How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

looksee

We have at least two threads discussing whether schools should be secular or have a religious ethos.

Since this is A&A can we discuss how equality in education (ie secular schooling) can be achieved, without going off on the side track of whether it should happen?

One obvious line to follow is to bring it up at the door in the upcoming election. Even if only a few do it, the subject will be brought to some sort of forefront in the political debate. And I think this is a very good time to do it.

I don't particularly want to identify with Atheist Ireland - this is not an entirely atheist argument; are there any other groups that have a rational, reasonable approach to this whole issue?

Michael Nugent

looksee wrote: »

I don't particularly want to identify with Atheist Ireland - this is not an entirely atheist argument; are there any other groups that have a rational, reasonable approach to this whole issue?

You don't have to identify with Atheist Ireland to support our Schools Equality PACT. It is framed so that you can support it regardless of your religious or nonreligious beliefs. It is based on years of research and lobbying and gradually identifying what needs to be done to bring about a secular inclusive education system.

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 We ask the Government to respect democracy, and stop closing down debate with an unpublished, untested legal opinion.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 recent Section 37 Amendment Bill protects Catholic LGBT teachers, but reinforces discrimination against atheist and minority faith teachers. Please amend Section 37 to prevent all religious discrimination against teachers.

recedite

I do agree 100% with Michael, and he has put all the answers there in a very rational way.

Nevertheless there is a significant section of society out there who are not rational, and will see the word "atheist" and refuse to look any further. They will simply think that the atheists want to take over the schools so that they can tell the kids that there is no such thing as "God".

And there are all the disenfranchised minority religions; Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, spiritualists etc who might not like the word "atheist".

Also there seems to be at least two other campaign groups that have appeared within the last 12 months to promote secular schools, plus one group that actually tried to get control of the patronage of a new primary school down in Cork.

So I think a single umbrella group is the best way of going about it. And I don't think any other members of such a group would object to AI contributing their experience and expertise to such a group.

Also if court action is required, it would help considerably to channel all expertise and funds into one single fund.

Oh well, the self-appointed spokesman for the country's non-believers has spoken.

Time for the rest of us to **** off and not have an opinion.

/thread

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Nevertheless there is a significant section of society out there who are not rational, and will see the word "atheist" and refuse to look any further. They will simply think that the atheists want to take over the schools so that they can tell the kids that there is no such thing as "God".

There will be a significant section of society out there who don't see what's wrong with their religion having a presence in their local schools. They sent their kids to a school in the expectation that the school would behave in a particular way, and if someone comes along and tells them their kids have to do things differently to the way they expected then they will be put out by that. They will be disrupted and they will be worried that their kids will be disrupted.

Moreover, many of the people who will be worried will be "soft" believers, and will be the kind of people you should be able to talk round to what is after all a more fair way of doing things.

But - and this is a big but - you will not achieve that by telling them that they are wrong and that their choices are wrong. If you try to do that then you will get their backs up.

recedite wrote: »

And there are all the disenfranchised minority religions; Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, spiritualists etc who might not like the word "atheist".

What about the C of I? It's one thing for atheists to bang on about shoving Catholics out of the way in schools. It's quite another when you select a minority religion as your target and go after them.

recedite wrote: »

So I think a single umbrella group is the best way of going about it. And I don't think any other members of such a group would object to AI contributing their experience and expertise to such a group.

With what objective? I think this is part of the purpose of the OP - to get beyond saying what you want and start saying some specifics about how to go about it.

recedite wrote: »

Also if court action is required, it would help considerably to channel all expertise and funds into one single fund.

Presumably the purpose of court action would be to achieve what you are unlikely to achieve by discussion with parents. In other words, if telling parents that they are wrong and their choices are wrong doesn't work - and, as I pointed out above, it probably won't - then the plan would be to use the courts to get someone else to declare them wrong.

Have I got that right?

Some naive folk might see us as being on some path of inevitable progress to an enlightened future where we have removed a dominant ethos and created a public space in which multiple perspectives can co-exist. I don't see it that way. All we're likely to do in Ireland is replace one dominant ethos with another. The fundamentalists who believe in that dominant ethos (whatever it turns out to be) will probably think it's all fine. But it will just be another oppressive pile of ****e for those who aren't "fundis".

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh well, the self-appointed spokesman for the country's non-believers has spoken. Time for the rest of us to **** off and not have an opinion.

Instead of moaning about not expressing an opinion, would you like to take a few seconds to express one?

I think.it would be no harm to focus on the upcoming census and try to raise a debate about how the questions around religious belief and practice are phrased, seeing as the results are used to justify a lot of the current situation at higher level

Samaris

It's going to happen eventually. Catholic ethos schools have gone from having a majority of nuns or Christian Brothers as teachers to only having one or so on the staff, usually the principal. Apart from everything else, the various religious orders that patronise those schools are starting to get too small to have as much impact as they did.

The State should be working out how to transfer education to itself rather than religious orders by now, it's going to become necessary eventually.

The Randy Riverbeast

A start would be not discriminating against children who's parents haven't signed them up to the right religion. an ethos would only need to be protected if the majority don't want it.

looksee

With what objective? I think this is part of the purpose of the OP - to get beyond saying what you want and start saying some specifics about how to go about it.

Quite right, though rather than you 'thinking' that this is 'part' of the purpose, it is exactly what I am trying to do. We can argue round in circles about religion for ever and make no impression; I have here already found an organisation doing exactly what I would like to see happen.

I don't think this is an atheism argument, it isn't even about religion, Rome is about power and politics; as I said in another thread, it is more to do with the 'clean air' of a secular education system. This is not something we can do at ground level, beyond express our opinion, it will need a confident government that is willing to take the future of the state back to Ireland instead of Rome. People gripe about Germany running our affairs, but Rome has much more say in the way we operate than Brussels or Berlin.

If expressing our opinion is all that we can do, then that opinion must be expressed.

RainyDay

Deleted User wrote: »

What about the C of I? It's one thing for atheists to bang on about shoving Catholics out of the way in schools. It's quite another when you select a minority religion as your target and go after them.

Indeed, you can expect very vocal protests from that particular quarter if/when you try to cut the state subsidy to support COI students in fee-paying schools.

Samaris wrote: »

It's going to happen eventually. Catholic ethos schools have gone from having a majority of nuns or Christian Brothers as teachers to only having one or so on the staff, usually the principal. Apart from everything else, the various religious orders that patronise those schools are starting to get too small to have as much impact as they did.

The State should be working out how to transfer education to itself rather than religious orders by now, it's going to become necessary eventually.

You're right, but the real problem is that the State (or more specifically, the officials in Dept Education) are doing everything they can to discourage secular education. Funding for new schools (which effectively means funding for Educate Together) has been cut. New community schools under ETBs are done in partnership with the local bishop. There is no explicit policy for secular education.


The PACT approach is sensible, but the question how could this be achieved. There is no political party with an explicit policy of secular education, so it won't be achieved in the next term of Govt. Maybe we need to build a policy consensus over the next term? It will almost certainly require a constitutional amendment.

JRant

looksee wrote: »

Quite right, though rather than you 'thinking' that this is 'part' of the purpose, it is exactly what I am trying to do. We can argue round in circles about religion for ever and make no impression; I have here already found an organisation doing exactly what I would like to see happen.

I don't think this is an atheism argument, it isn't even about religion, Rome is about power and politics; as I said in another thread, it is more to do with the 'clean air' of a secular education system. This is not something we can do at ground level, beyond express our opinion, it will need a confident government that is willing to take the future of the state back to Ireland instead of Rome. People gripe about Germany running our affairs, but Rome has much more say in the way we operate than Brussels or Berlin.

If expressing our opinion is all that we can do, then that opinion must be expressed.

Quite right.

IMO it's a closed system at the moment. People with little to no religious belief get their kids christened so they can attend the best local schools. RC ethos schools insist on a baptismal cert to ensure people keep going back to the church. Thereby artifically inflating the numbers.

Take away this and the RC church would find its numbers falling off a cliff in a very short period of time.

The amount of pressure we've had to baptise our 14 month old is quite shocking and the number 1 arguement used is around schooling.

I've expressed support for an educate together school planned for my area. I know lots of other parents who've also expressed an interest but have hedged their bets and got their children baptised to make sure they can attend the local schools, just in case.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Instead of moaning about not expressing an opinion, would you like to take a few seconds to express one?

I did, in the post above yours. Instead of moaning about other people not posting an opinion, would you like to take a few seconds to pay attention to the posts on the thread?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Quite right, though rather than you 'thinking' that this is 'part' of the purpose, it is exactly what I am trying to do. We can argue round in circles about religion for ever and make no impression; I have here already found an organisation doing exactly what I would like to see happen.

I don't think this is an atheism argument, it isn't even about religion, Rome is about power and politics; as I said in another thread, it is more to do with the 'clean air' of a secular education system. This is not something we can do at ground level, beyond express our opinion, it will need a confident government that is willing to take the future of the state back to Ireland instead of Rome. People gripe about Germany running our affairs, but Rome has much more say in the way we operate than Brussels or Berlin.

If expressing our opinion is all that we can do, then that opinion must be expressed.

Quite. But how does attacking the choices already made by Catholic and Protestant parents help?

Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

Indeed, you can expect very vocal protests from that particular quarter if/when you try to cut the state subsidy to support COI students in fee-paying schools.

The vexed question of which direction the subsidy actually travels between the State and fee paying schools is probably a debate for another thread (maybe even another forum). I was thinking more about the C of I primary schools - there are a couple of hundred of those and they don't charge money. Are you planning to force your solution on members of that faith as well as on Catholics?

looksee has made it clear that Catholics are the real target here, but the question I'm asking is whether Protestants are to be left alone or are they to be mopped up in the solution as well. Given Ireland's history, it's a valid question to be asking.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite. But how does attacking the choices already made by Catholic and Protestant parents help?

Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?

What would actually happen if the religious influence was removed that would produce that result?

Edit, though this is going back to the 'should we' rather than 'how can we' of this thread

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite. But how does attacking the choices already made by Catholic and Protestant parents help?

Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?

what I find amusing about this is that like in the US the gun supporters think they are free because they have guns when in fact they live under the same system everyone else does, catholics think they are preserving the independence of education when in effect everything is regulated by the state from exams down to the curriculum. We already have a system which is suffering from dumbing down and catholic schools have not been a bulwark against this

Huntergonzo

Couple of questions (I know some of the answers but let's pretend I don't just to be clear and incase I'm presuming something wrong):

1. Exactly what percentage of publicly funded primary schools are under the patronage of the RCC?

2. What percentage does the church pay towards the running of these schools? (I know they're state funded but surely the church contributes to some extent).

3. What legal rights does the church have to these schools, ie do they actually own all the grounds and buildings? and/or does the constitution endorse them specifically?

4. If the state wanted to take control of these schools to provide secular education could they legally do so? or could the state legally pull all funding and force the church to fund the schools? (therefore making them private schools).

PopePalpatine

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quite. But how does attacking the choices already made by Catholic and Protestant parents help?

Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?

Many western countries get on just fine with a secular public schools system, no need to fear any "dumbing down" just because precious religious privileges are chipped away.

Honestly, I'd consider emigrating rather than put up with this majoritarian discriminatory bullshit when it comes to the hassle of finding a school for my potential children.

looksee

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Couple of questions (I know some of the answers but let's pretend I don't just to be clear and incase I'm presuming something wrong):

1. Exactly what percentage of publicly funded primary schools are under the patronage of the RCC?

2. What percentage does the church pay towards the running of these schools? (I know they're state funded but surely the church contributes to some extent).

3. What legal rights does the church have to these schools, ie do they actually own all the grounds and buildings? and/or does the constitution endorse them specifically?

4. If the state wanted to take control of these schools to provide secular education could they legally do so? or could the state legally pull all funding and force the church to fund the schools? (therefore making them private schools).

https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Events/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector/The-Forum-on-Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector-Report-of-the-Forums-Advisory-Group.pdf

From the above: (p29)
89.65% Catholic
5.49% C of I
All the rest bring total to 100%

We are not aware that the Church as an institution pays anything towards these schools, though they do own some grounds and buildings.

The vast majority were state built (pre independence) (National schools) and have been rebuilt/updated/extended by the state since.

I have asked the Minister's office when and how these schools were taken over by the church(es), I did not receive a reply though my question was acknowledged. It seems to be accepted that in giving patronage to the (mostly) RC church they became not only patrons but de facto owners of the schools even though any development has been done by the state.

Probably in theory they could take them over, but the influence of the church will have to be considerably diluted before this actually happens.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Quite. But how does attacking the choices already made by Catholic and Protestant parents help?

Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?

The State already runs everything, from paying teachers to setting the curriculum. What we need to do is remove religion from all State subsidised schools. This would free up a lot of class time. Time that could be better spent on literacy and mathematics. Thereby, we might actually see improved student performances in core subjects, not makey uppey stuff.

I firmly believe the only way to do this is force schools to remove the BS "ethos" excuses they use to discriminate against young children. Not allowing a child attend a school because they haven't joined a religious club is absurd. The child has no ability to make such an informed decision. Who knows, maybe when they get older they might decide for themselves that religion is for them but punishing a 5 year old for not being "in the club" is outrageous.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

What would actually happen if the religious influence was removed that would produce that result?

Samaris went further than that, and said that the State should be working to transfer education to itself.

looksee wrote: »

Edit, though this is going back to the 'should we' rather than 'how can we' of this thread

Hopefully that doesn't happen.

The trouble with life is that theory often falls apart when we try to put it into practice.

I'd prefer to see schools not discriminate against pupils based on their faith system. I'd also prefer to see a lot more non-religious schools in the system, particularly in those places that don't have them now.

That's all fine and dandy, but how we go about doing something is more important than what it is we want to do. And if the way we choose to implement our vision means attacking the choices that Catholics have already made, or sacrificing Protestants on the altar of anti-Catholicism, or turning our schools over to become statist bodies, with all of the lowest common denominator practices implied by that, then we need to re-think.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

We already have a system which is suffering from dumbing down.....

I doubt you have set foot inside a primary school in years with a statement like that.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Many western countries get on just fine with a secular public schools system, no need to fear any "dumbing down" just because precious religious privileges are chipped away.

Hi, can you read my post again and then respond to what I posted? One of the advantages of the Irish education system, IMO, is that it has a large measure of private ownership. It is hardly beyond the wit of people to have schools that are non-religious in nature without the need to hand schools over to the politicians and the bureaucrats.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Honestly, I'd consider emigrating rather than put up with this majoritarian discriminatory bullshit when it comes to the hassle of finding a school for my potential children.

Ah, potential children. I wonder how many other "potential parents" are in this debate looking to meddle in the business of real schools providing a real service to the real children of real parents? Just a thought.

xband

You just have to keep telling politicians that this is one of the things that will decide your vote now and in the future and actually voting on it.

We also need to keep talking about it and highlighting it to the non-Irish media as the Irish media doesn't notice as its suffering from Stockholm Syndrome much like the rest of the country.

JRant

JRant wrote: »

[deleted]

The OP was looking for a discussion about how, not whether, this should be done. We're all agreed that it should be done. My point (with any luck for the last time) is that statism is not a good thing. Educate Together is not a state organisation, and it is now the patron of about 80 schools. It could be a patron of a lot more, given the chance. What would be wrong with that?

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

I doubt you have set foot inside a primary school in years with a statement like that.

i have kids in primary and I have spoken to secondary teachers about subjects like Maths, this subject in particular has been dumbed down

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Samaris went further than that, and said that the State should be working to transfer education to itself.

, or turning our schools over to become statist bodies, with all of the lowest common denominator practices implied by that, then we need to re-think.

You are saying confidently that removing the religious from the patronage of schools will result in schools with poorer education and results.

I am asking how you come to that conclusion. The state currently supervises the curriculum and does inspections. What exactly, other than insisting on using school hours to do church work, and controlling both admissions policies and staff (though not paying them) does the church contribute to the academic or any other aspect of the school?

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

Samaris went further than that, and said that the State should be working to transfer education to itself.

I did, yes. At the moment, we have a system that is paid for by the State overall, it seems from looksee's post, yet a non-national foreign organisation has an obscene amount of control in and it is just plain unnecessary.

We are also unique in having such a school system. Most European countries have managed to have their schools state-run without ending up with a gulag, or whatever the communist argument was.

I do believe that the State should take full responsibility for the education of its own children in a secular manner. The State and Church should be separate, they should not be influencing each other. And at the moment, the Church is having a strong influence on the state while the State abrogates its responsibilities for one of the most important sectors - the education of the next generation of the nation.

Religion should be taught at home, at church, at Sunday School (hell, I went to a Sunday School for a bit) and in a personal and by-choice manner. It should -not- be pushed onto children who have to be in these schools.

Edit to the previous edit - I have no issue with private schools, be they run by secular organisations or religious. But there should be a norm of schooling provided without indoctrination by the state, just as other countries seem to manage.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

You are saying confidently that removing the religious from the patronage of schools will result in schools with poorer education and results.

I have said no such thing, confidently or otherwise.

What is it? Are people so desperate to feel like victims that they have to misread what other people say to find something to get upset about?

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite. But how does attacking the choices already made by Catholic and Protestant parents help?

Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?

Deleted User wrote: »

.

Catholics have already made, or sacrificing Protestants on the altar of anti-Catholicism, or turning our schools over to become statist bodies, with all of the lowest common denominator practices implied by that, then we need to re-think.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have said no such thing, confidently or otherwise.

It was rather implied :P

And these are not really decisions that "Catholics" have made. It was an agreement between the new State and the Catholic Church to allow them to continue taking responsibility for the teaching of the new State's children. It may have seemed a godsend (no pun intended) for the people trying to work out how the hell to actually -run- a newly independent State, but in the long run, it's lead to some issues.

This isn't about smacking the Catholics or even about destroying religion. It's about separating religious instruction in a multi-cultural society from secular education that all children must go through by law. Religion just doesn't need to be taught along with maths, languages, sciences and the rest. It should not be taught by law (as in, children -must- go to school. They should have a choice as to whether to attend religious instruction, and this should be kept separate from normal schooling).

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The OP was looking for a discussion about how, not whether, this should be done. We're all agreed that it should be done. My point (with any luck for the last time) is that statism is not a good thing. Educate Together is not a state organisation, and it is now the patron of about 80 schools. It could be a patron of a lot more, given the chance. What would be wrong with that?

There is a very easy solition then. The Government needs to remove the ability of schools to legally discriminate against children.

I'm not arguing for a "statists" anything but the State and only the State has the ability to rectify the issues with the legislation.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

I did, yes.

Leaving aside the fact that your position is wrong-headed and ignores a fundamental strength in Ireland's education system, this means that as well as telling Catholics (and Protestants, let's not forget them) that their choices were wrong, and as well as forcing them to change to something they don't want, you also want to hand the system over to the politicians and the bureaucrats.

Good for you, but let's not impose such a one size fits all vision on everyone, eh?

As an aside, why do you want Educate Together out of the school system?

Samaris wrote: »

We are also unique in having such a school system.

England and Wales have been trying to emulate it since the days of the Blair government, and it would seem with increasing success. Even Educate Together - who you want to boot out of the Irish education system - have taken advantage of government policy in that regard:

https://www.educatetogether.ie/redfield

http://www.redfieldet.org.uk/

Samaris wrote: »

I do believe..... [rest deleted]

Why are you telling me all this? We get it - the OP wanted to open a discussion about the how, not the what.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

It was rather implied :P

No it wasn't. Some lefties believe that atheism, socialism and all of that ****e are one and the same thing. They aren't.

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

My point (with any luck for the last time) is that statism is not a good thing. Educate Together is not a state organisation, and it is now the patron of about 80 schools. It could be a patron of a lot more, given the chance. What would be wrong with that?

I can give a couple of reasons. While a state monopoly may not be good for some things, it is for others.
If you encourage ET as just another choice of "ethos", it postpones the day when the state stops funding the religious schools. It also means more varieties of schools have to co-exist, and more segregation within society.
Have a read of this.

In many northern European countries parents have no choice but to send their child to the primary school which is allocated to them, ie the nearest school.
Now you're probably going to think OMG statism, no choice... that's terrible.
But here are the advantages;
1.No segregation of kids along religious or race lines. Just kids going to school with their neighbours.
2. Resources can be used to provide better facilities in fewer schools, instead of being divided up and duplicated among various schools of competing "ethos".
3. Less travel for kids and parents, less traffic for everyone else.
Most could walk or cycle to school. In rural areas one bus picks up and takes them all to one school, so the route is simple and cheap. Similar to the US style school bus pick-up that we all know from the movies.

The state already controls most of the curriculum, the hours, the number of holidays, the teachers pay and conditions, maintenance grants etc.. so the question is, what benefit, if any, is there in inserting an extra layer of management known as "the patron". A patron by any logical definition is a paymaster, and the state already fulfills that role.

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that your position is wrong-headed and ignores a fundamental strength in Ireland's education system

This fundamental strength is spending 7% of teaching time on religion (or colouring) and being able to tell the non-believers to go out of their school cachement area if they want to be educated? That fundamental strength?

, this means that as well as telling Catholics (and Protestants, let's not forget them) that their choices were wrong, and as well as forcing them to change to something they don't want, you also want to hand the system over to the politicians and the bureaucrats.[/quote[

See previous about "choice", I think you've got a bit of a strawman there. Catholics (and Protestants, let's not forget about them), didn't all stand up en masse (in Mass?) and shout "WE SHALL HAVE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS EDUCATION OR DEATH", it was just the way things went after the formation of the new State.

Good for you, but let's not impose such a one size fits all vision on everyone, eh?

As opposed to the one there already, aighto.

As an aside, why do you want Educate Together out of the school system?

When did I say that? I think it's a perfectly reasonable initiative, it just shouldn't be necessary.

England and Wales have been trying to emulate it since the days of the Blair government, and it would seem with increasing success. Even Educate Together - who you want to boot out of the Irish education system - have taken advantage of government policy in that regard:

https://www.educatetogether.ie/redfield

http://www.redfieldet.org.uk/

Er...emulate what? Educate Together? Odd, doesn't that rather suggest that parents are leaning towards wanting secular or non-specific-religion education?

And again, why do I want to boot out Educate Together? Where are you actually getting this stuff?

Why are you telling me all this? We get it - the OP wanted to open a discussion about the how, not the what.

Er...I have no idea what you're talking about from such a short clip of quote.

Deleted User wrote: »

No it wasn't. Some lefties believe that atheism, socialism and all of that ****e are one and the same thing. They aren't.

Er, the only person talking about "statist", "lowest common denominator" and something about communism was you.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

I can give a couple of reasons.

I'll take it that you're joining Samaris (and one or two others at least) in seeking to kick Educate Together out of the schools. Fair enough, at least the debate is flushing out the more Stalinist thinkers about the place, and that's no harm.

recedite wrote: »

2. Resources can be used to provide better facilities in fewer schools, instead of being divided up and duplicated among various schools of competing "ethos".

Does this mean you are also in favour of closing small rural schools and replacing them with bigger centralised schools with more "efficient allocation of resources"?

recedite wrote: »

Similar to the US style school bus pick-up that we all know from the movies.

This isn't the movies, it's real life. While we might end up with cool-looking movie-style school buses, I'm not sure we really want to mimic the poor performance of the American school system. In any case, how do you think parents will respond when others - many of whom don't even know what it's like to have children in school - start laying down the law about how things are to be done, while also closing down small local schools? How popular will that be?

If anyone thinks for one minute that they're going to persuade ordinary people to adopt that amount of radical change at one go then they are deluding themselves.

Back to raising money for court cases, methinks.

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll take it that you're joining Samaris (and one or two others at least) in seeking to kick Educate Together out of the schools. Fair enough, at least the debate is flushing out the more Stalinist thinkers about the place, and that's no harm.

Aha, there you are! While you're calling me a Stalinist there, could you please back up your entirely nonsensical assertation that I want to "kick Educate Together" out of anything?

I am talking about the issue in this country where far too much education time is given to religion in state-funded schools because the historical situation has lead to a secular state having an almost entirely religious-ethos based schooling system.

I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about, at least not in relation to my posts.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

I'll take it that you're joining Samaris (and one or two others at least) in seeking to kick Educate Together out of the schools. Fair enough, at least the debate is flushing out the more Stalinist thinkers about the place, and that's no harm.

Does this mean you are also in favour of closing small rural schools and replacing them with bigger centralised schools with more "efficient allocation of resources"?

This isn't the movies, it's real life. While we might end up with cool-looking movie-style school buses, I'm not sure we really want to mimic the poor performance of the American school system. In any case, how do you think parents will respond when others - many of whom don't even know what it's like to have children in school - start laying down the law about how things are to be done, while also closing down small local schools? How popular will that be?

If anyone thinks for one minute that they're going to persuade ordinary people to adopt that amount of radical change at one go then they are deluding themselves.

Back to raising money for court cases, methinks.

Ah, hang on I think I see what Ulysses is getting at. He has a problem with getting rid of Patrons. Not Catholic Patrons, but patrons of some sort. Like for example Educate Together type patrons. Lets have the whole system as Educate Together because a patron will make a huge difference to a school because...what?

What difference will having a patron make to a school? That is what I was asking before but I didn't realise that I had to leave Educate Together patrons in place.

Ok, so tell us what difference does a patron make, of any ilk? How will the removal of a patron suddenly cause the lowest common denominator stalinist/socialist or whatever it was type school emerge?

PopePalpatine

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'll take it that you're joining Samaris (and one or two others at least) in seeking to kick Educate Together out of the schools. Fair enough, at least the debate is flushing out the more Stalinist thinkers about the place, and that's no harm.

If I'm a Stalinist just for wanting secular schools, does that make you a Francoist?

looksee

I have just seen the bit about small local schools being closed. That is a ridiculous reaction. Who mentioned closing smaller schools? However did you come to that conclusion?

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

When did I say that?

When you said that the state should take over the schools.

Samaris wrote: »

Er...emulate what?

Since 2000, it has been open to schools in England to take their funding directly from central government and opt out of control by local education authorities. Under the Blair and Brown governments, about 200 schools became academies, but since the 2010 election that number has grown to about 4,000. Most academies, though not all, are secondary schools. As it happens the Welsh Assembly has prevented the same thing from happening in Wales.

Samaris wrote: »

Educate Together? Odd, doesn't that rather suggest that parents are leaning towards wanting secular or non-specific-religion education?

Not really. Parents in England seem to be seeking more choice in local schooling, and are looking to move away from the one size fits all local government approach. Educate Together have capitalised on that by opening a school in Bristol specialising in its vision of multi-denominational education.

Samaris wrote: »

And again, why do I want to boot out Educate Together? Where are you actually getting this stuff?

Same answer as before - when you said that the state should take over the schools.

Samaris wrote: »

Er...I have no idea what you're talking about from such a short clip of quote.

You were going on about why religion should have no place in schools and how schools should be secular. Repeating that doesn't really add to a debate about how the school system should be secularised.

Samaris wrote: »

Er, the only person talking about "statist", "lowest common denominator" and something about communism was you.

Here's a suggestion. You stop suggesting that the state should take over all the schools, and I'll stop responding to that.

Samaris

Okay, for the last time, I have no beef with Educate Together.

I have a beef with the largest portion of state-funded and overseen schools in this country having a deeply Catholic ethos and what I consider to be indoctrination of children in time that they should be learning how to read, write, interact with the world and learn about science, history and the rest.

Religious education should be private. It should not be funded by the state to be inflicted on children of any religion or none. Religious indoctrination should have no place in schools.

Do you get where I'm coming from now?

Also, I'm not particularly Stalinist, despite your accusations. I'm probably reasonably socialist, but this is just my position on this specific issue without any need for political labelling.


Edit:
Okay, seen your post now.

Right, I see where you're coming from, although I think you took a very narrow view of it. I am talking about state-funded schools. I have no issues with private schooling or patronage. But I dislike that the patron can indoctrinate children to their personal political or religious beliefs, while being State supported, which is the problem with Catholic schooling system today.

Also and unrelated, there's a group of people singing Cows With Guns outside my window. I think I might have to go find out what the hell is going on.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

could you please back up your entirely nonsensical assertation that I want to "kick Educate Together" out of anything?

If you withdraw your point about wanting the state to hand over schools to itself, I'll withdraw my point about you wanting to kick Educate Together out of the schools.

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

Okay, for the last time, I have no beef with Educate Together.

I have a beef with the largest portion of state-funded and overseen schools in this country having a deeply Catholic ethos...

So......



....what about those C of I schools? Any beef with them?

looksee

I think it would help the discussion if Ulysses told us what his interest in Educate Together is. Committee member? Chairperson?

ET would not exist or have to exist if the current Catholic patronage system were not controlling Irish primary education. And it still has not been explained how having a Patron improves the quality of a school that is already having its curriculum, quality and funding from the government. Citing the UK is pointless, there are less than 4 million of us, we have much more scattered population and we are discussing primary education.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

So......



....what about those C of I schools? Any beef with them?

All 5% of them?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Ah, hang on I think I see what Ulysses is getting at. He has a problem with getting rid of Patrons.

I don't have a problem with getting rid of patrons. I was merely responding to someone else's idea that the solution to the problem was to get rid of patrons.

For my part, I don't think that it is necessary for the state to take over everything in order to achieve increased (or even complete) secularisation of the school system. State ownership and secularisation are completely separate debates and issue - but it does show the somewhat muddled thinking you can encounter when people conflate the two.

RainyDay

Deleted User wrote: »

The vexed question of which direction the subsidy actually travels between the State and fee paying schools is probably a debate for another thread (maybe even another forum). I was thinking more about the C of I primary schools - there are a couple of hundred of those and they don't charge money. Are you planning to force your solution on members of that faith as well as on Catholics?

looksee has made it clear that Catholics are the real target here, but the question I'm asking is whether Protestants are to be left alone or are they to be mopped up in the solution as well. Given Ireland's history, it's a valid question to be asking.

On the subsidy question, I was referring particularly to the €4m-€5m subsidy given to Protestant families to support them to attend fee-paying schools. I'm not sure why this would be a 'vexed question' - it is an explicit subsidy.

But I do take your point that your question was about primary schools which, by and large, are not fee-paying. In general, the view of most who want secular education would apply to COI schools in the same way as it would apply to RC schools.

It is not about targeting or mopping up anyone - it is just about removing religion from publicly funded schools. If you want a religious education, you are welcome to pay for it from your own resources.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If I'm a Stalinist just for wanting secular schools, does that make you a Francoist?

Who said you're a Stalinist? People who want secular schools aren't Stalinists.

Jeezo, some people need to clear their heads.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Jeezo, some people need to clear their heads.

Indeed.