How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State doesn't directly fund the schools. It provides for education through the Patronage system. If the State stopped providing for education, there would simply be a lot of unemployed teachers, unless the State became their employer. You're right, that won't happen.

The State doesn't have full control at all in any respect as to how the Government spends revenue from tax income. There's plenty of things the Government throws money at that people are angry about, it's simply a matter of priorities for people, and removing the RCC from the Patronage system just isn't a priority for most people.

I thought the Louise O'Keeffe case showed that the state is the employer?

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

That was called a "local contribution" and has been done away with. However, in practice, both the parent's contribution and the local contribution are necessary to keep the school afloat. There was certainly no direct contribution from the diocese in our case, although the priest kindly read out the dates for voluntary work that I gave him, and let a collection box stand in the lobby.

Schools may call it something else but they still look for money from parents. I believe my old school now only gives locker keys to those students whose parents have paid the 'voluntary' contribution and regular reminders are sent home to those who don't pay it, along with suggested schemes of payments like €x per week/month and capping the payment based on siblings. If you ask the Department about anything to do with local policies or practices like this you'll get a pro forma letter that schools shouldn't do X or Y but such matters are a decision for the school and board of management.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

I thought the Louise O'Keeffe case showed that the state is the employer?

Did it?

I'm asking genuinely because as far as I'm aware, the Board of Management is the legal employer of the staff in the school.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State doesn't directly fund the schools.

What?! Ha ha. No.
There is no way you can twist reality to show that the Diocese pays for any of this. It's quite clear.

Running costs of schools

The State pays a direct capitation grant of €178 per student to each primary school. The State pays the teachers' salaries. Enhanced capitation grants are paid for children with special educational needs in special schools or who attend special classes in mainstream schools. Capitation grants are used for the day-to-day running of schools and for teaching materials and resources.

Primary schools also receive a grant for caretaking and secretarial services (called the Ancillary Services Grant Scheme) and this is €147 per student or €73.50 per student, depending on whether the school gets the full-rate or half-rate grant. A local contribution was formerly required but has now been abolished.

Each school also receives a book grant. This is €21 per pupil for DEIS schools and €11 per pupil for non- DEIS schools.

Each school gets a grant towards the cost of minor works.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

Schools may call it something else but they still look for money from parents. I believe my old school now only gives locker keys to those students whose parents have paid the 'voluntary' contribution and regular reminders are sent home to those who don't pay it, along with suggested schemes of payments like €x per week/month and capping the payment based on siblings. If you ask the Department about anything to do with local policies or practices like this you'll get a pro forma letter that schools shouldn't do X or Y but such matters are a decision for the school and board of management.

True. I've seen what the shortfall of funding looks like in a small rural school though, and it ain't pretty Our entire community know what it takes every year to keep it afloat, and we do volunteer. Of course the odd person won't, sometimes on principal, but I'd say nearly every school in the country is stuck between a rock and a hard place with having to "ask" for "voluntary" contributions.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

True. I've seen what the shortfall of funding looks like in a small rural school though, and it ain't pretty Our entire community know what it takes every year to keep it afloat, and we do volunteer. Of course the odd person won't, sometimes on principal, but I'd say nearly every school in the country is stuck between a rock and a hard place with having to "ask" for "voluntary" contributions.

I would find it very, very difficult to give money to a school controlled by a wealthy organistion like the catholic church. If this ends up being the type of school my children attend I'm not sure what I'll do. I would rather not give money to a school in order to maintain an ethos with which I do not agree and an asset over which the church claims ownership despite not having paid for it.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

I would find it very, very difficult to give money to a school controlled by a wealthy organistion like the catholic church. If this ends up being the type of school my children attend I'm not sure what I'll do. I would rather not give money to a school in order to maintain an ethos with which I do not agree and an asset over which the church claims ownership despite not having paid for it.

I know what you mean, but having sent my lads to the community NS (which happened to be RCC, surprise, surprise....), it was in practice a genuine community school and in practice only a school at all because the same community fully supports and needs it (and built the fecking thing in the first place!). It is ethos in name, in policy, on paper and bureaucracy (having to get the priest to say yes to stuff) and I also found that very hard to tolerate, especially when I was working so hard to save the place and mine was one of the few families the school couldn't help but actively discriminate against. Their hands were tied due to the patronage, and this contradiction was not lost on the community tbf. For me, it came down to helping save a school in a disadvantaged area that has been my home for 21 years.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

What?! Ha ha. No.
There is no way you can twist reality to show that the Diocese pays for any of this. It's quite clear.



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html

I didn't claim the Dioscese pays for any of that. It's not quite as clear as that article makes it out at all. What I said was that the State does not directly fund the schools. What I said was that the State provides for education through the Patronage system. I'm not twisting anything. Do you honestly think that wouldn't have been pointed out already if the State did directly fund the schools?

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't claim the Dioscese pays for any of that. It's not quite as clear as that article makes it out at all. What I said was that the State does not directly fund the schools. What I said was that the State provides for education through the Patronage system. I'm not twisting anything. Do you honestly think that wouldn't have been pointed out already if the State did directly fund the schools?

The State pays a direct capitation grant of €178 per student to each primary school. The State pays the teachers' salaries.

Are you suggesting that Citizen's Information have it wrong? Or that there is merely a more jesuitical way of looking at it?


Edit: Or maybe the teachers should be bringing their pay disputes to the diocese? Have I got that right? :rolleyes:

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

In most cases, the local community as a parish supplied the site and public funds paid for the school building. I have no idea how many schools this does not apply to, but I imagine that in cases where the school is connected with an adjoining convent or monastery, we can call those as having been paid for by the church (although if you go back far enough......that is also up for question).
In fairness to you, I'd also love to see a study done on all the school buildings in Ireland and who paid for them. Maybe there is one. I'll have a look later on. It is common knowledge in every parish I know however, that the community (as a parish, so you may or may not call that the diocese. I do not) donated the land and the State funded the building.

And in that case the Church (being the local community as a parish) owned the lands in the first place; and we have seen the various agreements where either the State or Churches paid for the buildings. You might want to argue that people giving money to their parish (which like it or not is part of a diocese) which spends it on land (or buildings) which it uses for a school means the people really own it, but they don't. The body that paid for it does; nobody is going to win an argument for the moral right of someone who gave their money away to own what was bought with it.
My point being firstly, that I think the State owns far more schools that people seem to think; just because the Churches have patronage of them doesn't mean they own them. Secondly, the idea that seems to floating around that the religious orders were gifted property by the State is ridiculous.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

The State pays a direct capitation grant of €178 per student to each primary school. The State pays the teachers' salaries.

Are you suggesting that Citizen's Information have it wrong? Or that there is merely a more jesuitical way of looking at it?


Edit: Or maybe the teachers should be bringing their pay disputes to the diocese? Have I got that right? :rolleyes:

Yes I'm suggesting that Citizen's Information have it wrong, and no, there isn't a more Jesuitical way of saying that. I don't understand why you're suggesting that teachers should bring their pay disputes to the diocese when they're paid by the DES.

Perhaps you should print out that Citizen's Information page and bring it to the attention of the Supreme Court, they don't seem to be aware of the legal loophole you've just found.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think you will find that a major problem that non religious/other religion parents have with religious schools is that religion 'infiltrates the school day'.

It might be; what i said there was no Constitutional reference to 'infiltration'.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Therefore it is near impossible to exercise our constitutional right to remove our children from religion. They can sit out the part where they do the 'Grow in Love' workbook, but religious indoctrination is not necessarily, and in some cases (Little Kiwis school included) not at all, confined to those sessions. I was told by one of my sons teachers that religion 'infiltrates' the curriculum when I enquired about our options.

But we don't have a Constitutional right to remove our children from religion? You quoted the provision yourself; ‘ Legislation providing State aid shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denomination, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.’. The Supreme Court has already found that the Constitution does not protect a child from being influenced, to some degree, by the religious ethos of the school, as well as that a religious denomination is not obliged to change the general atmosphere of its school merely to accommodate a child of a different religious persuasion who wishes to attend that school. Which in short means a childs right not to attend religious instruction does not extend to a right not to be influenced (or even have their curriculum 'infiltrated') by religion.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Edit; Actually now I think about it 'infiltrate' was not the exact word that the teacher used on that occasion, it was 'permeate'. Religion permeates the school day. Infiltrate however is a synonym for permeate, since we seem to be focusing the discussion on the usage of words.

There's no protection from permeation in the Constitution either, though I'd suggest 'permeate' does not carry the connotation of stealth that goes with 'infiltrate'. Perhaps she used the word 'vivify'? The Rules for Schools require that a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school, so it might have been that...

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

As for indoctrination, I did not at any stage suggest that the constitution uses the word, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here. My use of the word in the post you quoted was entirely in the correct context:
indoctrinate
: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs

You said "so I could realise my constitutional right to remove my child from religious indoctrination with relative ease." There is neither a reference to indoctrination in the Constitution, nor does it offer you a right to remove your child from religious indoctrination (or teaching to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs). It only offers the right of a child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

I thought the Louise O'Keeffe case showed that the state is the employer?

It showed that the State was vicariously liable as a result of failing to emplace proper protections; it's liability was vicarious rather than direct because it wasn't the employer, but nevertheless had a responsibility to Ms O'Keeffe which it failed to fulfil.