The Equal Participation in Schools Bill

Michael Nugent

Tomorrow, Thursday 18 May, the Dail will vote on the Equal Participation in Schools Bill that it debated yesterday. Please contact your TDs today and ask them to vote for this.

It is proposed by Solidarity and People Before Profit, and it incorporates proposals from Atheist Ireland and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.

It is an an important step towards secular State-funded schools that respect everybody equally, and the eventual separation of Church and State.

It recognises that Irish schools breach human rights by evangelising religion throughout the whole school day, and not merely by discriminating in access.

It proposes five steps that are radical in Irish terms, but that would be uncontroversial minimum standards for State-funded schools in most modern pluralist Republics.

1. It would prevent schools from discriminating in access on the ground of religion.
2. It would replace the duty to have regard to a school’s ‘characteristic ethos’ with a duty to have regard to ‘the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned’.
3. It would move religious instruction and faith formation classes to after school hours.
4. It would oblige schools to establish minimum standards for accommodating students whose parents opt them out of classes that are contrary to their conscience.
5. It would oblige schools to deliver the State-prescribed curriculum in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner that avoids indoctrination.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail both spoke against the Bill yesterday, so it will be defeated in the vote tomorrow. However, it is is still important to contact your TDs, so that they know that their constituents want them to vote for equal participation n schools.

Sinn Fein, the Green Party and some independents also spoke in support of the Bill yesterday. The Labour Party and Social Democrats did not attend the debate.

How the Equal Participation in Schools Bill would make these changes:

The Bill would amend the Equal Status Act 2000 as follows:

Section 7(3)(c) privileges schools that have an objective that promotes certain religious values, by allowing them to give preference to co-religionists in access, and to refuse admission to a pupil if it is necessary to protect the school’s ethos. This Bill would delete this subsection.

The Bill would amend the Education Act 2000 as following:

Section 2 is the Interpretation section. It says that ‘characteristic spirit’ means ‘the characteristic spirit referred to in Section 15(2)(b).’ This Bill would delete this reference, as well as the reference in Section 15(2)(b).

Section 9(d) says that schools must ‘promote the moral, spiritual, social and personal development of students’. This Bill would remove the word ‘spiritual’ from that list. Section 9(d) also says that schools must act ‘having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school’. This Bill would replace that with ‘having regard to the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned’.

Section 15(2)(b) says that school boards must ‘uphold, and be accountable to the patron for so upholding, the characteristic spirit of the school,’ and goes on to say that this spirit would be ‘determined by the cultural, educational, moral, religious, social, linguistic and spiritual values and traditions which inform and are characteristic of the objectives and conduct of the school.’

Section 15(2)(d) says that the Minister can make certain directions to schools ‘having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school and the constitutional rights of all persons concerned.’ This Bill would delete the reference to ‘the characteristic spirit of the school,’ and retain the reference to ‘the constitutional rights of all persons concerned.’

Section 30(2)(b) says that, when prescribing the school curriculum, the Minister ‘shall have regard to the characteristic spirit of a school.’ This Bill would delete that reference.

Section 30(2)(d) says that, when prescribing the school curriculum, the Minister ‘shall allow reasonable instruction time’ for ‘subjects arising from the characteristic spirit of the school.’ In practice, for most schools, this means religious instruction and faith formation. This Bill would replace this subsection with the following: ‘shall ensure that religious instruction and faith formation classes shall take place after core school hours.’

Section 30(2)(e) says that a school shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of their parents, or themselves if over 18. This Bill would add a duty to ‘establish minimum standards in relation to the nature of exemptions’ for such students, ‘having regard to the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned.’

This Bill would add a new Section 30(2)(f) that shall ‘require all schools to provide knowledge and information in the State-prescribed curriculum in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner that avoids indoctrination, outside of the specific context of religious instruction and faith formation classes where 10 exemptions apply.’

smacl

Michael Nugent wrote: »

3 - It would move religious instruction and faith formation classes to after school hours.
4 - It would oblige schools to establish minimum standards for accommodating students whose parents opt them out of classes that are contrary to their conscience.

Probably a silly question, but on the assumption that faith formation classes are extra curricular as per point 3, what is the thinking behind point 4 here? Scratching my head. the only things that spring to mind are a creationist family having the option to exclude their child from a science class that might include evolution, or maybe a Jewish family skipping a cooking class that included pork, but both seem pretty far fetched.

Michael Nugent

smacl wrote: »

Probably a silly question, but on the assumption that faith formation classes are extra curricular as per point 3, what is the thinking behind point 4 here? Scratching my head. the only things that spring to mind are a creationist family having the option to exclude their child from a science class that might include evolution, or maybe a Jewish family skipping a cooking class that included pork, but both seem pretty far fetched.

There is a constitutional right to opt out of anything contrary to conscience, which is a wider concept than just religious instruction, so I assume that that is why it is addressed. In practice, I think the most likely area might be sex education?

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

There is a constitutional right to opt out of anything contrary to conscience, which is a wider concept than just religious instruction, so I assume that that is why it is addressed. In practice, I think the most likely area might be sex education?

I don't think this is quite right. There's two relevant provisions here:

Under Art 42.3.1 parents can't be obliged "in violation of their conscience and lawful preference" to send their children to state-established schools, or to any particular type of school. But once you're in a particular school, Art. 42.3.1 doesn't confer any right to withdraw from particular aspects of the school's instruction.

Under Art. 44.2.4, legislation provided state aid for schools may not affect prejudicially the right of a child to attend the school without attending religious instruction. The effect of Art. 44.2.4 is that, if your child is in a state-funded or state-aided school, you can withdraw him or her from religious instruction, but it doesn't confer a right to withdraw a child from any other aspect of instruction.

johnnyskeleton

I dunno I mean doesnt this go from one extreme i.e. being effectively forced to go through a faith school for a large portion of the population to the other i.e. effectively preventing faith schools from operating?

An an atheist of the live and let live school (rather than the "must crush all religion" type), I think this law will do more harm than good and will make religious people more extreme than they already are.

Plus Im uneasy with anything "socialists" try to do - its never what it seems to be on its face.

smacl

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dunno I mean doesnt this go from one extreme i.e. being effectively forced to go through a faith school for a large portion of the population to the other i.e. effectively preventing faith schools from operating?

I think in real terms it makes very little difference to the day to day running of a typical Catholic school other than they can't prefer one child over the next based on their religion and religion classes are moved to the end of the school day such that those who don't want them simply go home.

I think this law will do more harm than good and will make religious people more extreme than they already are.

I think the opposite, in that children will tend to mix more irrespective of their background, which to me is a good thing.

silverharp

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Plus Im uneasy with anything "socialists" try to do - its never what it seems to be on its face.

the old if the Greens and SF are for it Im aginn it

johnnyskeleton

silverharp wrote: »

the old if the Greens and SF are for it Im aginn it

Not against, just deeply skeptical. I mean the reason the constitution was framed as it was and why equality legislation gives protection to religions is to allow Protestant and other minority religions to set up schools with a religious ethos.

Theres no reason why parents who feel strongly about atheist beliefs cant set up their own school if they wish

smacl

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Theres no reason why parents who feel strongly about atheist beliefs cant set up their own school if they wish

Nor is there any reason why any citizen should be have their child put at the back the queue when it comes to entering into their local state school which is funded by the taxes that citizen pays. Similarly there is no reason why a child should be subjected to unwanted religious instruction in their local school.

yoganinja

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not against, just deeply skeptical. I mean the reason the constitution was framed as it was and why equality legislation gives protection to religions is to allow Protestant and other minority religions to set up schools with a religious ethos.

Theres no reason why parents who feel strongly about atheist beliefs cant set up their own school if they wish

but it's not about people feeling strongly about "atheist beliefs" (what ARE they anyway), it's about people feeling strongly that publicly funded services should not favour any belief system

TheQuietFella

This again is trying to create a system that is all inclusive and it just doesn't work! If they are Catholic schools then preference should be there to accommodate Catholics! Why do people enrol their children in to a school and then decide to pick and choose what they want from the school?

It's not a restaurant where you can go al a carte!!!

The_Valeyard

I'll be emailing TDs to oppose this.

yoganinja

TheQuietFella wrote: »

This again is trying to create a system that is all inclusive and it just doesn't work! If they are Catholic schools then preference should be there to accommodate Catholics! Why do people enrol their children in to a school and then decide to pick and choose what they want from the school?

It's not a restaurant where you can go al a carte!!!

Because it is the local state funded school and you want your child to go to the same school with all their friends
Because there are entire counties where denominational schools are the ONLY choice
Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs

TheQuietFella

yoganinja wrote: »

Because it is the local state funded school and you want your child to go to the same school with all their friends
Because there are entire counties where denominational schools are the ONLY choice
Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs

Maybe in extreme cases but essentially a crock of ....!

yoganinja

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Maybe in extreme cases but essentially a crock of ....!

you might want to take that up with the legislators so - because that's what the constitution guarantees

TheQuietFella

yoganinja wrote: »

Because it is the local state funded school and you want your child to go to the same school with all their friends
Because there are entire counties where denominational schools are the ONLY choice
Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs.

Lets assume then that as a parent I'm a racist! I hate blacks, Asians, eastern Europeans, all foreigners in this country!
Keep Ireland for the Irish is my mentality!!! My child sharing a class with foreigners conflicts with my beliefs. What steps should the school take to 'accommodate' my conflicts of interest?

yoganinja

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Lets assume then that as a parent I'm a racist! I hate blacks, Asians, eastern Europeans, all foreigners in this country!
Keep Ireland for the Irish is my mentality!!! My child sharing a class with foreigners conflicts with my beliefs. What steps should the school take to 'accommodate' my conflicts of interest?

OK - I'll bite , even though you appear to misunderstand what the constitution guarantees

What accommodation would you ask for?

TheQuietFella

yoganinja wrote: »

OK - I'll bite , even though you appear to misunderstand what the constitution guarantees

What accommodation would you ask for?

Maybe I am misunderstanding it but I'm just reading the last line 'children are not obliged....'

That in my view leaves a wide open door! Speaking now as a non-racist!

yoganinja

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Maybe I am misunderstanding it but I'm just reading the last line 'children are not obliged....'

That in my view leaves a wide open door! Speaking now as a non-racist!

again - what accommodation do you think you, as a racist (hyptothetical), want?

eviltwin

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Lets assume then that as a parent I'm a racist! I hate blacks, Asians, eastern Europeans, all foreigners in this country!
Keep Ireland for the Irish is my mentality!!! My child sharing a class with foreigners conflicts with my beliefs. What steps should the school take to 'accommodate' my conflicts of interest?

Do you really think a parent's desire to have the educated free from faith formation is anyway comparable to racism?

Besides it's not like atheists are demanding their children be educated away from children of faith, quite the opposite in fact.

johnnyskeleton

smacl wrote: »

Nor is there any reason why any citizen should be have their child put at the back the queue when it comes to entering into their local state school which is funded by the taxes that citizen pays. Similarly there is no reason why a child should be subjected to unwanted religious instruction in their local school.

Well the problem there is that there are very few state schools. Certainly Id be in favour of having no religious education in national schools and only comparative religion in state owned secondary schools. You could campaign government for more non denominational schools but that costs money. So its easier to just force private schools to comply.

yoganinja

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well the problem there is that there are very few state schools. Certainly Id be in favour of having no religious education in national schools and only comparative religion in state owned secondary schools. You could campaign government for more non denominational schools but that costs money. So its easier to just force private schools to comply.

and another simple solution is to make any public funding of any school conditional on all children have equality of access and equal respect in that school

smacl

TheQuietFella wrote: »

This again is trying to create a system that is all inclusive and it just doesn't work! If they are Catholic schools then preference should be there to accommodate Catholics!

You're assuming there that most Catholics want to send their children to Catholic ethos schools, whereas there is no evidence to suggest this. If you look at what relatively few secular schools we have in this country, primarily Educate Together, you'll see they are far more heavily oversubscribed than their religious ethos counterparts. At the same time, for many of them the bulk of the pupils are Catholic. Perhaps you could come up with some solid figures that outline what proportion of nominal Catholics in this country actually want Catholic ethos schools for their children, because from what I can see very many Irish Catholics favour secularism and have little time for the RCC running any of our state institutions. They certainly don't attend mass much any more, none of them seem to want to become priests or nuns either, and they flatly ignore the what's preached from Rome when it comes to issues like same sex marriage, contraception and abortion. What makes you think the majority want religious ethos schools?

FWIW, I asked an open poll question relating to this on the Christianity forum on this issue a couple of years back, and 73% of those that responded that they were against the church running schools or hospitals. Small sample of a pretty eclectic group, but it matches my own experience talking to Christian friends.

smacl

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well the problem there is that there are very few state schools. Certainly Id be in favour of having no religious education in national schools and only comparative religion in state owned secondary schools. You could campaign government for more non denominational schools but that costs money. So its easier to just force private schools to comply.

As per my previous post, I think the elephant in the room here is that as a country we haven't actually asked the citizenship what type of schooling system they want. The figure for nominal religion from the census is used by those that favour maintaining the status quo to suggest that this is what people want, but all the signs on the ground suggest this isn't the case. Before making sweeping changes based on the whim of any politician or lobby group, it would seem prudent to me to carry out a larger scale controlled survey asking the population what they actually want, providing a list of feasible alternatives.

Cynically, my feeling is that there are a fair number of Catholic parents out there who want there children to be raised Catholic but couldn't be arsed putting any effort into it themselves, e.g. by taking them to the local church more than a couple of times a year. While I'd question this position, each to their own, and these people need to be accommodated same as everyone else. As such I think religious instruction as an optional extra curricular item is a good compromise. I'm certainly strongly opposed to any state funded school being allowed to maintain entry policies that discriminate on religious grounds.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Probably a silly question, but on the assumption that faith formation classes are extra curricular as per point 3, what is the thinking behind point 4 here? Scratching my head. the only things that spring to mind are a creationist family having the option to exclude their child from a science class that might include evolution, or maybe a Jewish family skipping a cooking class that included pork, but both seem pretty far fetched.

Another possible effect of this might be for a strictly RC or muslim family to opt out of any teaching about birth control, within a more "liberal" type of school.
As Michael said in his synopsis..

Section 30(2)(e) says that a school shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of their parents, or themselves if over 18. This Bill would add a duty to establish minimum standards in relation to the nature of exemptions for such students, having regard to the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned.

It does specifically say "concience" and not "religious beliefs". However I'm not sure whether the legislators intended to widen the concept of conscientious objection beyond religion, or whether this just happened "by accident" in the drafting of the bill back in 1998.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this is quite right. There's two relevant provisions here:

Under Art 42.3.1 parents can't be obliged "in violation of their conscience and lawful preference" to send their children to state-established schools, or to any particular type of school. But once you're in a particular school, Art. 42.3.1 doesn't confer any right to withdraw from particular aspects of the school's instruction.

Under Art. 44.2.4, legislation provided state aid for schools may not affect prejudicially the right of a child to attend the school without attending religious instruction. The effect of Art. 44.2.4 is that, if your child is in a state-funded or state-aided school, you can withdraw him or her from religious instruction, but it doesn't confer a right to withdraw a child from any other aspect of instruction.

While these are indeed the only relevant constitutional rights granted, the 1998 legislation seems to have gone beyond that, to grant a right under the legislation.

I'm inclined to think the withdrawal of kids from classes on the basis of "conscientious objection" while generally a good thing now, would become a bad thing after the religious indoctrination had been moved outside of school hours. Most likely it would be used by various cranks and extremists. So it would have been better to remove it from the legislation altogether, as part of this current bill. It would be better to control what the school is teaching, so that it is generally acceptable to all.(ie use the national curriculum).

That being said, I'd still support the bill.



edit; Yes I do see the irony of my position, ie atheists were formerly considered to be "cranks and extremists"

TheQuietFella

yoganinja wrote: »

again - what accommodation do you think you, as a racist (hyptothetical), want?

Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs.


I have come to your school and I have expressed my shock and horror, fear and
anxiety over the inclusion of lesser people partaking in education to the detriment of my own flesh and blood. What are 'you' going to do to allay my fears?

yoganinja

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs.


I have come to your school and I have expressed my shock and horror, fear and
anxiety over the inclusion of lesser people partaking in education to the detriment of my own flesh and blood. What are 'you' going to do to allay my fears?

as I said earlier you don't seem to understand what the constitution means on this (I think you referred to it as a crock of ......)

The state recognises you as the primary educator of your child and respects your right to be as bat **** crazy and racist as you wish, it will not "allay your fears", it will merely allow you to chose not to be around these "lesser people" - you can do as you wish educationally, well it says it will ensure your child is provided with a minimal education but does not (helpfully) define this.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

While these are indeed the only relevant constitutional rights granted, the 1998 legislation seems to have gone beyond that, to grant a right under the legislation.

Good point.

I think what's going on here is that the 1998 legislation gave the Minister (for the first time) the right to prescribe what schools were to teach. And, possibly in recognition of the constitutional principle that parents are the primary educators, the quid pro quo was a right for parents (and adult students) to opt out of any part of the prescribed curriculum.

It's possibly also relevant that the European Convention on Human Rights mentions this issue in Art. 2, and in slightly broader terms than the Constitution does:

"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

There may be a view that the ECHR requires that any law allowing for a prescribed/national curriculum must also allow for an opt-out, and not just on religious grounds.

(On edit: ECRH Art. 2 is expressed affirmatively (the right to education in conformity with convictions) rather than negatively (the right to withdraw from education not in conformity with convictions). A more robust reading of ECHR Art. 2, then, might suggest that, if the state is in the business of funding schools, it cannot refuse to fund religious schools, if that's what parents want. At any rate, you could make the argument. And SFAIK no European country does refuse to fund religious schools. All this is for a different thread, though.)

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

As per my previous post, I think the elephant in the room here is that as a country we haven't actually asked the citizenship what type of schooling system they want. The figure for nominal religion from the census is used by those that favour maintaining the status quo to suggest that this is what people want, but all the signs on the ground suggest this isn't the case. Before making sweeping changes based on the whim of any politician or lobby group, it would seem prudent to me to carry out a larger scale controlled survey asking the population what they actually want, providing a list of feasible alternatives.

Well, in fact the Dept of Education did precisely that a few years back - remember? They had a very large consultation in a substantial number of school districts where there was a demographic case for new schools to determine the patronage of the new schools. The exercise was much discussed on this board at the time. The consultation extended to parents of primary-school-age and younger children, and in each district parents were asked to indicate their preference between the "feasible altenatives' - the patron bodies who were available to sponsor a school in that district. I think in every district the available options included the Catholic bishop and Educate together, and one or more other options from Gaelscoileanna, minority churches, etc, depending on who was interested.

In every single district, bar one, the most favoured patron for any new school turned out to be the Catholic church. (The one district that didn't was Dublin 6, the pagans.)

However, the purpose of the consultation was not simply to identify the most favoured patron, but to identify demand for patronage of a type not already adequately provided, so the "winner" in each case was not the most popular patron, but the patron for whom there was greatest unmet demand, having regard to the existing pattern of patronage in the district's schools. On those criteria, I don't think the Catholic church was the "winner" in any district.

But if you're just asking the question of how popular various patrons/patronage models are among parents of children of the relevant age, there's actually some pretty solid data on that in that consultation.

smacl wrote: »

Cynically, my feeling is that there are a fair number of Catholic parents out there who want there children to be raised Catholic but couldn't be arsed putting any effort into it themselves, e.g. by taking them to the local church more than a couple of times a year. While I'd question this position, each to their own, and these people need to be accommodated same as everyone else. As such I think religious instruction as an optional extra curricular item is a good compromise. I'm certainly strongly opposed to any state funded school being allowed to maintain entry policies that discriminate on religious grounds.

The problem with the last point is that it mainly affects minority schools. If you fill all schools by drawing names out of hat (or some equally religion-blind method) the census results suggest all or nearly all schools will have a majority of pupils from Catholic-identifying families, and the consultation results suggest that all or nearly all schools will have a parent group that prefers Catholic patronage over any other model.

And this may not actually be the outcome we want. For Catholic schools it means not much change from the current position, in terms of make-up of the student body or attitudes/values/expectations/perferences of the parent group, but for minority schools it means, in many cases, extinction. I'm not sure that irish society would be improved by this enforced educational homogeneity. Do we really want to be the first European county since - well, let's not Godwin the thread so, no names, no pack-drill - to adopt policies to ensure the closure of its Jewish schools?

In the interests of diversity and the protection and support of minority communities, I would favour creating a space in which minority schools could be selective - e.g. if a school is the only one of its patronage type in the district, then it can be selective on criteria relevant to its patronage type, but if there are two or more schools of that type, then, no. That would leave the Catholic church having to choose between patronising, in each district, one selectively Catholic school, or a number of non-selective Catholic schools.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, in fact the Dept of Education did precisely that a few years back - remember? They had a very large consultation in a substantial number of school districts where there was a demographic case for new schools to determine the patronage of the new schools. The exercise was much discussed on this board at the time.

In every single district, bar one, the most favoured patron for any new school turned out to be the Catholic church.

However, the purpose of the consultation was not simply to identify the most favoured patron, but to identify demand for patronage of a type not already adequately provided, so the "winner" in each case was not the most popular patron, but the patron for whom there was greatest unmet demand. But if you're just asking the question of how popular various patrons/patronage models are, there's actually pretty good data on that in that consultation.

Not sure we're reading off the same page here, are you referring to the Report on the surveys regarding parental preferences on primary school patronage? If so, the conclusion it arrived at was;

DoE report or preferred patronage wrote:

The detailed analysis of the parental preferences expressed in each of the areas surveyed as part of the survey exercise indicates that there is sufficient parental demand supporting immediate changes in school patronage in 23 of the 38 areas.

Could you point out the section where the preferred patron of any new school is the Catholic church, as I don't see it in my reading of the linked document?

Peregrinus wrote:

The problem with the last point is that it mainly affects minority schools. If you fill all schools by drawing names out of hat (or some equally religion-blind method) the census results suggest all or nearly all schools will have a majority of pupils from Catholic-identifying families, and the consultation results suggest that all or nearly all schools will have a parent group that prefers Catholic patronage over any other model.

And this may not actually be the outcome we want. For Catholic schools it means not much change from the current position, in terms of make-up of the student body or attitudes/values/expectations of the parent group, but for minority schools it means, in many cases, extinction. I'm not sure that irish society would be improved by this enforced educational homogeneity. Do we really want to be the first European county since - well, lets not Godwin the thread so, no names, no pack-drill - to adopt policies to ensure the closure of its Jewish schools?

In the interests of diversity and the protection and support of minority communities, I would favour creating a space in which minority schools could be selective - e.g. if a school is the only one of its patronage type in the district, then it can be selective on criteria relevant to its patronage type, but if there are two or more schools of that type, then, no. The Catholic church would have to choose between patronising, in each district, one selectively Catholic school, or a number of non-selective Catholic schools.

You talk about not Godwinning, but that seems to be precisely what you're doing with respect to Jewish schools. I assume from the above arguments you are against allowing the RCC to prefer Catholic students on the basis that Catholicism is not a minority (yet ). On what grounds to you think we should fund religious minorities to exercise religious discrimination while not allowing larger groups to do so? I'd also question the use of census data as being suggestive of secularist preferences as you appear to be doing above.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not sure we're reading off the same page here, are you referring to the Report on the surveys regarding parental preferences on primary school patronage? If so, the conclusion it arrived at was;

Could you point out the section where the preferred patron of any new school is the Catholic church, as I don't see it in my reading of the linked document?

It's not in the Report because, as already stated, the purpose of the report wasn't to identify the most popular form of patronage in absolute terms. It was to establish the level of demand for wider choice than currently exists, which means that the report focusses on the desires/preferences of parents who aren't satisfied with the current offerings, rather than the desires/preferences of all parents. So, if you look at the "conclusions" section on page 8, you'l find the question they'e answering is basically this: For each of 38 school districts, is their enough demand for a new patronage model to justify diverting one existing school from its current patronage? And the answer: in 23 districts, yes. In 15 districts, no.

A moment's thought will show you that this doesn't tell us a huge amount in absolute terms. Basically, there's "sufficient demand" in a district if the parents who say they would avail of a not-currently-available patronage have, between them, enough children to populate the school they want with at least 51 children after 3 years (this being the criterion for viability). What's that as a percentage of total demand for school places? How does it stack up against the number of parents happy with the current patronage offerings? We're not told; it's not relevant to the purposes of the report.

But if we drill down into the actual survey responses, which are set out in tedious detail in appendices to the report, there is relevant data. Both the parents who wanted new patronage options and the parents who didn't were asked about their preferences, and by aggregating those figures we can get a picture of the pattern of preferences among parents as a whole. I did this exercise and posted about it a few years back, but if that's a bit tl;dr for you, the aggregate picture for preferred patron seems to be:

Catholic bishop: 41.9%
Educate Together: 13.9%
Couldn't give a stuff: 13.3%
An Foras Patrunachta: 8.3%
VEC: 4%

And everyone else less than that.

My longer post that I link to explains some reservations I have about the interpretation of the data, and I'm not saying we couldn't or shouldn't get better data, but this was actually a pretty large exercise, and did tick a number of boxes by e.g. only consulting the parents of children of the relevant age, and only offering patronage options that were "feasible" - i.e. where there was a patron actually willing to patronise a school. And it suggests that, actually, the preference for Catholic patronage is pretty strong, and certainly considerably stronger than the preference for any other model.

smacl wrote: »

You talk about not Godwinning, but that seems to be precisely what you're doing with respect to Jewish schools. I assume from the above arguments you are against allowing the RCC to prefer Catholic students on the basis that Catholicism is not a minority (yet ). On what grounds to you think we should fund religious minorities to exercise religious discrimination while not allowing larger groups to do so?

I'm in favour of accommodating minorities here because I think diversity is a good thing, and the tyranny of the majority a bad thing. I'm not actually suggesting having one rule for Catholic and another rule for everyone else. My suggestion was that the same rule would apply to everybody; if your patronage model is unique in your district, then you can operate admission criteria connected with your patronage model, since this will help to keep your school (a) viable, and (b) distinctive, and (c) available to the minority for whom it particularly seeks to cater. But if there are multiple schools in the district with the same patronage model then you can't, because none of those considerations seem to apply.

smacl wrote: »

I'd also question the use of census data as being suggestive of secularist preferences as you appear to be doing above.

Not sure what you mean by this. I'm not drawing any inference about preferences from the census figures. My point is just that if you choose pupils by religion-blind criteria, then all or nearly all school well have a majority of pupils from families who, for census purposes at least, identify as Catholics. If census identification as a Catholic is positively correlated with preference for Catholic patronage, which is plausible but by no means established, then that would tend to mean that a preference for Catholic patronage would be uniform across all schools. And if, as the consultation suggests, Catholic patronage is the most popular mode, effectively what you have done is to design a system which will tend to ensure that Catholic patronage is the most popular model in all or nearly all schools. Which, within any school, is going to make it more difficult to justify, or win acceptance for, the appointment of any other patron to the school. Which is probably the opposite outcome from the one you hope for.

Essentially, what you have done is to replicate the deficiencies of the first-past-the-post electoral system. under which the party which gets more votes than any other party gets a huge bonus in terms of seats, and all other parties are crucified.

rainbow kirby

smacl wrote: »

Probably a silly question, but on the assumption that faith formation classes are extra curricular as per point 3, what is the thinking behind point 4 here? Scratching my head. the only things that spring to mind are a creationist family having the option to exclude their child from a science class that might include evolution, or maybe a Jewish family skipping a cooking class that included pork, but both seem pretty far fetched.

There are quite a few cases where opted out children in RC schools are given pages to colour, totally age-inappropriate work or excessive amounts of dull work and work supplied by parents for this time is not given in an attempt to discourage other children from opting out.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I did this exercise and posted about it a few years back, but if that's a bit tl;dr for you, the aggregate picture for preferred patron seems to be:

Catholic bishop: 41.9%
Educate Together: 13.9%
Couldn't give a stuff: 13.3%
An Foras Patrunachta: 8.3%
VEC: 4%

And everyone else less than that.

So by your own analysis, the number of parents who want the RCC as a patron of their primary school while the largest single group is actually a minority.

My longer post that I link to explains some reservations I have about the interpretation of the data, and I'm not saying we couldn't or shouldn't get better data, but this was actually a pretty large exercise, and did tick a number of boxes by e.g. only consulting the parents of children of the relevant age, and only offering patronage options that were "feasible" - i.e. where there was a patron actually willing to patronise a school. And it suggests that, actually, the preference for Catholic patronage is pretty strong, and certainly considerably stronger than the preference for any other model.

Worth noting as well is that this information is limited to primary schools and specifically geared towards change of patronage. So when I suggested that 'we haven't actually asked the citizenship what type of schooling system they want' and you responded that 'the Dept of Education did precisely that a few years back' I wouldn't agree with it being anything of the sort. Notably;

Report wrote:

All of the areas to be surveyed under this process fit the following criteria:
 Population of between 5,000 and 20,000 inhabitants according to the 2011 census
 Population has increased by less than 20% during the intercensal period 2006 to 2011

The breakdown by areas in this manner, excluding areas with very high populations, suggests that this study is of limited value in determining majority preferences at a national level. So whatever about its fitness for intended purpose, I'd suggest it is of limited applicability beyond that.

I'm in favour of accommodating minorities here because I think diversity is a good thing, and the tyranny of the majority a bad thing. I'm not actually suggesting having one rule for Catholic and another rule for everyone else. My suggestion was that the same rule would apply to everybody; if your patronage model is unique in your district, then you can operate admission criteria connected with your patronage model, since this will help to keep your school (a) viable, and (b) distinctive, and (c) available to the minority for whom it particularly seeks to cater. But if there are multiple schools in the district with the same patronage model then you can't, because none of those considerations seem to apply.

I'm also strongly in favour of supporting diversity, but am similarly aware that small minority groups are liable to be dispersed in the broader population. Discouraging this dispersion is effectively encouraging ghettoisation, which would be what is required to maintain a small number of religious schools for each and every minority. Surely better to have a model that celebrates and acknowledges the diversity that exists in a given local community and leave faith formation to the individual members of each tradition?

Not sure what you mean by this. I'm not drawing any inference about preferences from the census figures. My point is just that if you choose pupils by religion-blind criteria, then all or nearly all school well have a majority of pupils from families who, for census purposes at least, identify as Catholics. If census identification as a Catholic is positively correlated with preference for Catholic patronage, which is plausible but by no means established, then that would tend to mean that a preference for Catholic patronage would be uniform across all schools. And if, as the consultation suggests, Catholic patronage is the most popular mode, effectively what you have done is to design a system which will tend to ensure that Catholic patronage is the most popular model in all or nearly all schools. Which, within any school, is going to make it more difficult to justify, or win acceptance for, the appointment of any other patron to the school. Which is probably the opposite outcome from the one you hope for.

Essentially, what you have done is to replicate the deficiencies of the first-past-the-post electoral system. under which the party which gets more votes than any other party gets a huge bonus in terms of seats, and all other parties are crucified.

My issue here is your italicised if on which the remainder of your argument rather precariously rests. Rather than suggest any preferred outcome based based on various unsuitable data sources, I would suggest we properly measure the preferences of all those concerned.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

So by your own analysis, the number of parents who want the RCC as a patron of their primary school while the largest single group is actually a minority.

Yes. It's the largest group, by a significant length, but it's not the majority.

"Plurality" is, I believe, the word we're groping for here.

smacl wrote: »

Worth noting as well is that this information is limited to primary schools and specifically geared towards change of patronage. So when I suggested that 'we haven't actually asked the citizenship what type of schooling system they want' and you responded that 'the Dept of Education did precisely that a few years back' I wouldn't agree with it being anything of the sort . . . The breakdown by areas in this manner, excluding areas with very high populations, suggests that this study is of limited value in determining majority preferences at a national level. So whatever about its fitness for intended purpose, I'd suggest it is of limited applicability beyond that.

I've already conceded that we could have better information; my only claim is that this information is relevant and useful. I think your comments, while valid may be a bit overstated. It's not right to say that "areas with very high populations" were excluded"; a school district with less than 20,000 population may nevertheless be part of a larger area that is densely populated; it depends on how school district boundaries are drawn (as to which I have no idea). I've already noted that Dublin 6 was one of the districts included; so were growing dormitory towns like Celbridge and outer suburban areas like Portmarnock.

I agree that the demographic considerations chosen may affect the result, and for better data you'd want to do a different study not filtered in this way. But it's not obvious to me that we'd expect a very different result from districts not meeting the demographic criteria set here.

smacl wrote: »

I'm also strongly in favour of supporting diversity, but am similarly aware that small minority groups are liable to be dispersed in the broader population. Discouraging this dispersion is effectively encouraging ghettoisation, which would be what is required to maintain a small number of religious schools for each and every minority. Surely better to have a model that celebrates and acknowledges the diversity that exists in a given local community and leave faith formation to the individual members of each tradition?

That's not what minorities themselves generally feel, which is why e.g. Jewish communities try to establish their own schools wherever they can. Generally speaking schools are important social institutions for the transmission of culture and for providing a focus to the community, and minorities fear that if they don't have their own schools their culture is at risk of dilution and disappearance.

And, no offence, but the notion that we foster diversity by homogenising schools is not one that makes intuitive sense.

smacl wrote: »

My issue here is your italicised if on which the remainder of your argument rather precariously rests. Rather than suggest any preferred outcome based based on various unsuitable data sources, I would suggest we properly measure the preferences of all those concerned.

I've no object to preferences being better measured, as I have already said. I'm just saying that we do already have relevant data here. We don't know nothing about parental preferences; we know quite a bit. And while it would certainly be good to know more, we've no reason to think that a fuller and broader study will disclose a situation radically different from the situation that the existing data points to.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

it's not obvious to me that we'd expect a very different result from districts not meeting the demographic criteria set here.

Which basically amounts to saying that the validity of the data for use in supporting decisions in this area is unknown. What you or I might expect an outcome to be is not comparable to measuring it.

That's not what minorities themselves generally feel, which is why e.g. Jewish communities try to establish their own schools wherever they can. Generally speaking schools are important social institutions for the transmission of culture and for providing a focus to the community, and minorities fear that if they don't have their own schools their culture is at risk of dilution and disappearance.

And, no offence, but the notion that we foster diversity by homogenising schools is not one that makes intuitive sense.

While a minority faith parent might prefer a school specific to their faith, where that is not available, as would be the case say for most of Ireland's Muslims, you then have to consider whether they would prefer to send the child to a school with an ethos that contradicts their beliefs, or one that acknowledges them as valid among a set of other equally valid belief systems. If we're talking about homogenising schools, what could possibly be worse than 95% of them pushing a Catholic ethos, where as per your previous post only 42% of the families using these schools actually want this?

And while it would certainly be good to know more, we've no reason to think that a fuller and broader study will disclose a situation radically different from the situation that the existing data points to.

When we need information as part of a democratic decision making process, presupposing other related information might be good enough to meet that need is not a reasonable approach. In this case the data relates only to primary schools and has been collected and broken down in such a way as it does not give an equal voice to every parent. Yes the results might be broadly similar, but equally they might not, as such they cannot be considered fit for any purpose beyond which they were intended.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's possibly also relevant that the European Convention on Human Rights mentions this issue in Art. 2, and in slightly broader terms than the Constitution does:

"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

ECRH Art. 2 is expressed affirmatively (the right to education in conformity with convictions) rather than negatively (the right to withdraw from education not in conformity with convictions). A more robust reading of ECHR Art. 2, then, might suggest that, if the state is in the business of funding schools, it cannot refuse to fund religious schools, if that's what parents want.

I would not consider there is much significance here in trying to differentiate between affirmative and negative human rights. If the material being taught is agreed by 100% of parents to be appropriate, there is no problem. This applies to basic subjects such as reading writing etc. Even ethics and a broad religious education. Its only when you get into specific religious indoctrination that differences appear. Therefore it makes sense to leave this stuff until after school hours (which, as you say, is to negatively withdraw it)

The only way to uphold these human rights in a totally affirmative way would be for the state to fund separate schools for every religious grouping, and to ensure that within each school 100% of the parents were happy with the way the religious indoctrination was proceeding. But this would require thousands of tiny new schools to be built by the taxpayer, which is obviously impractical and undesirable.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I'm also strongly in favour of supporting diversity, but am similarly aware that small minority groups are liable to be dispersed in the broader population. Discouraging this dispersion is effectively encouraging ghettoisation, which would be what is required to maintain a small number of religious schools for each and every minority. Surely better to have a model that celebrates and acknowledges the diversity that exists in a given local community and leave faith formation to the individual members of each tradition?

I think what you are describing is a system that does not actually "support" diversity, but neither does it act against it. Its a system that provides an education to a diverse population. Which after all, is probably what most people want (although as you correctly pointed out, that question has never actually been put to the country).

The education system that Peregrinus has described is one that actively supports diversity by giving support to a select group of minority religions (those with enough population to fill a school) while operating against others (those too small to have their own school)
So this system allows for a token small number of jewish and muslim schools, provided each group packs in together in one agreed sect (eg sunni and shia together) and all live within commuting distance of their school.

At the same time this system confers considerable advantage and state funding on the larger religions; mainly RCC, but also CoI, because they can then claim the lions share of state funding, with a clear conscience.

Notably Peregrinus has failed to provide any valid reason why minority (or any) religions should be supported by the state. Saying "but but..diversity" is not good enough. After all, minority religions are not in the minority by their own choosing. All religions can be seen as aggressively expansionist; its just that some are better at expanding than others at any given point in history.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I think what you are describing is a system that does not actually "support" diversity, but neither does it act against it. Its a system that provides an education to a diverse population. Which after all, is probably what most people want (although as you correctly pointed out, that question has never actually been put to the country).

You're right to a large extent, insofar as a system such as Educate Together does not not provide religious instruction for any of the many belief systems that might be present in its student body. It does facilitate this as an extra curricular activity by providing the space (but not the staff) for those who want such instruction after hours. So for the likes of preparation for communions and what-not it will still take place on the premises, directly before or after normal school hours, such that parents that want this service don't need to make additional journeys to alternate locations.

More importantly perhaps, once you have education about religion on the basis of what different people might believe without commenting on any of them being right or wrong, you acknowledge and hence support the diversity of beliefs present and make space for freedom of religious expression. Compare that with a religious ethos school, which is basically selling the line that we're right and anyone that contradicts us is wrong. The result of all this from my experience is kids that care a lot less about their religious differences than their parents might.

Hotblack Desiato

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Section 30(2)(e) says that a school shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of their parents, or themselves if over 18.

Great! Not only no more religious indoctrination but no more compulsory Irish either

The_Valeyard wrote: »

I'll be emailing TDs to oppose this.

Does prayer not work then?

recedite wrote: »

I think what you are describing is a system that does not actually "support" diversity, but neither does it act against it. Its a system that provides an education to a diverse population. Which after all, is probably what most people want (although as you correctly pointed out, that question has never actually been put to the country).

The education system that Peregrinus has described is one that actively supports diversity by giving support to a select group of minority religions (those with enough population to fill a school) while operating against others (those too small to have their own school)
So this system allows for a token small number of jewish and muslim schools, provided each group packs in together in one agreed sect (eg sunni and shia together) and all live within commuting distance of their school.

At the same time this system confers considerable advantage and state funding on the larger religions; mainly RCC, but also CoI, because they can then claim the lions share of state funding, with a clear conscience.

Notably Peregrinus has failed to provide any valid reason why minority (or any) religions should be supported by the state. Saying "but but..diversity" is not good enough. After all, minority religions are not in the minority by their own choosing. All religions can be seen as aggressively expansionist; its just that some are better at expanding than others at any given point in history.

Diversity of schools is not only unworkable in terms of equally respecting the rights of all - it simply cannot - it is also deeply undesirable as it segregates children while setting fire to taxpayers' money. All for the benefit of religions which the state is supposedly constitutionally prevented from funding.

Diversity within schools is what we should be aiming for.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Diversity of schools is not only unworkable in terms of equally respecting the rights of all - it simply cannot -

Why do you think that it's unworkable? It offers parents more choice surely?

it is also deeply undesirable as it segregates children while setting fire to taxpayers' money.

But if that's what parents (who are also tax payers btw, I never understand why that's overlooked in these discussions) want for their children, then should they not have an equal right as you do as a parent to object to sending their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience?

I had every opportunity to send my child to an ET school for example, but I chose not to, because I did not believe it was in their best interests. My own child is of course my priority over other peoples children. I don't think I'm any way unusual in that regard.

All for the benefit of religions which the state is supposedly constitutionally prevented from funding.

The State doesn't fund any religion, though it is obliged to provide for the education of all children.

Diversity within schools is what we should be aiming for.

The school my child attends has children from all over the world, quite an eclectic mixture of ethnicities, cultures, languages and beliefs. It's far more diverse than the local ET school which is oversubscribed with Irish parents hoping to have their children enrolled in the school so they can avoid the lower class plebs and the foreigner blow-ins. There ain't a whole lot of diversity going on there!

Hotblack Desiato

I'm sorry some of your neighbours are snobs OEJ but that's not a basis for an educational policy for a nation.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Great! Not only no more religious indoctrination but no more compulsory Irish either

I would quite enjoy the spectacle of a parent arguing that allowing their child to learn the first language of the State was contrary to their conscience

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Diversity of schools is not only unworkable in terms of equally respecting the rights of all - it simply cannot - it is also deeply undesirable as it segregates children while setting fire to taxpayers' money. All for the benefit of religions which the state is supposedly constitutionally prevented from funding.

In terms of allowing parents to exercise their rights with regards to educating their children as they wish though, it seems to work quite well for those who have been prepared to make the effort (or just put money into it). So deeply desirable for a State obliged to provide for what people want but looking to offset a proportion of the cost....

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Diversity within schools is what we should be aiming for.

I don't know about that... so far most of what has been put forward in A&A on the subject seems to run along the lines of 'it's impossible to accommodate all diversity within schools, so we should not cater for diversity at all'. After all, that's what the absolutely local secular concept amounts to; everyone can be as diverse as they like because no diversity will be catered for. I think we should be aiming for greater parental involvement in setting the ethos and character of the schools they choose for their children, so that we see a growth of diversity in the kind of schools parents can provide for their children.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But if that's what parents (who are also tax payers btw, I never understand why that's overlooked in these discussions) want for their children, then should they not have an equal right as you do as a parent to object to sending their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience?

Because we're all sharing from the same public purse and maintaining a plethora of under-subscribed minority religion schools is inordinately expensive. This cost means fewer resources for other schools. So you might say lets build a new Muslim school for little Achmed and his mates in Leitrim to avoid his parents having a crisis of conscience, but in doing so you could be depriving another school of the special needs assistants they need to accommodate kids with a learning disability. The parents of those kids then suffer much more than a crisis of conscience.

First and foremost we do need to know what the parents of this country actually want in terms of primary and secondary education, ensure they have an equal voice and are all treated equitably. We don't currently have this information, but we do know the current status quo is discriminating unfairly against a large and growing number of people.

FWIW, the biggest issue I have with many Catholic run schools isn't religious ethos nearly so much as gender separation, which leads to limited availability of certain subjects and poor subject balance. e.g. in the senior cycle in my eldest's school it was not possible to select a choice of subjects that did not include either home economics or art which appear in three out of four streams, while also not possible to take a combination of physics and business which both occurred just once and in the same stream. Applied maths for her is an extra curricular, and subjects like engineering and constructions studies were simply not available. Sure what would a pretty young thing want to be bothering her head with such things, once she knows how to cook a good meal and keep the household on an even keel? :rolleyes:

Delirium

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Diversity of schools is not only unworkable in terms of equally respecting the rights of all - it simply cannot - it is also deeply undesirable as it segregates children while setting fire to taxpayers' money.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But if that's what parents (who are also tax payers btw, I never understand why that's overlooked in these discussions) want for their children, then should they not have an equal right as you do as a parent to object to sending their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience?

How exactly is having students of various religions attending the same public schools a "violation of their conscience"?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm sorry some of your neighbours are snobs OEJ but that's not a basis for an educational policy for a nation.

It's the basis for an educational policy for the nation which appears to be working fine for most people HD?

I would much rather the Irish educational system over the Finnish one or even the UK where the local council decides where my child would attend school. It's the curriculum, the informality and the lack of a proven track record in academia in the ET school that bothered me, plus of course the idea of Catholicism as an afterthought.

FWIW though, my neighbours are grand, the neighbours who have children are mainly Muslims and they send their children to the same school as my child, and now for secondary school, our child didn't get a place in two local secondary schools because of the siblings rule, but he's fine with it as all his friends are attending a secondary school 25 miles away anyway!

smacl I actually prefer the all-boys school model (though my wife was never too keen on it), but even when I was in a CBS secondary school, the girls from the Convent would come up to the CBS for higher maths and physics. The boys were equally offered home economics in the Convent... no take-up on that though, but it never prevented us from mixing with each other outside of school, which is often the argument made against same sex schools.

(at the same time, I do take your point)

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

How exactly is having students of various religions attending the same public schools a "violation of their conscience"?

Some parents may not want that for their children?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some parents may not want that for their children?

And should the education system really pander to the desire of some parents to exclude certain children? If some parents don't want their children educated along with Traveller children, should the state acquiesce and remove the Travellers?

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some parents may not want that for their children?

And why should the government facilitate sectarianism/bigotry?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

And should the education system really pander to the desire of some parents to exclude certain children? If some parents don't want their children educated along with Traveller children, should the state acquiesce and remove the Travellers?

Delirium wrote: »

And why should the government facilitate sectarianism/bigotry?

I'm only suggesting an explanation.

What ye guys do with that is up to ye.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm only suggesting an explanation.

What ye guys do with that is up to ye.

I only asked why the government should design the school system around parents who want religious segregatation in public schools?

I'm trying to understand if you would support such a policy as it was you who made that point.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's the curriculum, the informality and the lack of a proven track record in academia in the ET school that bothered me, plus of course the idea of Catholicism as an afterthought.

Its the minimum adherence to DoE core curriculum, informality, and opportunity to learn useful skills rather than being taught by rote that appeals to me about ET. Plus of course the lack of religious interference as an afterthought. Having two girls go through the secondary system, the quality of education and levels of enthusiasm at the ET school are in a different league to the Catholic all girls school my eldest attends. Have a look at Bridge21 to get some idea of what this entails. This isn't just hippy-dippy stuff either. When your 12 year old daughter says 'Dad, talk to me about cash flow projections' for a business project she's doing over the mid-term break, you know the teachers are doing something right. FWIW, she ended up getting an award for best overall presentation in this years Student Enterprise awards, which isn't to tardy for a 1st year solo project competing in a field including groups of 4th, 5th and 6th years. Similarly having the kids represent the school and participate in last years Ethical Education conference was a fantastic experience. Apologies if it sounds like I'm evangelising (I am), but I firmly believe what ET are offering in terms of second level education in particular is a big step forward, and the students coming out will have a significant advantage over their peers as a result.