How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

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.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

I think it would help the discussion if Ulysses told us....

Really? How would that help? The object of the discussion is to consider how to achieve equality in education (i.e. secular schooling).

How would me telling you something about myself help that discussion?

Or are you just trying to personalise a debate because you can't handle the questions?

A couple of people have posted some very lazy assumptions. One of those was the lazy assumption that the state would be better taking over the schools, something that even a cursory glance at our current education system would tell you is not the case. In fact, you couldn't even be sure it would help improve the position as regards secularisation.

I've challenged those assumptions, and so far all I've gotten back in response are more lazy assumptions.



But finally, since you want to make the debate personal, and even if personalising the debate is almost certainly in breach of the rules.......


.....I have no involvement whatsoever in Educate Together. I was a former "client" of theirs for a few years, during which time I apparently was a member (I certainly paid a membership fee of some kind), but that ceased about 7 or 8 years ago.

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

Those schools that have moved from charging fees to the free sector have cost the taxpayer more money, because the taxpayer gives a smaller amount of support to schools that have fees. So the question of which direction the subsidy travels is very much open to debate. This isn't relevant to this debate, but if you're going to post one side of the argument you shouldn't expect that to go unchallenged.

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

Thanks for clarifying. It's just that it can be a tad misty around here sometimes; that makes it difficult to see who's being atheist and who's just being anti-Catholic.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Citing the UK is pointless...

In that case, citing most of Europe is pointless because for a variety of reasons they're not like us either......



.....but of course, it's OK to cite the places that support your point of view, isn't it?

RainyDay

Deleted User wrote: »

Those schools that have moved from charging fees to the free sector have cost the taxpayer more money, because the taxpayer gives a smaller amount of support to schools that have fees. So the question of which direction the subsidy travels is very much open to debate. This isn't relevant to this debate, but if you're going to post one side of the argument you shouldn't expect that to go unchallenged.

I've no problem with any challenges, but my point wasn't about the general public vs private debate. It was about the explicit additional subsidy for Protestant families to attend free-paying schools. How can that be anything but a subsidy?

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

So......



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

Yes.

I have no particular issue with ET. We can disagree after that, as long as we know what we're disagreeing on.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Jeezo, some people need to clear their heads.

Hurrah, I'm no longer a Stalinist! Although you were the only one implying that those disagreeing with you were. So...we're all good thing. If probably still a bit confused.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

In that case, citing most of Europe is pointless because for a variety of reasons they're not like us either......



.....but of course, it's OK to cite the places that support your point of view, isn't it?

If you check through my posts you will see that I havent cited anyone in the UK or Europe (or anywhere else).

You still have not explained about the value of Patrons.

PopePalpatine

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Jeezo, some people need to clear their heads.

You were the one claiming you could smell Stalinism on this thread. I haven't seen anything that extreme, could you please back up your statement?

flutered

what about the majority who prefer things as they are

PopePalpatine

flutered wrote: »

what about the majority who prefer things as they are

So did the whites in the Jim Crow era Deep South, but nobody but "alt-right" (read: neckbearded white supremacists) weirdos care about them.

One eyed Jack

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So did the whites in the Jim Crow era Deep South, but nobody but "alt-right" (read: neckbearded white supremacists) weirdos care about them.

How in the name of... does mentioning the Jim Crow laws answer that question?

Come on now, in fairness, not every thread has to be destroyed with this sniping at each other kind of crap. Looksee started a discussion, Michael posted a fairly comprehensive plan (some of which I agree with, some of which is entirely unfeasible but well intentioned) and recedite posted a link to a publication there which I've just finished reading which made some good points. I come back to the thread and it's descended into yet another bickering match.

To answer the OP - there's no point in arguing for the removal of religion from religious ethos schools. Article 44 won't allow for it.

There's no point in arguing that parents should be forced to send their children to the nearest local school à la the Finnish model - Article 42 won't allow for it.

There's no point in arguing for the removal of the Patronage system - we're too far down the road now of outsourcing management of schools to private bodies to have the State running the majority of national schools in this country.

There's no point in talking about divestment - it's become a laughing stock and a waste of time and resources.

That only leaves one viable option really, and the Government knows it - they need to build more schools, and they need to build them fast.

Unfortunately, due to the bureaucratic nature of Ireland's public service pen-pushers where "efficiency" is a dirty word, and everything needs a "Committee" before they draft a report which states the obvious, it's going to take another 20 years at least, and numerous broken election promises, before successive Governments take their heads out of their collective asses, and figures out that maybe they really, really, need to build more schools to accommodate an increasingly diverse population.