The Equal Participation in Schools Bill

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.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

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.

That wasn't the point I was making at all. While you may see it that way, I don't. I support the right of parents to be able to choose what type of education they want for their children.

I would not support the idea of the State or local authorities forcing parents to send their children to schools to receive an education which is inconsistent with those parents wishes for their children.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't the point I was making at all. While you may see it that way, I don't. I support the right of parents to be able to choose what type of education they want for their children.

I would not support the idea of the State or local authorities forcing parents to send their children to schools to receive an education which is inconsistent with those parents wishes for their children.

Fine, but why should the State have public schools that for example have policy of 'Catholics only'?

I mean people wouldn't be happy if any other branch had such a policy so why should the public school get a pass?

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

...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.

No I fully get the enthusiasm for it, I do, and I'm aware of programmes like Bridge 21 and the whole lot, but it's just a different model of education, so of course the outcomes are going to be different. I don't know if I would say one particular model has advantages over another, but I do know that the local ET school has too many disadvantages overall to have considered sending my child there to be educated.

I was reminded of it there about three weeks ago when one of the guys in work (he's Hindu) asked where would be the best school to send their child? Well shìt if the office of 20 somethings with no children didn't all chime in with the suggestions of the ET school...

I just said his best bet was to visit each of the different schools, talk to the Principals and teachers, he'll get a feel for himself which school may best suit him. And that's really what it comes down to - at national level is one thing, at local level it's a whole different ball game.

Snickers Man

smacl wrote: »

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 it would be more accurate to say that the bulk of pupils at ET schools are "from the Catholic tradition" but your point is very valid.

The real problem is with the word "discrimination" which seems to be usually intended to mean a "bad thing" which we should not encourage. But the simple fact is that any successful school HAS to discriminate. If you have more applicants than there are places available, you have to turn some kids away. That's discrimination. The only question is, on what grounds is it fair to discriminate?

Catholic schools can only turn non catholic kids away if there are no places available once all the catholic applicants have been accommodated. Does that sound unfair?

OK then, what SHOULD be the grounds on which oversubscribed schools can discriminate?

1)First come, first served?
Sounds good but it inevitably benefits long-standing stable communities who have been able to get their kids' names down on the waiting list from more or less the time they were born. Not good for immigrants in other words, whether they are from a different country or a different part of our own country.

2)Proximity to the school?
Again, sounds fair. Every district has its own school; every kid goes locally. In practice, this means that some schools being better than others, you are condemning some kids to attend a poor school for no other grounds than "post code lottery". How do people tend to react to this in the long term? By moving to areas near good schools so that their kids come inside the desirable catchment area. This is the system they have in Britain and the upward mobility of families towards "good school areas" is an identifiable trend.

Who would LOVE this method if it were brought in? The good burghers of Blackrock, Terenure, Donnybrook, Rathmines etc in Dublin. With the good schools they have they can rest assured that their children will be well taken care of. And the value of their properties will accelerate.

We hear a lot about "privilege" as something we should not encourage. This approach, however well meaning, would only make the already privileged even more so.

3) Entrance on merit; best schools get to pick the brightest students.
Sounds good in theory, in practice it only accelerates inequality.

4) No choice in school at all; you go wherever the department tells you

This is the one that the weird bedfellows of the unions, the dept of education and the left-wing parties can all agree among themseles is the best one because they get to argue among themselves, come to a half-assed agreement, insist that it is all in the best interests of the people and then pontificate to the rest of us about how we must do what we're told if we know what's good for us.

At which point one ceases arguing with these people and picks up the pitchfork.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

Fine, but why should the State have public schools that for example have policy of 'Catholics only'?

I mean people wouldn't be happy if any other branch had such a policy so why should the public school get a pass?

I don't understand where you're going with this tbh. It cones across like you're attempting to use clever word play to misrepresent my opinion rather than take what I'm saying at face value. I'm really struggling to make head or tails of what you're asking here and I've already stated what I would and wouldn't support.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm only suggesting an explanation.

What ye guys do with that is up to ye.

What I did with it was suggest that there might be limits to what any group of parents should be allowed to enforce on the whole school, and that preventing another section of society from enjoying the same access to publicly funded schools should be one of those limits.

So what I'm asking is whether you think the explanation you put forward is a fair one, ie whether you think parents who want to avoid their children being schooled with Traveller children by blocking the Travellers from the school should have that right or not?

(In a publicly-funded state school, that is - if it's a private school where the state doesn't contribute, that's different.)

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't understand where you're going with this tbh. It cones across like you're attempting to use clever word play to misrepresent my opinion rather than take what I'm saying at face value. I'm really struggling to make head or tails of what you're asking here and I've already stated what I would and wouldn't support.

let's just put it down to a communication breakdown.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So what I'm asking is whether you think the explanation you put forward is a fair one, ie whether you think parents who want to avoid their children being schooled with Traveller children by blocking the Travellers from the school should have that right or not?

But...parents can't block other parents?

This is why I don't understand where this is going, because I said that parents may not wish to send their children to a school, and that's not the same thing at all as saying that parents with children already in the school have the right to block other parents from enrolling their children in the school? Parents don't make those decisions for the whole school?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just said his best bet was to visit each of the different schools, talk to the Principals and teachers, he'll get a feel for himself which school may best suit him. And that's really what it comes down to - at national level is one thing, at local level it's a whole different ball game.

Agreed, different schools suit different children without a doubt, and to a large extent the quality of education is heavily influenced by the quality of the teachers. At the same time, what is being taught is also very important, and my feeling is that the current traditional education system is failing our children badly as it is primarily focused on teaching them how to pass exams. Compare this to the skills being taught on a bridge 21 approach and you see things like how to communicate clearly, how to work collaboratively, how to research, how to present, how to use and effectively apply technology, etc... not to mention the fundamental importance of enjoying your work. Subjecting a child to five or six years of hard graft just to enter into a points race to get into a given 3rd level course seems like a rather pointless and cruel nonsense from where I'm sitting. To my mind, it is far more important to find out what they enjoy and as such will pursue enthusiastically such that they are likely to excel at it. Youngest also looks forward to school each day, which I consider hugely important, and something that many schools fail to emphasise.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But...parents can't block other parents?

This is why I don't understand where this is going, because I said that parents may not wish to send their children to a school, and that's not the same thing at all as saying that parents with children already in the school have the right to block other parents from enrolling their children in the school? Parents don't make those decisions for the whole school?

I thought that is what you were saying - because nobody is suggesting that parents can't remove their children from a school where they don't like certain other children being educated with theirs, there's no question of that.

The question is, when you said "some parents may not want (their children educated with children of other religions)" did you mean that publicly funded schools should therefore be allowed to restrict their intake to prioritize children of one religion? That's how I read what you said, but now you appear to be saying it just means they should be allowed to remove their children - but that's not been in doubt.

As to who makes the decision, that doesn't make any difference, but you're the one who brought in parental choice. But the question is one of principle, whoever makes that choice, whether it's a majority vote by parents, or a school board.