the UK Office of National Statistics conducted a public consultation prior to the UK Census of 2011 on user need for information from the census. They consulted various stakeholders about all of the census questions - what topics should be covered, what questions should be asked, what form the questions should take, etc. Those consulted included central and devolved government; local and regional government; expert, community and special interest groups and local service providers. With regard to the question on religion (which is almost identical to the question in the Irish census) the consultation found:

- The majority of respondents across all groups require information from religion on the census.
- Local and regional government expressed the greatest need for information on religion (91% of respondents wanted it); central and devolved government the least (68%). Overall 81% of respondents said they needed the religion information.
- Reasons cited for wanting the religious question in the census included providing a clearer view of society; gaining a better understanding of
certain ethnic groups; improving understanding of local populations and markets; promoting legal obligations to prevent discrimination and promote equality.
- Only a minority of respondents (11%) felt the census should seek more religious information. Those who did want more information looked for information on religious activity, more detailed information on non-religious beliefs, or a breakdown of the single "Christian" category offered in the UK census form into different denominations. To the extent that there was a demand for more information, it was skewed towards the "expert, community and special interest groups" category of respondents, 35% of whom wanted more information. By contrast, only 18% of local and regional government respondents wanted more religion information, and 21% of central and devolved government respondents.
- A majority of the respondents (76%) said they wanted the religion information elicited in a way which made it usefully comparable with the religion information elicited in the previous census.

OK, it's the UK, not Ireland. But the nature and purpose of the census, and the form of the religion question, are very similar in both countries, and the cultural, social and legal context is at least comparable, so I think it does offer pointers as to why users of the Irish census might find the religion information relevant or useful.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Looking at non-church marriage statistics would be a much more useful (although still far from perfect) indicator of what the demand in the near future for non-religious education is going to be.

It's not an either/or situation. Obviously, having both datasets is more useful than having just one of them.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I said the state's reasons for collecting the data do not include wishing to know about people's religious practice.

Edit: Your previous post seems to answer this, I'll respond to that.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what reasons are those?

See my post #40 to Hotblack.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

- Reasons cited for wanting the religious question in the census included providing a clearer view of society; gaining a better understanding of
certain ethnic groups; improving understanding of local populations and markets; promoting legal obligations to prevent discrimination and promote equality.

Which are all based on the assumption that religious identification = religious practise. Different agencies also want to know population ages, growth and income. But a census asking if people think they are old (instead of age), or if they think they have enough kids (instead of how many kids they have), or if they feel poor (instead of their income) is not going to give an useful information. You can't plan schools based on how many kids people think is enough or how many nursing homes based on how old people feel.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which are all based on the assumption that religious identification = religious practise.

No, they're not. These users weren't making assumptions that identification = practice. The didn't need to, because they mostly weren't interested in practice. A substantial majority of them said they did not need census information to cover religious practice.

At this point I think we have to raise a question that we have ducked up to now; what exactly do we mean by "religious practice"? Is it:
- Goes to church (chapel/meeting-house/mosque/synagogue) every Sunday(Saturday/Friday)?
- Goes to church (etc) at unspecified intervals, or ever?
- (Endeavours to) love the Lord his God with all his heart and all his soul and all his mind and all his strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, but is not that fussed about church attendance?
- Isn't really sure what he believes and isn't that interested in beliefs as such but, in general, lives his live in accordance with the ethical principles of the religion he was raised in, which principles he regards as fundamentally sound?
- Would choose to send his children to Catholic (etc.) school?
- Something else?

Obviously the school choice question is the one that's of most interest to at least some users of the census. Equally obviously, not that many people answering a question about religious practice are going to understand it as a question about school choice.

So, if you do reframe the question as one of religious practice, will that enable you to predict demand for school places more reliably that a question about religious affiliation? Is there any evidence that school preference correlates more closely with religious practice than with religious affiliation?

No, is the answer, there isn't. As already pointed out, it will be hard to know what people mean when they answer a question about religious practice and, if we don't know that, it's going to be very hard even to theorise about what their answers might tell us about school preferences. Plus, we do already have some data on the correlation between affiliation and school choice. For instance, in the consultation on school patronage preference already mentioned in this thread, something like (I'm speaking from memory) 68% of those consulted preferred Catholic patronage. Obviously this is a lot closer to the 84% of Irish people who identify as Catholic in the census than to the 18% who, reportedly, are regular mass attenders. (We could refine this further by looking at the census figures for the areas surveyed, rather than nationally. And the mass attendance figures, if they're available in that breakdown.)

Note, I'm not suggesting that the 84% Catholic identification rate in the census translates into a demand for 84% of school places to be Catholic; just that, if you're trying to project demand for Catholic places, knowing the Catholic affiliation rate is probably a more useful datum than knowing how many people consider themselves to be "practising" Catholicism by some unspecified definition.

I'm not against collecting data on religious practice. And if you can find a meaningful correlation between religious practice (on some definition of that term) and school choice, by all means use that data to plan the provision of school places. I just don't think the case for gathering the data through the census is that strong. As yet, nobody is presenting evidence that it would be useful for census purposes. (In the UK, remember, most users did not want this data.) And census questions have to be pretty punchy; the more nuanced and detailed they get, the more people don't answer them, or give unreliable answers. I think if you're interested in religious practice, qualitative research is what you want, and that's not best gathered done the census.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

At this point I think we have to raise a question that we have ducked up to now; what exactly do we mean by "religious practice"?

Are you seriously trying to portray "practising catholic" as a more nebulous term than "self-identifying catholic"? Really?
With "practising catholic" we can, at the very least, say a person is highly likely to go to mass and pray.
With "self-identifying catholic", all we can say is they self-identify as catholic, nothing more. We can't even say if they believe in god.

Peregrinus wrote: »

68% of those consulted preferred Catholic patronage.

You mean the patronage the only patronage they know, the one they were themselves indoctrinated in? I'm sure they all gave informed responses to that survey :rolleyes:.

Hotblack Desiato

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You mean the patronage the only patronage they know, the one they were themselves indoctrinated in? I'm sure they all gave informed responses to that survey :rolleyes:.

It would also include parents who would be reluctant for their child to change school, or for their child's school to change how it's run - at least until their kid finishes there!

The existing school is a known quantity in a known location, even for parents whose kids haven't started school yet it's quite the leap of faith* to ask them to trust that a new school run by an unknown principal and staff, with an ethos the parents may be entirely unfamiliar with, in an unknown location and/or an unsuitable temporary premises for several years, will be a better choice for their kids.


* see what I did there

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to portray "practising catholic" as a more nebulous term than "self-identifying catholic"? Really?
With "practising catholic" we can, at the very least, say a person is highly likely to go to mass and pray.

Mark, the census isn’t going to ask whether you are a practising Catholic; it’s going to ask whether you practice any religion. Obviously, what that implies means different things to people of different religions. And, even within a particular religion, it will mean different things to different people. Different Christian traditions, for example, attach different weight to regular churchgoing. And, even within a denomination, different people will attach different weight to regular participation in worship as constituting the “practice” of religion. There are lots of people who don’t participate regularly in worship but who consider themselves to be practising religion. You may not consider them to be doing so, but it won’t be you who fills out their census forms. And the danger that their answers will be understood through filters like the one you are applying illustrates precisely why information of this kind, gathered through the census, is not much use.

Like I say, qualitative research. I don’t know what you have against it.

(Besides, if you really think that the practice of religion can be (and will be, by most people) equated with regular massgoing (or participation in equivalent communal worship) I genuinely struggle to see why you think this information should be collected through the census. What is it needed for?)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

With "self-identifying catholic", all we can say is they self-identify as catholic, nothing more. We can't even say if they believe in god.

We also can’t say of the non-religious whether they believe in god, Mark. Why would this be a problem that the census needs to address?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You mean the patronage the only patronage they know, the one they were themselves indoctrinated in? I'm sure they all gave informed responses to that survey :rolleyes:.

That’s the same survey that showed a demand for the transfer of a significant number of schools from Catholic to non-religious patronage, Mark. I’m sorry you thinks its findings are bogus.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It would also include parents who would be reluctant for their child to change school, or for their child's school to change how it's run - at least until their kid finishes there!

The existing school is a known quantity in a known location, even for parents whose kids haven't started school yet it's quite the leap of faith* to ask them to trust that a new school run by an unknown principal and staff, with an ethos the parents may be entirely unfamiliar with, in an unknown location and/or an unsuitable temporary premises for several years, will be a better choice for their kids.

Yes, of course. The consultation didn’t ask parents whether they would transfer their children to (or enter their currently pre-school children in) a school of a patronage model not currently available. It just asked them whether they wanted such a school to be available.

Armed with the answers to this question, that still leaves school planners with a dilemma; how many people who express an interest in the availability of a particular patronage will actually take it up? Presumably less than 100%, but how much less?

For the record, the Department took a pretty strong line on this. The minimum viable school size is generally reckoned to be about 80 kids. If, in any district, the parents of 80 school-age and pre-school age kids wanted (e.g.) an ET patronage school (or another ET patronage school, if there was already one or more) to be available, the Department identified that as a district in which one school should be transferred from Catholic to ET patronage. There was a risk, obviously, that some of the parents who expressed an interest in that patronage would not take it up. On the other hand, some of the parents of kids already in the school would keep them there, even though they hadn’t called for new patronage, so I think the Department was making a kind of “swings and roundabouts” assumption that these two factors would more or less balance out. But it was still a risky assumption; because they set the threshold at the lowest limit of viability, if these things didn’t balance out, they could transfer a school to ET patronage only to find it becoming unviable.

(FWIW, I think they’re right to run the risk. There are too many Catholic schools, relative to demand, and far too few ET, etc, schools, and this can only be remedied by transferring schools from Catholic to ET, etc, patronage. Yes, the transition will be difficult, with lots of people upset along the way, and it will involve risks. But if we’re not prepared to face the difficulties and the risks then it will never happen.)

Still, that’s a bit of a sideshow. If what you are arguing is that the finding that demand for non-religious patronage was a minority demand is invalidated because it only measured willingness to change schools, you are mistaken. Parents weren’t asked whether they would change schools or (for pre-school-age children) choose a particular school ; just whether they wanted (more) schools of particular patronage models to be available to them.

Hotblack Desiato

They were not actually being asked if they wanted their school to change, but that doesn't mean that some didn't interpret it that way, or didn't twig that the implication of a vote for other patronage options could mean a school in the area - maybe their one - changing patronage down the line.

You can hardly blame them for thinking that when it's what Ruairi Quinn and Diarmuid Martin were saying at the time.

What is being asked and what people answer are not the same thing. You only have to look at the religion question on the census, or boards in general, for proof of that.

I'm a parent in an area with no non-christian school options, there was no survey here. It's not a new growing suburb so there will be no new schools. The small CoI primary is full. All the secondary schools are RC. Something has to give eventually, but I'm not hopeful of my daughter (in first class now) having any option but to go to one of the RC secondaries

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They were not actually being asked if they wanted their school to change, but that doesn't mean that some didn't interpret it that way, or didn't twig that the implication of a vote for other patronage options could mean a school in the area - maybe their one - changing patronage down the line.

On the other hand, we have no substantial reason to think that they did interpret the question that way. You seem to be just hypothesising reasons to invalidate and ignor a finding that you don't like. And you don't like it because it tends to validate another finding that you don't like. This is unimpressive, Hotblack.

In the real world, per the census most Irish residents identify as religious, and per the patronage consultation most parents do in fact want religious patronage in their children's schools, and it is likely that these two facts are connected. A strategy for defending the rights of those who don't want religious patronage is undermined if it ignores the realities.

For example , following the consultation, the Department moved actually to transfer schools from Catholic to non-Catholic patronage. In some of the schools concerned, there was blowback from those parents who were happy with the current patronage. In thread on this board, a good deal of disgust and irritation at this was expressed, together with claims (not backed by any colourable detail) that this was being orchestrated by the bishops, fomented in homilies in parish churches, etc.

In fact, if you take the results of the consultation seriously where they are unwelcome as well as where they are welcome, the findings would suggest that a majority of parents in most religious-patronage schools were likely to favour religious patronage. Given that, blowback was entirely to be expected. The rational course would be to expect blowback, and to prepare a strategy for responding to it and managing it. As it was, people simply took refuge in conspiracy theories rather than acknowledge the possibility that the research showing the facts to be otherwise than they wished they were might, actually, be correct, and should have been attended to.

As I say, unimpressive.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mark, the census isn’t going to ask whether you are a practising Catholic; it’s going to ask whether you practice any religion.

What's that got to do with my point? You can change my point to read "practising theist" and "self-identifying theist" and it won't change it: you learn far more from asking someone if they are a practising theist than only asking if they identify as theist. It's getting quite ridiculous how far you are going out of your way to try and muddy the waters on this.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We also can’t say of the non-religious whether they believe in god, Mark.

Of course we can. If you believe in god, but don't follow any specific religion then you are deist, not non-religious.

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s the same survey that showed a demand for the transfer of a significant number of schools from Catholic to non-religious patronage, Mark. I’m sorry you thinks its findings are bogus.

Who said the findings are bogus? I implied that reasoning behind most of those who favoured catholic schools is based on indoctrination and ignorance.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the other hand, we have no substantial reason to think that they did interpret the question that way. You seem to be just hypothesising reasons to invalidate and ignor a finding that you don't like. And you don't like it because it tends to validate another finding that you don't like. This is unimpressive, Hotblack.

In the real world, per the census most Irish residents identify as religious, and per the patronage consultation most parents do in fact want religious patronage in their children's schools, and it is likely that these two facts are connected. A strategy for defending the rights of those who don't want religious patronage is undermined if it ignores the realities.

For example , following the consultation, the Department moved actually to transfer schools from Catholic to non-Catholic patronage. In some of the schools concerned, there was blowback from those parents who were happy with the current patronage. In thread on this board, a good deal of disgust and irritation at this was expressed, together with claims (not backed by any colourable detail) that this was being orchestrated by the bishops, fomented in homilies in parish churches, etc.

In fact, if you take the results of the consultation seriously where they are unwelcome as well as where they are welcome, the findings would suggest that a majority of parents in most religious-patronage schools were likely to favour religious patronage. Given that, blowback was entirely to be expected. The rational course would be to expect blowback, and to prepare a strategy for responding to it and managing it. As it was, people simply took refuge in conspiracy theories rather than acknowledge the possibility that the research showing the facts to be otherwise than they wished they were might, actually, be correct, and should have been attended to.

As I say, unimpressive.

You are ignoring the arguments raised, inertia and fear of change are reasons why parents would support the status quo but that doesn't mean that if they were starting over and had a free choice of schools which were established and known quantities that they would still choose the RC one. Some would. Some would not.

Note that future parents (no kids yet) were not asked, given that any process of change is going to take years it'll affect them (and pre-schoolers, who were asked) more than it will people who already have kids in the system, who will be out or nearly out of it before much change at primary level could possibly happen. That is why I mentioned the large increase in non-religious marriage, it's an indicator that there will be many more families in the future who do not regard religion as important, or who wish to avoid it.

I also mentioned that my area was not surveyed, along with many others, so there is no prospect of the unmet demand for change here being satisfied. The CoI school was less than half full a few years ago, it now has a waiting list and our second child is only getting in on the sibling rule. This demand is NOT coming from CoI parents, but parents unhappy that all the other options are both single-sex and Catholic (or gaelscoil.)

If one school in an area changes patronage, yes not all the existing parents there will be happy, but there will be parents of kids in the other catholic schools who would be happy to take places in the school which is changing, that then frees up 'catholic places for catholic kids' in those schools. A bit of disruption in the short term but in the longer term more people are happy and there is then a real choice.

This is entirely workable in areas with several schools, but even there it's just not happening.

Be careful when using words like 'unimpressive' rather than arguments, that you are not sailing close to the rocky shores of ad hominem.

Why are you rasing conspiracy theories which nobody has mentioned on this thread, it's a handy strawman to knock down I suppose rather than address the actual points posters are making.

lazygal

There was no survey in my area of school preferences and even if there had been we wouldn't have been included. I have correspondence from the dept stating that it's priority is access to a school place not that a parent and child should be allowed to avail of a particular school with a particular ethos. There's no way a new school will be built here and while on paper it looks like we're well served in reality the Gael scoil is extremely Catholic, one primary is not close enough to be practical, and the others are all denominational schools while the one et is over subscribed although given our enrolment place we should.secure places while not entirely comfortable with the learn together programme. There's no chance of any school changing in this area.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I also mentioned that my area was not surveyed, along with many others, so there is no prospect of the unmet demand for change here being satisfied. The CoI school was less than half full a few years ago, it now has a waiting list and our second child is only getting in on the sibling rule. This demand is NOT coming from CoI parents, but parents unhappy that all the other options are both single-sex and Catholic (or gaelscoil.)

Just to elaborate on this - if the increased demand were coming from CoI parents (we know from school gate chatter that the congregation is continuing its slow decline of many years) then our second child wouldn't stand a chance of a place, because membership of a CoI congregation (even outside the area) trumps the sibling rule. (1)

Membership of another reformed church comes next (2)

Catholics come after that (3)

Then siblings of existing pupils (4)

Then non-christians without siblings - right at the bottom of the list. (5)


Child 1 fell into category 5 but we were lucky the school wasn't full then.
Child 2 is in category 4, but there wasn't enough demand from 1, 2 and 3 to trump him
There is demand from category (4) but unless people are suddenly having larger families than before, sibiling demand for places will be the same as usual
So the big increase in demand is therefore coming from category (5) - unmet demand from non-christian families who don't fancy the chances of the RC schools respecting them and their faith/non-faith choice.

wench

Time to sharpen your quills, the CSO are taking submissions on changes to the 2021 census
http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2021consultation/

ginger_hammer

wench wrote: »

Time to sharpen your quills, the CSO are taking submissions on changes to the 2021 census
http://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2021consultation/

Suggestion emailed!

magicbastarder

offaly is the most catholic county in ireland:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/it-s-official-offaly-is-the-most-catholic-county-d%C3%BAn-laoghaire-the-least-1.3253668

realdanbreen

So the bottom line is that the overwhelming of the population are religious.

realdanbreen

realdanbreen wrote: »

So the bottom line is that the overwhelming of the population are religious.

Meant to say 'overwhelming majority'.

Hotblack Desiato

realdanbreen wrote: »

So the bottom line is that the overwhelming of the population are religious.

No, the bottom line is that the majority of the population were baptised into one. Anything else is speculation on your part. If you think the population is so religious, why are vocations almost zero, church attendance way down and even church weddings and funerals are dropping rapidly.

realdanbreen

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, the bottom line is that the majority of the population were baptised into one. Anything else is speculation on your part. If you think the population is so religious, why are vocations almost zero, church attendance way down and even church weddings and funerals are dropping rapidly.

Like I say, the overwhelming majority of people declared in the census that they are of one particular religion or another. No ifs buts or maybes that's what the situation is.