The Schools Equality PACT

Michael Nugent

The Schools Equality PACT is a major new initiative of Atheist Ireland to enable everybody, regardless of your religious or nonreligious beliefs, to support religious equality in Irish schools. It is part of an ongoing campaign of national political lobbying, and representations to UN and other international human rights bodies.

I am happy to answer any questions anybody has about it.

You can sign the Schools Equality PACT here.

We have over 1300 signatures so far, since launching it at the weekend.

THE SCHOOLS EQUALITY PACT SAYS:

We ask the Irish Parliament to urgently reform the school system of State-funded religious discrimination. This PACT (Patronage, Access, Curriculum, Teaching) describes the changes needed.

The State has a duty to respect equally the human rights of all children, parents and teachers. This requires a national network of public secular schools, inclusive of all, neutral between religions and atheism, and focused on the educational needs of all children equally.

Divesting some religious schools to new private patrons will not achieve pluralism in education. The Irish Parliament's Education Committee has warned that multiple patronage and ethos can lead to segregation and inequality. The UN and Council of Europe have warned our schools breach human rights.

The State now claims it is constitutionally obliged to allow State-funded schools to discriminate against its own citizens in this way. Others disagree. We ask the Government to respect democracy, and stop closing down debate with an unpublished, untested legal opinion.

Finally, if the Courts do find this discrimination obligatory, then we urgently need a Schools Equality Referendum.

P = PATRONAGE

Children have a right to attend inclusive public schools

State-funded schools should have an inclusive public ethos, to respect everyone equally under Articles 42.1 and 42.3.1 of the Constitution. Moral education should be separate from religion, as per Article 42.3.2. The State should not cede control of education to private patrons. Private ethos schools should be an optional extra, not the basis of the system. Please amend the Education Act to do this. Start the reform in the nine schools where the Minister for Education is patron.

A = ACCESS

Children have an equal right to attend their local public school

Children should have equal access to their local State-funded school, whatever their religion. The current Admission to Schools Bill will outlaw some discrimination, but it reinforces discrimination against atheist and minority faith families, calling it ‘lawful oversubscription criteria.’ Please delete Section 7.3(c) of the Equal Status Act to prevent all religious discrimination. If oversubscribed, give priority to children with siblings in the school, then to local children, then use a lottery.

C = CURRICULUM

Children have a right to an objective pluralist education

Children should be taught the State curriculum, including teaching about religions and beliefs, in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, as per the European Convention on Human Rights. Faith formation should be outside the school day. Please amend Section 15.2(b) of the Education Act, and the curriculum. Remove Rule 68 of National Schools, that religious instruction is by far the most important subject and a religious spirit must inform and vivify the whole work of the school.

T = TEACHING

Teachers have an equal right to work in state-funded schools

Children should be taught by the best teachers, and teachers should have equal access, based on merit, to jobs in State-funded schools. Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act allows schools to discriminate against teachers on the ground of religion. The current Section 37 Amendment Bill will protect Catholic LGBT teachers, but reinforces discrimination against atheist and minority faith teachers. Please amend Section 37 to prevent all religious discrimination against teachers.

silverharp

One area Im curious about is the whole teacher training area, does the state finance in anyway the cost of the religious aspect of this either by paying for lecturers, facilities etc.?

expectationlost

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The Schools Equality PACT is a major new initiative of Atheist Ireland to enable everybody, regardless of your religious or nonreligious beliefs, to support religious equality in Irish schools. It is part of an ongoing campaign of national political lobbying, and representations to UN and other international human rights bodies.

I am happy to answer any questions anybody has about it.

You can sign the Schools Equality PACT here.

We have over 1300 signatures so far, since launching it at the weekend.

THE SCHOOLS EQUALITY PACT SAYS:

We ask the Irish Parliament to urgently reform the school system of State-funded religious discrimination. This PACT (Patronage, Access, Curriculum, Teaching) describes the changes needed.

The State has a duty to respect equally the human rights of all children, parents and teachers. This requires a national network of public secular schools, inclusive of all, neutral between religions and atheism, and focused on the educational needs of all children equally.

Divesting some religious schools to new private patrons will not achieve pluralism in education. The Irish Parliament's Education Committee has warned that multiple patronage and ethos can lead to segregation and inequality. The UN and Council of Europe have warned our schools breach human rights.

The State now claims it is constitutionally obliged to allow State-funded schools to discriminate against its own citizens in this way. Others disagree. We ask the Government to respect democracy, and stop closing down debate with an unpublished, untested legal opinion.

Finally, if the Courts do find this discrimination obligatory, then we urgently need a Schools Equality Referendum.

P = PATRONAGE

Children have a right to attend inclusive public schools

State-funded schools should have an inclusive public ethos, to respect everyone equally under Articles 42.1 and 42.3.1 of the Constitution. Moral education should be separate from religion, as per Article 42.3.2. The State should not cede control of education to private patrons. Private ethos schools should be an optional extra, not the basis of the system. Please amend the Education Act to do this. Start the reform in the nine schools where the Minister for Education is patron.

should the first P not just be Public rather then Patronage? is seems to be the intent of the explainatory paragraph. Or atleast Public Patronage , I don't like the word patronage it suggest private patronage.

it also suggest a distancing from responsibility to government would you prefer, any new system operate via the gov/dept of ed or local authorities education training boards?

9 Models Schools 5 Catholic 3 COI http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2007110600258?opendocument&highlight=model%20schools and how do you think those would feel about being divested? are these schools in areas that need divestment?

its very specific demand to put into a general document, thats it supposed to allow many to agree.

recedite

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Private ethos schools should be an optional extra, not the basis of the system. Please amend the Education Act to do this. Start the reform in the nine schools where the Minister for Education is patron.

I agree, but where or what are these nine schools?

Michael Nugent

silverharp wrote: »

One area Im curious about is the whole teacher training area, does the state finance in anyway the cost of the religious aspect of this either by paying for lecturers, facilities etc.?

The State pays for it in state-funded teacher training colleges, students pay for it in Hibernia online training college which is independent.

expectationlost wrote: »

should the first P not just be Public rather then Patronage? is seems to be the intent of the explainatory paragraph. Or atleast Public Patronage , I don't like the word patronage it suggest private patronage.

We did think of using Public (that was actually in the fist draft) but in Ireland patronage is the way the lack of public schools manifests itself.

expectationlost wrote: »

it also suggest a distancing from responsibility to government would you prefer, any new system operate via the gov/dept of ed or local authorities education training boards?

A public schools system should be run by the State, or at a minimum should be run in accordance with rules set by the State that treat everybody equally.

expectationlost wrote: »

9 Models Schools 5 Catholic 3 COI http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2007110600258?opendocument&highlight=model%20schools and how do you think those would feel about being divested? are these schools in areas that need divestment?

Well, they don't need to be divested. The State already runs them. It just has to choose to run them in accordance with human rights principles.

expectationlost wrote: »

its very specific demand to put into a general document, thats it supposed to allow many to agree.

It is there because it exposes the State's argument that the only obstacles to ending discrimination are the constitution obliging them to allow churches to discriminate, and the reluctance of the churches to divest. The State could lead by example in the schools that it runs directly.

recedite wrote: »

I agree, but where or what are these nine schools?

There are nine of them. They were established during the 1800s to facilitate teacher training. The Minister for Education is the patron.

The Department of Education says of them: "Although originally established as non-denominational schools, in practice these schools have evolved to provide primary education within a Christian ethos."

.

expectationlost

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The State pays for it in state-funded teacher training colleges, students pay for it in Hibernia online training college which is independent.


We did think of using Public (that was actually in the fist draft) but in Ireland patronage is the way the lack of public schools manifests itself.


A public schools system should be run by the State, or at a minimum should be run in accordance with rules set by the State that treat everybody equally.


Well, they don't need to be divested. The State already runs them. It just has to choose to run them in accordance with human rights principles.


It is there because it exposes the State's argument that the only obstacles to ending discrimination are the constitution obliging them to allow churches to discriminate, and the reluctance of the churches to divest. The State could lead by example in the schools that it runs directly.


There are nine of them. They were established during the 1800s to facilitate teacher training. The Minister for Education is the patron.

The Department of Education says of them: "Although originally established as non-denominational schools, in practice these schools have evolved to provide primary education within a Christian ethos."

.

thanks for your replies, i said divested as I didn't know what else to call it, seems the gov divested themselves of ethos control, so you want faith taught after school in those schools, i doubt those schools would e happy about it, particularly the COI ones

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

9 Models Schools 5 Catholic 3 COI http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2007110600258?opendocument&highlight=model%20schools and how do you think those would feel about being divested? are these schools in areas that need divestment?

I wasn't aware of these 9 schools before, but now that I know about them I am pi$$ed off because it looks like they were plundered from the State by these two churches, with the connivance of historical politicians.

Would anyone agree that (the then) Minister Hanafin was totally incorrect in that Dail statement when she drew her conclusion regarding the foundational ethos of these schools?

Minister Hanafin wrote:

The model schools have their origin in the set of instructions drawn up by Chief Secretary Stanley in 1831 that empowered the Commissioners for National Education (National Education Board) to , inter alia , establish a model school for the training of teachers....
As Patron the Minister, in respect of these schools, has the same powers under the legislation as any other school patron. For example the Minister appoints the Board of Management of the model schools while in the case of schools under the patronage of the Catholic or Protestant church it is the Bishop that appoints the Board....
The schools operate as Catholic or Protestant schools in accordance with the historic traditions that go back to their foundation and the community to be served at the time they were established.

As Stanley himself explained in his famous Stanley Letter;

It is the intention of the Government that the Board should exercise a complete control over the various schools which may be erected under its auspices, or which, having been already established, may hereafter place themselves under its management, and submit to its regulations. Subject to these, applications for aid will be admissible from Christians of all denominations; but as one of the main objects must be to unite in one system children of different creeds, and as much must depend upon the co-operation of the resident clergy, the Board will probably look with peculiar favour upon applications proceeding either from
1st. The Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy of the Parish; or
2nd. One of the clergymen, and a certain number of parishioners professing the opposite creed; or
3rd. Parishioners of both denominations.
Where the application proceeds from Protestants or exclusively from Roman-Catholics, it will be proper for the Board to make inquiry as to the circumstances which lead to the absence of any names of the persuasion which does not appear.
The Board will note all applications for aid, whether granted or refused, with the grounds of decision, and annually submit to Parliament a report of their proceedings.

It would be very interesting to ask the exact same Dail question of the current minister, Jan O Sullivan, and see whether her answer is any different.

Kudos to 2007 Leo Varadkar for being ahead of the game, as usual, and asking the question. But of course, its easier to ask the awkward questions while in opposition

No doubt the two religious bodies involved in this scam will claim to have some sort of squatters rights to the schools, but legally the Irish State appears to have inherited these schools from the British State, and should be operating them in accordance with either the original principles (a multi-denominational Christian ethos) or a more modern set of principles worthy of a democratic republic (a non-denominational, secular school equally accessible to all citizens regardless of race or religion)

expectationlost

looking to see who is on the board of management of any of those model schools havn't found any list yet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14VGG-1ZjBcAGesmBTTVtc3gIosMQsz9M-SlmU0D-rvA/edit?usp=sharing

recedite

A quote from the Athy Model school website "history" webpage which sums up the rise and fall of a model school. It started off great, but at some point in time the two main religions took control of the whole national school system and divvied it up between them, and segregation became the order of the day. Education lost out to indoctrination. Its sad really to think of what might have been. The whole history of this island could have been completely different. These schools could have showcased co-operation and economic development instead of confrontation and backwardness.

In each succeeding year up to 1856, when 567 children were enrolled, the Model School attracted more and more local children to its non-denominational classes.
It achieved its highest enrolment in 1858 when 582 children were listed on the school registers. In the agricultural school pupils received training in the latest farming methods on the farm attached to the school. This extended to 64 acres in 1855 but was sold by auction when the agricultural school closed in September 1880. The District Model School remained open but with a reduced number of children on its roles the majority of them now being of the protestant faiths.

Peregrinus

I believe the model schools all become denominational fairly early on. They were generally among the first (free, public) schools to be established in any district, and they were viable as multidenominational schools largely because there were no denominational alternatives available. Once denominational schools became available they were preferred by the majority of parents, and in time it became difficult to fulfil Stanley's orginal ambition of having clergy of different denominations supporting them; they all felt they should put their efforts into their "own" schools. So, basically, the multidenominational character of the model schools lapsed because there wasn't support for it from either parents or churches. This happened well before 1922.

Expectationlost, I think that, formally speaking, the boards of the model schools consist of one person - the Minister for Education.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

Expectationlost, I think that, formally speaking, the boards of the model schools consist of one person - the Minister for Education.

thats what I thought until I read this in the Dail report I linked to

For example the Minister appoints the Board of Management of the model schools

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail2007110600258?opendocument&highlight=model%20schools

Hanafin wouldn't misinform the Dail would she?

I guess it would benefit these schools to have some advisory council even if they weren't legally the "board of management" and even if they are supposed to be run by the the dept.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/four-ways-to-end-school-discrimination-against-atheists-and-minority-faiths-1.2331115

Good article by Michael Nugent in today's Irish Times.

It's great to see this issue getting a lot of media coverage lately, but I fear that's mainly because (a) it's political silly season with not a lot else happening (b) it's back-to-school time. There is a lot of unhappiness and upset and anger among non-catholic parents out there on this issue, I hope the pressure can be kept up (by the wider public, not just AI, ET etc.) and this is not allowed to slide off the media and political agenda in the run up to the next election.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

.. they were viable as multidenominational schools largely because there were no denominational alternatives available. Once denominational schools became available they were preferred by the majority of parents, and in time it became difficult to fulfil Stanley's orginal ambition of having clergy of different denominations supporting them;

There is no doubt that the model schools were undermined by the clergy. However, I don't believe that they lacked support from parents. Most towns and townlands only had one national school. Are you suggesting that multi-denominational schools were abandoned by parents as soon as denominational schools opened nearby?
AFAIK parents only abandoned the schools after they were taken over by a single religious faction, because they wished to avoid the unwanted indoctrination.
Which is what both sets of clergy wanted all along; separate schools.

Re the current BOM arrangements, it is unlikely that the Minister of Ed. gets involved in micromanaging the schools (or even managing them)
So the BOM would most likely be teachers and parents, as usual. But it would be interesting to know if the local RC priest or CoI rector gets the all-important chairman job, as they invariably do in a church owned school. And whether the local godman interviews and approves all prospective teachers.

Kivaro

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/four-ways-to-end-school-discrimination-against-atheists-and-minority-faiths-1.2331115

Good article by Michael Nugent in today's Irish Times ....

The comments at the end of the article are interesting also.
Thanks for the link.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/four-ways-to-end-school-discrimination-against-atheists-and-minority-faiths-1.2331115

And the dead arose and fulminated that the state has no right to impose a "one size fits all" educational model:

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=4039

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

There is no doubt that the model schools were undermined by the clergy. However, I don't believe that they lacked support from parents. Most towns and townlands only had one national school. Are you suggesting that multi-denominational schools were abandoned by parents as soon as denominational schools opened nearby? . . .

Not as dramatic as that, no. But once parents had a choice between the model school and a school of their denomination they tended to prefer the latter (and no doubt in may cases were encouraged to do so by the clergy). So within a relatatively short time the bulk of enrolments in the model school would be from the parents who didn't have a convenient denominational alternative, and the model school would be default come to cater for the denomination(s) that weren't catered for (or were last to be catered for) by a denominational alternative.

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK parents only abandoned the schools after they were taken over by a single religious faction, because they wished to avoid the unwanted indoctrination.

The model schools always offered "indoctrination", and we have no reason to think that it was "unwanted" by any significant segment of the parents. The Board of Education saw it as essential if the schools were to secure acceptance, and as they were closer to the situation than we are I am inclined to think they were likely correct.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not as dramatic as that, no. But once parents had a choice between the model school and a school of their denomination they tended to prefer the latter (and no doubt in may cases were encouraged to do so by the clergy). So within a relatatively short time the bulk of enrolments in the model school would be from the parents who didn't have a convenient denominational alternative, and the model school would be default come to cater for the denomination(s) that weren't catered for (or were last to be catered for) by a denominational alternative.


The model schools always offered "indoctrination", and we have no reason to think that it was "unwanted" by any significant segment of the parents. The Board of Education saw it as essential if the schools were to secure acceptance, and as they were closer to the situation than we are I am inclined to think they were likely correct.

There was an interesting article in the guardian some time ago about, in the UK, parental preference for denominational schools, particularly catholic ones. There is a perception, which I have seen myself, that these school are 'better' because they have better results. When a bit of analysis is done it seems that this is a bit of a cheat. These schools, again I am talking about the UK, or paper do seem to do better, but it is not simply because they are 'better' schools. When the make up of the pupils is analysed we find that these schools tend to have more of the type of pupils that tend to do better in exams. These schools tend to have a much lower proportion of pupils with free school meals than the area in which they are located.

Whilst they can't discriminate against pupils on free school meals the discrimination they are allowed to get away with tend to disfavour those on free school meals as the parents of those children are unlikely to make the effort to try to secure the places.

So, in summary, this perception that these schools are better is a little bit of a scam. They do get better results, but this seems more likely because they are able to select pupils that are more likely to get better results (likely whatever schools they actually went to) and deselect those pupils that will probably not do so well. So not down to better teaching, but plain old discrimination in admission policy.

Not sure if it is the same in Ireland, but this might go some way to explaining a parental preference for denominational schools.

MrP

Peregrinus

The situation in Ireland is sufficiently different, I think, that we can't translate the UK finding to Ireland. In Ireland we don't observe a parental preference for denominational over non-denominational schools for the obvious reason that there are no non-denominational schools. Do we observe a parental preference for denominational over multi-denominational schools, where parents have a choice? I'm not sure that we do. And, if we do, is it accounted for by the denominational schools outperforming, or being perceived to outperform, the multidenominational schools? I don't think so. Whatever the case for individual schools, I'm not aware of any evidence that either group tends to outperform the other, and I'm not aware of any popular perception to that effect either.

At the secondary level, there might be such a perception as between fee-paying vs. free schools. But that's a different issue, and I think unrelated or only coincidentally related to denomination.

The bottom line, I think, as far as national schools go is that any perceived preference for denominational patronage isn't satisfactily accounted for by pointing to an association between denominational patronage and academic performance, because I don't think there is any association, or any perception of one.

It wouldn't amaze me to discover that there is actually some research into this already in Ireland - parents being asked not only which school type they prefer, but why they prefer it. Any boardies know of any?

expectationlost

are these model schools still treated an any way used as 'model schools' where dept tries out things/trains teachers in them more so then any other schools in the country?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not as dramatic as that, no. But once parents had a choice between the model school and a school of their denomination they tended to prefer the latter (and no doubt in may cases were encouraged to do so by the clergy). So within a relatatively short time the bulk of enrolments in the model school would be from the parents who didn't have a convenient denominational alternative, and the model school would be default come to cater for the denomination(s) that weren't catered for (or were last to be catered for) by a denominational alternative.

I see what you are saying, but you have still not backed up this assertion that the parents had a choice in the matter.

The model schools themselves were intended to be models for all the other schools in the National School system. I think we have all seen these little one or two roomed schoolhouses dotted around the country. Many have since been turned into private houses. Others have since developed into large multi-building denominational primary schools. There was never a choice of different primary schools in these localities. There was one National School and that was it. Only in a very few areas did two schools exist near to each other (one CoI and one RC) and IMO that was a response afterwards to the breakdown of the multidenominational school system; not a reason for it. This allowed both churches to tell the parents that "if it wasn't for us your children would have no school at all to go to, because the national school is controlled by people who are just trying to convert them". Which a lot of people still believe, to this day.

The purpose of the "model" schools was to ensure some uniformity in the other National schools. Teachers would spend some time in the Model Schools before being posted to a National School somewhere else, where they would then implement best practice in a nationally consistent way. Its similar to the idea of a Circuit Court in the legal system, whereby judges travel around and ensure that the outcomes in one locality are not markedly different to those in another locality.

Obviously from this perspective, the modern "model schools" retain only the name and none of the function originally intended. However Michael Nugent is right IMO in saying that they are a good place to start if trying to create (or restore) a State-operated national primary school system.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The model schools always offered "indoctrination", and we have no reason to think that it was "unwanted" by any significant segment of the parents. The Board of Education saw it as essential if the schools were to secure acceptance, and as they were closer to the situation than we are I am inclined to think they were likely correct.

Sure, but outside normal school hours and with the different denominations segregated. So in this sense very similar to aspects of the newest multi-denominational patronage models we have now; ET and ETB.

But after 184 years, I'd like to think we could not only get back to that level, but actually improve on it by having an entirely secular public education system with a real separation between church and state.
Quoting from 1831, the Stanley letter;

...recommended a system to be adopted which should afford, if possible, a combined literary, and a separate religious education, and should be capable of being so far adapted to the views of the religious persuasions which prevail in Ireland as to render it, in truth, a system of national education for the poorer classes of the community...

...(Trustees) will require that the schools be kept open for a certain number of hours, on four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the Commissioners, for moral and literary education only; and that the remaining one or two days in the week be set apart for giving, separately; such religious education to the children as may be approved by the clergy of their respective persuasions.
They will also permit and encourage the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ordinary school hours, on the other days of the week.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

are these model schools still treated truely used as 'model schools' where dept tries out things/trains teachers in them more so then any other schools in the country?

No. They ceased to be used for that purpose once teacher training colleges were established in the second half of the nineteenth century.

The early model for training primary teachers was that promising pupils were identified while in the senior classes of primary schools. In their final year or two, at about the age of 13, they would assist the teacher in teaching the younger children. If still considered promising they went on at the age of 14 to one of the model schools, where they were given some secondary education, and at the same time learned the craft of teaching in the primary classrooms, under the supervision of more experienced teachers. By about the age of 18 they were considered qualified, and could seek appointment as teachers in "regular" primary schools.

Once the teacher training colleges were established, model schools lost this function; they became, basically, ordinary primary schools. They might, perhaps, have taken more trainee teachers for classroom practice than your typical primary school, but that was about it.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I see what you are saying, but you have still not backed up this assertion that the parents had a choice in the matter.

All I meant was that, as long as there was only the model school, parents had no choice. But once the district also contained a "regular" national school, they had a choice - the model school, or the regular national school. And they mostly chose the regular school.

This may or may not have been because they preferred a school with a denominational character. Certainly they were encouraged by the clergy to choose the denominational school, but there could have been other factors at work. In a regular school, your child would be taught by a qualified teacher who was themselves a graduate of the model school. But in the model school, your child might be seen as a "guinea-pig", on which inexperienced student teachers (aged between 14 and 18) got to practice and hone there skills before being considered good enough to teach in a regular school. So, I don't know, that could have been a factor. The model schools didn't lose this character until the 1870s or 1880s, when teacher training was transferred to teacher training colleges.

recedite wrote: »

The model schools themselves were intended to be models for all the other schools in the National School system.

No. They were called model schools because they were intended to model teaching practice for the benefit of the student teachers.

recedite wrote: »

I think we have all seen these little one or two roomed schoolhouses dotted around the country. Many have since been turned into private houses. Others have since developed into large multi-building denominational primary schools. There was never a choice of different primary schools in these localities. There was one National School and that was it. Only in a very few areas did two schools exist near to each other (one CoI and one RC) and IMO that was a response afterwards to the breakdown of the multidenominational school system; not a reason for it.

Oh, sure, in country districts there might have been little choice (though in most parts of the country there was at least a choice between Catholic and Protestant schools. But any town that was large enough to have a model school - a town like Kilkenny, for example, or Athy, or Ballymena - would certainly have had other national schools, and they would have been denominational in character. So everyone who was in a position to choose a model school - everyone living in a town with a model school in it - would from pretty early on have had the alternative of a denominational school.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. They ceased to be used for that purpose once teacher training colleges were established in the second half of the nineteenth century.


Once the teacher training colleges were established, model schools lost this function; they became, basically, ordinary primary schools. They might, perhaps, have taken more trainee teachers for classroom practice than your typical primary school, but that was about it.

even the one on the grounds of the dept of ed?

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

even the one on the grounds of the dept of ed?

I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that that would have been one of the first to be "normalised", since the first teacher training colleges were established in Dublin.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

any town that was large enough to have a model school - a town like Kilkenny, for example, or Athy, or Ballymena - would certainly have had other national schools, and they would have been denominational in character.

I was under the impression that the model schools were intended to supply teachers to other national schools which would also be multi-denominational in character. And these would get govt. funding as per Stanley's lobbying. As opposed to any other private/charitable/denominational schools that also existed at the time.
It would be interesting to find out what the maximum number of multidenominational schools was, before they all started reverting to denominational.

Peregrinus

I think that, right from the get-go, there was a tension between (a) the objective of having multidenominational schools, and (b) the requirement for local patronage. The only realistic prospects for local patrons were the churches, and they were used to, and in favour of, denominational schools. The other factor that I think had influence here was that in many areas the labouring/lower middle classes - the likely users of national schools - were overwhelmingly of one denomination, so even if the school was formally multidenominational, the school community was going to be nearly, and sometimes actually, 100% of one denomination.

The National School system started in 1831 - just two years after Catholic Emancipation, to put that in context. An awful lot of conservative Protestants would still have been suspicious of Catholicism, and would not have wanted their children educated in a formally multidenominational but overwhelming Catholic school, so they quite favoured the concentration of protestant pupils, where possible, in certain schools. Plus, there was an existing network of Church of Ireland schools which enjoy some government support; they weren't going to come into the National School system if if involved complete loss of their character. And, on the Catholic side, there was a profound suspicion of the government and its motives and its attitudes to Catholicism, so they needed reassurance too, if the system was to win any kind of popular acceptance.

So, to be honest, I think the prospects for true multidemoninationalism were never very good. And there's a view that Stanley, or some close to him, knew this very well. On this view the aspiration to multidenominationalism was spin for the benefit of Westminster politicians who were going to have to approve the scheme, and the funding for it, and who in many cases were anti-Catholic in varying degrees, and who had to be told what they wanted to be told to secure their assent to public funding of national schools.

Be that as it may, I've read that by the mid-nineteenth century - say, twenty years after the system was set up - less than 4% of the schools were multidenominational in practice. What usually happened fairly early on was that a school would become in practice overwhelmingly of one denomination, after which the clergy of other denominations would tend to withdraw from the board of management, either resigning or simply not participating. Because there was no formal change in the status of the school, we don't have hard figures on this. They were all formally multidenominational until, I think, the 1890s, though from the 1870s onwards there was a campaign to recognise the reality of the situation and introduce formal denominational patronage. I think it was formalised in the 1890s at about the same time as the introduction of compulsory education. The view was argued that you couldn't compel parents by law to send their children to a school to whose ethos or character they objected (or possibly to schools whose true ethos or character was concealed by a formal multidemoninationalism) . And of course by this time the Home Rule movement was in full swing, and British governments had to be very wary of being seen to impose on Ireland in matters of values or belief.

On edit: Finally, remember we're talking all-Ireland throughout this period. The sensibilities of Ulster Protestants, and the Protestant/Catholic tensions in Ulster, are a big political consideration.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only realistic prospects for local patrons were the churches, and they were used to, and in favour of, denominational schools.

That was possibly the view among some, but if so it was the flawed thinking of the time. If the state was capable of putting a secular police barracks and a secular courthouse in every town, then it was capable of putting in a multi-denominational primary school.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The other factor that I think had influence here was that in many areas the labouring/lower middle classes - the likely users of national schools - were overwhelmingly of one denomination, so even if the school was formally multidenominational, the school community was going to be nearly, and sometimes actually, 100% of one denomination.

I disagree, for 2 reasons.
1. You are slipping into stereotypes here. Even leaving Ulster aside, in RC dominated rural areas of what is now RoI, the CoI population were mostly ordinary farmers, not gentry with their own private tutors teaching their kids at home. In Dublin they were typically in low level manufacturing, civil service or admin jobs. Also their overall % of the population was higher back then.
Another factor you ignore is "mixed marriages". Where did those kids go to school? In the case of the (more recent) notorious fethard boycott, they didn't go to school at all.
That's the thing about a school community that is 100% of one denomination. It doesn't mean the entire local population is of one denomination. It means the minority population in that area are forced to conform, or send their kids to boarding schools if they have the money, or home-school/no-school them if they don't have the money.

2. Even if every single local family had genuinely been a devout devotee of just one religion, the Stanley type school was still suitable for them with its religious instruction on a separate day. While also being suitable for any other family that might wish to move into the area subsequently.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Be that as it may, I've read that by the mid-nineteenth century - say, twenty years after the system was set up - less than 4% of the schools were multidenominational in practice. What usually happened fairly early on was that a school would become in practice overwhelmingly of one denomination, after which the clergy of other denominations would tend to withdraw from the board of management, either resigning or simply not participating. Because there was no formal change in the status of the school, we don't have hard figures on this.

I think you would have to delve into the records of each individual national school to find this out, looking for the exact meeting at which a row broke out among the BOM/committee managing the school. I suspect in most cases you would find that the majority or controlling religion had stepped too far in imposing its version of indoctrination outside the allotted time on a separate day, and the representative of the minority religion then withdrew in protest.
So this amounts to a failure by the British govt. to regulate and govern the system. Perhaps they made the decision, "well if the people want segregated education, let them have it". But whatever the reasons, the results of that failure to develop the multidenominational education system were probably catastrophic to the future welfare of the whole island.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That was possibly the view among some, but if so it was the flawed thinking of the time. If the state was capable of putting a secular police barracks and a secular courthouse in every town, then it was capable of putting in a multi-denominational primary school.

From our perspective, of course, yes. But, remember, this was 1831. The Irish Constabulary was only nine years old, and there certainly was not a barracks in every town. There were perhaps two or three depots in each county; a few more, maybe, in large counties like Cork and Mayo, but certainly not more than half a dozen. Plus, the job of of the constabulary was the protection of property, which was something the ratepayers were prepared to pay for. The notion that it was the business of government to provide free education to the children of the labouring classes would have seemed like dangerous chartist nonsense to many. They didn't do that in England; why on earth would they even consider doing it in Ireland?

As for courthouses, there were again two or three in each county, and they were revenue centres - they were funded by fees paid by litigants, and they acted as tax collection centres.

We think of the capital contributions of local patrons as negligible and, today, they are. But back then they were a very significant part of the funding of the entire system. If the proposal had been for an entirely state-funded system, I doubt that it would have been implemented.

But the idea behind local patronage was not just financial; it was also seen as important in securing popular buy-in. They didn't want the new schools to be seen as government schools, and the choice of the name "national school" was intended to emphasise that these were schools not only provided to, but provided by, the entire community, not just the Dublin Castle administration. So even if the political will had been there to pay for a countrywide system of free government schools, that wasn't what they wanted.

recedite wrote: »

I disagree, for 2 reasons.
1. You are slipping into stereotypes here. Even leaving Ulster aside, in RC dominated rural areas of what is now RoI, the CoI population were mostly ordinary farmers, not gentry with their own private tutors teaching their kids at home. In Dublin they were typically in low level manufacturing, civil service or admin jobs. Also their overall % of the population was higher back then.

Well, there’s some truth here. But in fact the Protestant population was more urbanised than the Catholic population; Protestants were more likely to be craftsmen, small traders, urban workers and less likely to be farmers or farm labourers (and farm labourers were much more numerous than farmers). Protestants and Catholics weren’t uniformly distributed with the result that in many rural areas a randomly selected set of likely national school pupils would be 85% or 90% Catholic, or even more.

Urban areas were more mixed, but in urban areas people were more likely to have access to more than one school, so it was feasible for segregated patterns of attendance to develop. And they did develop.

recedite wrote: »

Another factor you ignore is "mixed marriages". Where did those kids go to school? In the case of the (more recent) notorious fethard boycott, they didn't go to school at all.

The rate of mixed marriages was extremely low, so I don’t know that the children of mixed marriages were sufficiently numerous to have much impact on the development of the national schools. Prior to the Ne Temere decree, which didn’t come in until 1908 and so is outside the period we are looking at here, I believe the convention was that boys were raised in their father’s tradition and girls in their mother’s. This, of course, required them to go to separate schools, if they were to attend the “approrpriate” denominational schools (if such were available). But this wasn’t a big deal, since there were separate boys; and girls’ schools; they would have been going to different schools in any case.

recedite wrote: »

That's the thing about a school community that is 100% of one denomination. It doesn't mean the entire local population is of one denomination. It means the minority population in that area are forced to conform, or send their kids to boarding schools if they have the money, or home-school/no-school them if they don't have the money.

Look, I agree. But if, in fact, the local community is substantially of one denomination (or ethnicity, or language, or any cultural marker) then you have to find a way to negotiate this. You can’t magically wave a wand and make the community homogenous for the convenience of the Department of Education.

The Stanley model looks attractive to our eyes, but it failed to work, largely because the people for whom it was intended - Catholic and Protestant - didn’t buy into it. The model that emerged instead was one of denominational schools (which suited the majority of both Catholics and Protestants) with some protected rights for people who couldn’t access a school of the “right” denomination.

That worked in the nineteenth century, or at least it worked sufficiently to make the system of national education viable and effective. But it’s not working now.

recedite wrote: »

2. Even if every single local family had genuinely been a devout devotee of just one religion, the Stanley type school was still suitable for them with its religious instruction on a separate day. While also being suitable for any other family that might wish to move into the area subsequently.

You, two hundred years later, may think it was suitable for them, but what matters is whether they, at the time, thought it was. And the evidence points to their mostly not thinking so.

recedite wrote: »

I think you would have to delve into the records of each individual national school to find this out, looking for the exact meeting at which a row broke out among the BOM/committee managing the school. I suspect in most cases you would find that the majority or controlling religion had stepped too far in imposing its version of indoctrination outside the allotted time on a separate day, and the representative of the minority religion then withdrew in protest.
So this amounts to a failure by the British govt. to regulate and govern the system. Perhaps they made the decision, "well if the people want segregated education, let them have it". But whatever the reasons, the results of that failure to develop the multidenominational education system were probably catastrophic to the future welfare of the whole island.

It would be a fascinating exercise, but I doubt the individual school records survive. All we can do is speculate.

But, for what it’s worth, my speculations are quite different from yours. My speculation is that the majority and minority religious representatives were both quite happy to see the schools denominationalised. Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants all favoured denominational schools, and if the one school in a district became characteristically Catholic (or Protestant), well, that increased the political case for the establishment of a second school. And if there were already two or more schools within reach of one another, everything was ready for a neat denominational carve-up with the tacit or explicit agreement of the clergymen concerned.

As for whether this was “catastrophic to the future welfare of the whole island”, that’s another historical what-if. In general cultural minorities do badly under a homogenised system, for obvious reasons, so I don’t think we can assume that this would have increased the security and sense of well-being of the Protestant minority, and made them less likely to oppose the dominant nationalism.

On edit: I think my views on this general question are coloured by the fact that the proposed multidenominational model never really took off; we didn't have a multidenominational system which later became demoninational; we had a proposed multidenominational system which developed, almost from the outset, as a denominational system. Within the first 20 years the system was 96% denominational, and that points to most schools in the system never having been anything other than denominational schools. That's a pretty comprehensive rout of a multidenominational model which enjoyed official support.

You can account for this by a sinister conspiracy theory in which small but powerful elites get their way in the teeth of popular will and popular interest, but in general I am sceptical of conspiracy theories and prefer theories pointing to organic development. I suggest that the system developing the way it did, despite the intentions of the founders, points to the founders' intentions in this regard having been unrealistic, and not taking sufficient account of the environment in which the schools were to operate. Do we know of any case at all where a majority of parents chose a multidenominational school over denominational alternatives? Even today, we observe the demand for multidemoninational education, while significant, is still a minority demand; my assumption is that that would have been a much smaller minority two hundred years ago.

So, basically, I think the national schools evolved as denominational schools because denominational schools were better adapted to survive and thrive in the social and cultural environment of the time. Educational Darwinism?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The notion that it was the business of government to provide free education to the children of the labouring classes would have seemed like dangerous chartist nonsense to many. They didn't do that in England; why on earth would they even consider doing it in Ireland?

The Irish labouring and officer classes had recently been of critical importance in the army and navy, resulting in the British defeating Napoleon, and therefore getting the opportunity to expand the empire all over the globe. Dublin born Wellington was a proponent of catholic emancipation, largely for strategic reasons. A large empire needs a strong and unified core, without pointless infighting.

Also, in the USA elementary schools were starting to be funded with local taxes, so public schools were not unheard of.
It would have been wise for the British govt. to at least subsidise education for the people, in the interests of harmony.

Even today N.Ireland and Scotland are often accused of benefiting disproportionately from the British exchequer, but Westminster is willing to pay up to maintain the union. Because the smaller the UK gets, the weaker and less influential it gets.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They didn't want the new schools to be seen as government schools, and the choice of the name "national school" was intended to emphasise that these were schools not only provided to, but provided by, the entire community, not just the Dublin Castle administration. So even if the political will had been there to pay for a countrywide system of free government schools, that wasn't what they wanted.

Not sure about that. There would be some political capital to be made, as already described. Also the term "national" may not have had the same meaning we might assume.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Prior to the Ne Temere decree, which didn’t come in until 1908 and so is outside the period we are looking at here, I believe the convention was that boys were raised in their father’s tradition and girls in their mother’s. This, of course, required them to go to separate schools,

Chicken and egg situation? Without such a rigidly segregated society, the siblings need not have been assigned to different religions, and could have attended multidenominational schools.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for whether this was “catastrophic to the future welfare of the whole island”, that’s another historical what-if. In general cultural minorities do badly under a homogenised system, for obvious reasons, so I don’t think we can assume that this would have increased the security and sense of well-being of the Protestant minority, and made them less likely to oppose the dominant nationalism.

I think segregation of children into opposing groups leads to a mindset whereby they never really understand each other, and never learn to compromise. Its not surprising then that we ended up with a segregated country, depending on which group held the majority. Just like in the schools, where the majority called the shots and the minority just had to look elsewhere.
I was thinking that possibly, in an alternative history, less segregated and less confrontational, a 32 county Ireland might have ended up in a similar constitutional position to Australia or Canada relative to the UK. But that is all in the realm of what-ifs. Certainly a lot of suffering and death would have been avoided in that scenario.
And within the modern EU its all much the same anyway, in terms of sovereignty being compromised.

The Randy Riverbeast

robindch wrote: »

And the dead arose and fulminated that the state has no right to impose a "one size fits all" educational model:

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=4039

Isn't a one size fits all educational model what we mostly have now? I'm assuming a catholic ethos involves teaching morality according to catholic teachings. As we have seen over the past few decades there is a sizeable group of people who go against these values, enough to have a majority in a referendum.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The Irish labouring and officer classes had recently been of critical importance in the army and navy, <...> the smaller the UK gets, the weaker and less influential it gets.

That sounds like an argument for why the government of the time could or should have made it it's business to provide free education to the children of the labouring classes by putting a multi-denominational primary school in every town. But it doesn't support any claim that it did? Especially since they manifestly didn't put a state funded multi-denominational primary school in every town; they relied on the patronage model.

recedite wrote: »

Not sure about that. There would be some political capital to be made, as already described.

There obviously wasn't sufficient political capital for anyone to actually capitalise on it though? Or at least, there has been no evidence presented that anyone did make (any substantial) political capital on it?

recedite wrote: »

Chicken and egg situation? Without such a rigidly segregated society, the siblings need not have been assigned to different religions, and could have attended multidenominational schools.

You can't really revise history so readily though; the fact is society was the way it was. People could have made different choices, but they didn't. Their choices were informed by a different perspective from the one you bring; arguing that the entire education system could have been different if 19th Century Catholics had thought like 21st Century atheists seems kind of silly? Of course it could, but it wasn't.

recedite wrote: »

I think segregation of children into opposing groups leads to a mindset whereby they never really understand each other, and never learn to compromise. Its not surprising then that we ended up with a segregated country, depending on which group held the majority. Just like in the schools, where the majority called the shots and the minority just had to look elsewhere.

I think segregating people into opposing groups is likely to lead to adversariality in most circumstances, though we ought to be mindful that simply separating people into groups, or even allowing people to choose the groups they participate in, may not be the same thing at all.

robindch

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Isn't a one size fits all educational model what we mostly have now?

Broadly speaking, yes.

David Quinn doesn't do irony very well.

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

Broadly speaking, yes.

David Quinn doesn't do irony very well.

Or maybe it's OK when that "one size" which "fits all" is Catholicism and something something "might makes right".