New York Times on Irish Schools

Bristolscale7

Nice to see them reporting on this issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/world/europe/ireland-catholic-baptism-school.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Samaris

Archbishop Eamon Martin, the church’s most senior prelate in Ireland, said this month that baptism was rarely a factor in school entry decisions.

“I would not like to think that baptism was some kind of a stamp that you had to get to get into a school,” he said, adding that he had never encountered parents who he believed were baptizing a child for that purpose.

"Well, you see. I never met anyone who, when the Archbishop asked "Why are you baptising your child into our church", answered me with "Well, sure, Father*, little Sproggins here won't get in school if I don't. We don't go to mass or anything, and don't really believe in your stuff, but we believe in the kid getting an education, so will you flick some water her way and we'll be done with it?"

Less truthfully, but more sanely, they answer "We want our child to be raised in the Catholic tradition," and the kid gets watered.


*Father? Your Worship? Sir?

Absolam

Your Excellency.

Or maybe Len.

human 19

Poor ol' Ruari Quinn was "disappointed" that the church were not falling over backwards to promote more inclusivity in schools for kids of different or no religion, and he hoped that the church would "consider" possibly being nice chaps and tinkering with their indoctination timetables so not all kids would have to sit through them.

Well done Labour, you really stuck it to them.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/quinn-challenges-church-over-patronage-of-schools-1.1769325

It's good to see the Social democrats have cslled for, in their manifesto, the "Repeal of Section 7 (3) (c) of the Equal Status Act so that children cannot be refused
admission to a local school on the basis of their religious beliefs."

The Greens are more wishy-washy. still refer to keeping the "ethos" of a school which smacks of the light-tough approach that we have had up to now.

Hopefully this will be a redline issue for whoever gets in with FG the next time.

Akrasia

The idea of the Catholic ethos always makes me angry.

It's basically taking taking modern social Democratic values as a base, and adding superstitions and intolerance.

The Catholic "ethos" differentiates itself from secular values by dehumanising gay people, women and by adding copious amounts of shame and self loathing.

Children are being told that they are fundamentally bad people who can only be 'saved' by sucking up to the church

The Randy Riverbeast

Akrasia wrote: »

The idea of the Catholic ethos always makes me angry.

It's basically taking taking modern social Democratic values as a base, and adding superstitions and intolerance.

The Catholic "ethos" differentiates itself from secular values by dehumanising gay people, women and by adding copious amounts of shame and self loathing.

Children are being told that they are fundamentally bad people who can only be 'saved' by sucking up to the church

Dont forget the most important part of their ethos: treating others who arent them as someone you go to when you need to make up numbers, like that guy in college who only ever talks to you because he hasn't the assignment done and wants to see yours.

Snickers Man

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Nice to see them reporting on this issue.

I respectfully disagree.

They're not altogether wrong but it's none of their ****ing business. It's got to be OUR idea. And increasingly it is. This will be resolved pretty damn quick, whether by a natural increase in the provision of Educate Together type schools and/or a gradual transfer of existing schools out of church management.

Much of this has already happened in the secondary sector with more and more "Catholic" schools becoming more and more non-denominational, if only because of the quasi-extinction event that is the fall off in candidates for the priesthood.

Let the New York Times sort out America's problems, like its gun laws. It has as much relevance here as the Skibereen Eagle had on the Tsarist court.

Hotblack Desiato

Snickers Man wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

They're not altogether wrong but it's none of their ****ing business.

Right. So say if the Irish Times did an article about official tolerance of/indifference to atheist bloggers being intimidated and murdered in Bangladesh, is that none of their ****ing business too and we should leave it to the Bangladeshis and say nothing?

What tripe.

It's got to be OUR idea. And increasingly it is. This will be resolved pretty damn quick,

No it won't

whether by a natural increase in the provision of Educate Together type schools

At the current rate of increase (which is a lot faster than it was ten years ago) it'll still take at least a century before parents have a real choice

and/or a gradual transfer of existing schools out of church management.

Which is to all intents and purposes not happening at all.

Much of this has already happened in the secondary sector with more and more "Catholic" schools becoming more and more non-denominational, if only because of the quasi-extinction event that is the fall off in candidates for the priesthood.

Complete nonsense.

Let the New York Times sort out America's problems, like its gun laws. It has as much relevance here as the Skibereen Eagle had on the Tsarist court.

Sigh... Are you ashamed that they're commenting adversely on what is an injustice and denial of rights in this country? You should be - but the answer is NOT to wish they'd stop commenting on it.

Snickers Man

As the late Conor Cruise O'Brien once said about the power of the press, when reflecting that the consensus among many newspaper leader writers across Europe was to take one side of a particular argument (Never mind which argument, it doesn't matter):

"The support of the press is not going to do followers of position A much good, nor followers of position B much harm"

I paraphrase of course.

Quick translation: the New York Times is not going to sort out our education problems for us and nor should it. (It has enough education problems closer to its own home that it would have more credibility commenting upon)

I agree that we need to do something about school admissions but just what that should be is best discussed among ourselves. Let the Yanks in on the act and we'll soon be doing all the stupid if well meaning things they used to do. Like bussing. How did that work out for them?

It is also ironic that in some parts of Dublin there are Educate Together schools in which the student body is made up almost entirely of kids from white, middle-class, historically Irish families from what we now call "the Catholic tradition". Meanwhile the traditional Catholic schools in the same area are full of kids from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Why is this? Because of the fact that Educate Together schools are so desirable that they are hugely oversubscribed. And in such cases, given the Irish system, the advantage lies with people who have been in the area longest and have consequently had their kids' names down on the waiting lists the earliest. With the "Catholic Irish" in other words; not with immigrants.

How do we deal with this? I know, let's ask the New York Times. :rolleyes:

I know the phrase "Irish solution to an Irish problem" carries a certain pejorative meaning given the cynicism with which it was trotted out by charlatans of a previous era but this is a problem peculiar to our own situation that we have to deal with according to our own requirements.

Never mind what the New York Times thinks.

lazygal

Snickers Man wrote: »

It is also ironic that in some parts of Dublin there are Educate Together schools in which the student body is made up almost entirely of kids from white, middle-class, historically Irish families from what we now call "the Catholic tradition". Meanwhile the traditional Catholic schools in the same area are full of kids from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds.

Source and data for this?

robindch

Snickers Man wrote: »

How do we deal with this? I know, let's ask the New York Times. :rolleyes:

The pages of this forum are filled to overflowing with posts documenting exactly what needs to be done to remove most or all of the religious discrimination in Irish schools.

It's up to the political system in this country to take some of these suggestions on board and actually do something, rather than continue to provide the churches with the continued ability to tell people they don't like to fuck off.

Snickers Man

lazygal wrote: »

Source and data for this?

Personal knowledge. Family member is in one such Educate Together school. In north inner city Dublin. The ethnic make up of his class is remarkably homogenous, compared with the play group he was in and the National School he was about to go to.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting for a second that the reason he is in the ET school is to keep away from the "foreign kids". Quite the contrary, in fact. But that's the way it has worked out, and for the reasons I suggested.

Nor am I suggesting that this is typical of ET schools. Some I know, near affluent suburbs with lots of multinational office jobs are very mixed. That is, after all, their purpose.

kylith

I'll have a look when I'm not using my phone but I have a distinct memory that this came up previously on this forum and there was a quote from someone in ET management that they were turning away non-religious families because they were oversubscribed by Catholic families, that they recognised that this was a problem, but that there was nothing they could do because they have a non-exclusionary enrolment policy.

lazygal

Snickers Man wrote: »

Personal knowledge. Family member is in one such Educate Together school. In north inner city Dublin. The ethnic make up of his class is remarkably homogenous, compared with the play group he was in and the National School he was about to go to.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting for a second that the reason he is in the ET school is to keep away from the "foreign kids". Quite the contrary, in fact. But that's the way it has worked out, and for the reasons I suggested.

Nor am I suggesting that this is typical of ET schools. Some I know, near affluent suburbs with lots of multinational office jobs are very mixed. That is, after all, their purpose.

That's one. Any information on any of the others?

lazygal

kylith wrote: »

I'll have a look when I'm not using my phone but I have a distinct memory that this came up previously on this forum and there was a quote from someone in ET management that they were turning away non-religious families because they were oversubscribed by Catholic families, that they recognised that this was a problem, but that there was nothing they could do because they have a non-exclusionary enrolment policy.

This is not true. Some newer ET schools have caved to dept of ed pressure to impose catchment areas and this has caused major difficulties for parents who had signed up based on a first come, first served policy who now find themselves at the bottom of the queue. I can't recall which ones but it is an issue in Dublin. There is also the fact that first come, first served excludes new people in an area, and the siblings policy can mean all places are taken before the enrolment list for others is looked at. ET as a body doesn't set each school enrolement policy.

kylith

lazygal wrote: »

This is not true. Some newer ET schools have caved to dept of ed pressure to impose catchment areas and this has caused major difficulties for parents who had signed up based on a first come, first served policy who now find themselves at the bottom of the queue. I can't recall which ones but it is an issue in Dublin. There is also the fact that first come, first served excludes new people in an area, and the siblings policy can mean all places are taken before the enrolment list for others is looked at. ET as a body doesn't set each school enrolement policy.

Jebus, that sucks. He may have meant that they don't exclude on the grounds of religion, so they can't point to the local RCC schools and tell RC parents to bog off there and leave the ET places for those that aren't catholic.

lazygal

kylith wrote: »

Jebus, that sucks. He may have meant that they don't exclude on the grounds of religion, so they can't point to the local RCC schools and tell RC parents to bog off there and leave the ET places for those that aren't catholic.

There are parents who find their children at the bottom of every list, including ET schools, in Dublin. While the sibling policy is pragmatic,and I hope it means we get a place for our younger child, it does put families without a child in the school at a disadvantage too.

Snickers Man

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Right. So say if the Irish Times did an article about official tolerance of/indifference to atheist bloggers being intimidated and murdered in Bangladesh, is that none of their ****ing business too and we should leave it to the Bangladeshis and say nothing?

What tripe.

Calm down. Caaalm down.

Publicity surrounding issues such as your example might lead to campaigns locally to pressurise the Bangladeshi government to cut this out, or to at least pressurise our own politicians to sort something out. This is the sort of issue that tends to be internationalised. Look at how many Irish people like to protest about foreign human rights abuses eg Israeli treatment of Palestine/Gaza, or Burmese oppression of "pro-democracy" agitators like Aung Sang Suu Kyi. To name but two.

Seriously now, how many native New Yorkers are likely to give a rat's ass about our schools admission requirements?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

At the current rate of increase (which is a lot faster than it was ten years ago) it'll still take at least a century before parents have a real choice

Choice? You want choice you can have it now. All you have to do is pay for it. We're talking, whether you realise it or not, about non fee-paying schools NOT having the choice about who they can or cannot admit to their schools.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Sigh... Are you ashamed that they're commenting adversely on what is an injustice and denial of rights in this country? You should be - but the answer is NOT to wish they'd stop commenting on it.

I'm slightly exasperated that anybody should think that the NYT's opinion, or the opinion of NYT readers, makes a hap'orth of difference to our debate. And nor should it. If we are only concerned about "What will the Americans think?" we won't do the right thing at all.

And the right thing is to plan for just a small amount of oversupply in schools. So that there is a modicum of choice about where your kids can go. Sadly this will probably be derailed by "political realities".

Snickers Man

lazygal wrote: »

That's one. Any information on any of the others?

See kylith's post just above yours

lazygal

Snickers Man wrote: »

See kylith's post just above yours

That doesn't answer my question. You cited one school that is less 'diverse' than a catholic school.

What does a school's 'diversity' involve, anyway? A racial mix? Gender mix? Screening children based on their parents' jobs or employment status?

Snickers Man

lazygal wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question. You cited one school that is less 'diverse' than a catholic school.

What does a school's 'diversity' involve, anyway? A racial mix? Gender mix? Screening children based on their parents' jobs or employment status?

I guess my main point here is that it's not so much "I can't get my child into the local school because it's Catholic and I'm not" is not the major issue here; it's "how do I get my child into the best school possible"

Catholic schools tend not to turn away non Catholic kids just because of their religion. Correct me if I'm wrong but I actually think they're not allowed to. Only if they are oversubscribed can they discriminate in favour of their own religion over a child of another faith.

So if all the catholic schools were crap, we wouldn't have a problem because they wouldn't be so oversubscribed.

The irony down the road is that you could have non catholic children (whether they are lapsed Irish "Catholic tradition" kids or immigrants) who HAVE places in church run national schools demanding to be let out of them and into more desirable Educate Together schools. In fact, it's already happening.

And what would the NYT say about that?

The issue as always is we need more schools; not just to change the ethos of existing ones.

Hotblack Desiato

It's actually not. Oversubscription is an issue in areas of Dublin like Dublin 6 where the schools are seen as 'desirable' and the religious schools will admit children from outside the area over locals - if the outsiders are the 'right' religion and the locals are not.

So a child of an RC family in a different area is top of the queue in the RC school(s) in their own area, but can choose to go to another area and be at the top (or very close to it) of the queue in RC schools in that other area too.

Meanwhile the non-RC child in the 'desirable' area is bottom of the queue in all RC schools there and loses out. Even in the ET (if there is one) they're screwed unless they got their name down pretty much at birth, so are screwed if non-Irish or have moved area.

Dept of Education will not build schools in an area if there are enough places - it doesn't seem to take into account that religious schools may have a significant number of pupils coming in from outside the area, leaving schools in the areas they live under-utilised and schools in 'desirable' areas under major pressure.

The net effect is that non-RCs are much more likely to have to go to a school outside their area, and/or go to an RC school that many RC families have chosen to turn their noses up at.

In the relatively few areas of rapid population growth, new schools are built and even during the worst of the recession schools continued to be built. Every child gets a place - somewhere - in the end, so there is no actual shortage. It's the unfair way in which places and priority are allocated which is the problem.

Hotblack Desiato

Snickers Man wrote: »

Seriously now, how many native New Yorkers are likely to give a rat's ass about our schools admission requirements?

The NYT saw it as worthy of printing, and that's entirely up to them.

Choice? You want choice you can have it now. All you have to do is pay for it.

I already pay for it the same as everyone else does, but my kids are second class citizens in this state as far as 96% of primary schools are concerned.

I'm slightly exasperated that anybody should think that the NYT's opinion, or the opinion of NYT readers, makes a hap'orth of difference to our debate. And nor should it. If we are only concerned about "What will the Americans think?" we won't do the right thing at all.

Straw man. Nobody said such a thing. But it is good that they are highlighting an injustice, even if that injustice is within our own country and causes some people butthurt.

Snickers Man

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oversubscription is an issue in areas of Dublin like Dublin 6 where the schools are seen as 'desirable' and the religious schools will admit children from outside the area over locals - if the outsiders are the 'right' religion and the locals are not.


It's the unfair way in which places and priority are allocated which is the problem.

You're absolutely right that priority and allocation are big issues but what do you hope to replace the current system with?

You seem to suggest that proximity to schools should be the determining factor. (Correct me if I'm wrong but your post implies that strongly)

Well as a happy resident of Dublin 4, I and all of my neighbours would be fine with that. As if the values of our houses needed to be even more copper-bottomed than they already are the presence of "desirable" schools and their exclusion, or at least partial exclusion, to children outside of the area will only shove up prices more as people realise that the only way to guarantee their little darlings' acceptance in good schools is to live locally.

Schools are no longer oversubscribed but the offices of local estate agents sure are!

(Do I come across as a smug bastard? Well then, don't encourage me )

This is not fanciful. This is what happens in Britain as a matter of course. It's almost uncontroversial. Friends of mine (one Irish, one English) who are both solid Labour-voting, working-class origin, welfare-state supporting, public-sector employees wouldn't dream of spending say £140,000 (based on an estimate of £20,000 x 7 years) to send their son to a snooty fee-paying school. Instead they were quite happy to spend a quarter of a million quid upgrading to a house within the catchment area of a nice secondary school so that their son would not have to go to the grotty comprehensive near where they used to live. Were they wrong?

Of course, upgrading to more salubrious areas is not an option for many people. So your "solution" would only work for the happy and relatively wealthy few.

No matter what you do, some schools will always be more desirable than others. Whether or not they have a "religious ethos".

The answer is more schools. And a maintenance of the generally high and relatively uniform standards of teaching which are a result of the state contracting of teachers. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I hope you can at least see my point that the subtleties of the Irish situation need to be taken into account when debating how to move forward. Subtleties which, with the best will in the world, will be lost on the NYT. So it's not "butthurt" on my part. It's just a realisation that it's very much our problem to which we will have to find our own solution.

One eyed Jack

Snickers Man wrote: »

No matter what you do, some schools will always be more desirable than others. Whether or not they have a "religious ethos".

This is it really. Some people seem to be taking no account of the fact that some people can only afford to live in undesirable areas, but they want to send their children to more desirable schools, which may be more desirable for a number of reasons. If all schools were equal, in all respects, then the whole "local children should be able to go to local schools" idea might fly, but there aren't too many people want to send their children to DEIS schools, not because they're practically all religious, but because the academic standard is so poor, and the choice of extracurricular activities is practically non-existent. Even teachers want to teach in better schools, because they want to be a part of a school that has a better reputation.