Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

yoganinja

According to Min Bruton's tweet:

"My preference is to remove use religion as criteria in admissions except in only a very small number of schools, of minority religion"

let's see how this is to be implemented - but for now cautious welcome from me

Hermy

It beggars belief that they call it education and then insist that children are indoctrinated into some stoneage mythology before granting access to it.

The Black Oil

The usual columnists will be venting this week, no doubt.

recedite

more info here

Minister Bruton set out that his preference is to remove the capacity for state-funded denominational primary schools, where they are oversubscribed, to use religion as a criteria in admissions process except, in three scenarios:
1 where it would not otherwise be possible to maintain the ethos of the school;

2 where the school is established by a minority religion, in order to ensure that students of that religion can find a school place in a school of that ethos;
3 where the school is established by a minority religion, in order to admit a student of that religion who resides in a community consistently served by that school.

In the first scenario, I'm not seeing a substantive difference between what he is saying there, and what is currently in place; From the infamous Section 7 of the un Equal Status Act 2000, a school (apparently) does not discriminate ....

(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school

So no change there for RC schools. But perhaps Bruton means to start enforcing the existing rules now, by actually looking for the required proof.

In the second and third scenarios, he seems to be proposing that the proof is no longer going to be required for "minority schools". So that is actually a reinforcement of the baptism barrier for these schools. They will have a carte blanche to discriminate all they like, without ever having to prove it is essential to uphold the "ethos" of the school. That's more discrimination, not less. Effectively this will mainly affect state funded protestant and muslim schools.
Because hey, segregating the protestants from the catholics in Irish society has historically been such a roaring success. So we must assume that the non-integration of muslim immigrants will be equally beneficial in the future :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

A very inadequate proposal but not at all unexpected.

Of course gaining admission to a school is only the start of the problems for non-RC families here, there's the curriculum and its support for indoctrination, not helped by the hiring and firing of teachers - in effect state employees - being in the hands of churchmen.

Are teachers ever going to have freedom of conscience with regard to religion in Ireland?

eviltwin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A very inadequate proposal but not at all unexpected.

Of course gaining admission to a school is only the start of the problems for non-RC families here, there's the curriculum and its support for indoctrination, not helped by the hiring and firing of teachers - in effect state employees - being in the hands of churchmen.

Are teachers ever going to have freedom of conscience with regard to religion in Ireland?

I'd agree with this. While the new proposal is welcome, its not enough. I'm glad this may make it easier for non Catholic children to get a place in their local school, however, I still would not want my child to be educated in a religious school with all that entails. This does nothing to address the exposure to religion that children in religious schools would still face.

Peregrinus

And, arguably, making it easier for non-Catholic children to get places in Catholic schools will tend to reduce the pressure to provide more non-Catholic schools.

jimmycrackcorm

Hermy wrote:

It beggars belief that they call it education and then insist that children are indoctrinated into some stoneage mythology before granting access to it.

I'm amused by the outrage about indoctrination. There's no such thing. Try teaching kids not to drink alcohol when they're teenagers and eat healthy foods. See if that indoctrination works...

yoganinja

recedite wrote: »

more info here

In the first scenario, I'm not seeing a substantive difference between what he is saying there, and what is currently in place; From the infamous Section 7 of the un Equal Status Act 2000, a school (apparently) does not discriminate ....So no change there for RC schools. But perhaps Bruton means to start enforcing the existing rules now, by actually looking for the required proof.

In the second and third scenarios, he seems to be proposing that the proof is no longer going to be required for "minority schools". So that is actually a reinforcement of the baptism barrier for these schools. They will have a carte blanche to discriminate all they like, without ever having to prove it is essential to uphold the "ethos" of the school. That's more discrimination, not less. Effectively this will mainly affect state funded protestant and muslim schools.
Because hey, segregating the protestants from the catholics in Irish society has historically been such a roaring success. So we must assume that the non-integration of muslim immigrants will be equally beneficial in the future :rolleyes:

Re scenario 1 the current situation applies to refusalTo enrol, this has never happened (seemingly) but rather currently non Catholics are not refused a place but rather deprioritised and pushed further down list - of couse the net result is the same. BUT under new proposal non Catholics cannot be deprioritised on basis of religion so there will be a net change in many oversubscription cases - the criteria in enrolment policies re religion will have to disappear in Catholic schools

Of course it isn't a step far enough and will still enshrine discrimination but it is probably a move in right direction

Hermy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm amused by the outrage about indoctrination. There's no such thing. Try teaching kids not to drink alcohol when they're teenagers and eat healthy foods. See if that indoctrination works...

Try teaching kids about anything and there's a good chance they might learn something.

Peregrinus

Yes, but it can hardly be an objection to a school that kids might learn something by attending it. That's pretty much the point of sending them to school.

I get that parents may not want to send their kids to a school where they will learn something that their parents don't want them to learn. But campaigning for the rights of non-Catholic parents to send their children to Catholic schools isn't a logical response to that. If parents don't want to send their kids to Catholic schools, absolutely the last thing they should be demanding is the right to send their kids to Catholic schools. They should be demanding the provision of more non-Catholic schools.

You can of course campaing for both, and you can even justify this by arguing that having both rights maximises educational choice. But at the same time, pragmatically, I think you have to recognise that success in getting one of these rights vindicated will tend to weaken pressure for getting the other right vindicated. If the schools in a particular district are oversubscribed and a new school is needed, the case for making that a non-Catholic school is obviously stronger if it's overwhelmingly non-Catholic kids who are being bumped from the existing schools.

Hermy

@Peregrinus

I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me so I'm not sure how to respond.

My view is that so-called faith formation has no place in the education system as it isn't education.
If kids want religion let them make up their own minds about it when they're old enough to understand it.
In the meantime there's more than enough on the school curriculum to stimulate young minds without bothering with the made up nonsense that is religion.

lawred2

yoganinja wrote: »

According to Min Bruton's tweet:

"My preference is to remove use religion as criteria in admissions except in only a very small number of schools, of minority religion"

let's see how this is to be implemented - but for now cautious welcome from me

There were so many clauses that in reality it's not being removed at all

The_Valeyard

Have to laugh at the hysteria with 'stone age beliefs'and 'indoctrination'. Such laughable nonsense. Some people here are full time anti Catholic keyboard warriors. Seems Protestant and Muslim schools are excluded from this.

Edit: I look forward to the usual back slapping thanks in the responses

lawred2

It's all sectarian stone aged nonsense in my eyes

Hermy

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Have to laugh at the hysteria with 'stone age beliefs'and 'indoctrination'. Such laughable nonsense. Some people here are full time anti Catholic keyboard warriors. Seems Protestant and Muslim schools are excluded from this.

So it's all true then?

The_Valeyard

lawred2 wrote: »

It's all sectarian stone aged nonsense in my eyes

Bit of a difference in timing between those events.

The_Valeyard

Hermy wrote: »

So it's all true then?

Never said it was it wasnt.

Hmmm, I think I've heard this before. I won't hold my breath.

Hermy

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Never said it was it wasnt.

Make up your mind!:p

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

@Peregrinus

I'm not sure if your comment was directed at me so I'm not sure how to respond.

My view is that so-called faith formation has no place in the education system as it isn't education.

Sure. But the follow on question is whether that means -

(a) that your kids should be educated in accordance with your views (in which case schools of the type you like should be provided to you on an equitable basis with the provision of to other parents of the school types that they want)

(b) that everybody's kids should be educated in accordance with your views, even if their views are different are different from yours (in which case religious schools should simply be banned and everyone should be forced to send their children to a school of a type acceptable to you).

Either way, the question of whether, e.g., Catholic schools should be entitled to prefer Catholic applicants seems pretty irrelevant.

lawred2

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Bit of a difference in timing between those events.

which events?

The_Valeyard

lawred2 wrote: »

which events?

Stone age and birth of Christianity

lawred2

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Stone age and birth of Christianity

Oh I see. No, I was more going for the point that it belongs in the stone age.

Hermy

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But the follow on question is whether that means -

(a) that your kids should be educated in accordance with your views (in which case schools of the type you like should be provided to you on an equitable basis with the provision of to other parents of the school types that they want)

(b) that everybody's kids should be educated in accordance with your views, even if their views are different are different from yours (in which case religious schools should simply be banned and everyone should be forced to send their children to a school of a type acceptable to you).

Either way, the question of whether, e.g., Catholic schools should be entitled to prefer Catholic applicants seems pretty irrelevant.

Kids should be educated in a manner which allows them form their own views on life.
I don't think having one religious ethos in a school is the best way to achieve that.

If religion has to be part of the curriculum then teach kids about all religions and none and then let them decide.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But the follow on question is whether that means -

(a) that your kids should be educated in accordance with your views (in which case schools of the type you like should be provided to you on an equitable basis with the provision of to other parents of the school types that they want)

(b) that everybody's kids should be educated in accordance with your views, even if their views are different are different from yours (in which case religious schools should simply be banned and everyone should be forced to send their children to a school of a type acceptable to you).

Either way, the question of whether, e.g., Catholic schools should be entitled to prefer Catholic applicants seems pretty irrelevant.

I suspect your logic is somewhat incomplete there. How about

(c) That nobodies child should be educated contrary to their beliefs, or more simply, that within reason* religious instruction and faith formation be made an extra curricular activity across the school system.

(* e.g. I don't think moving evolutionary biology out of science for the sake of the creationists, immunology for the anti-vaxxers, or molecular chemistry for the homeopaths is reasonable).

evolving_doors

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it can hardly be an objection to a school that kids might learn something by attending it. That's pretty much the point of sending them to school.

I get that parents may not want to send their kids to a school where they will learn something that their parents don't want them to learn. But campaigning for the rights of non-Catholic parents to send their children to Catholic schools isn't a logical response to that. If parents don't want to send their kids to Catholic schools, absolutely the last thing they should be demanding is the right to send their kids to Catholic schools. They should be demanding the provision of more non-Catholic schools.

You can of course campaing for both, and you can even justify this by arguing that having both rights maximises educational choice. But at the same time, pragmatically, I think you have to recognise that success in getting one of these rights vindicated will tend to weaken pressure for getting the other right vindicated. If the schools in a particular district are oversubscribed and a new school is needed, the case for making that a non-Catholic school is obviously stronger if it's overwhelmingly non-Catholic kids who are being bumped from the existing schools.

Yet again the 'let em build their own school' fallacy.
Would you say the same for non-Catholic children showing up to an A&E in a Catholic hospital... and they were asked for their baptism cert?

This isn't about religion , it's about a basic right to education, the same case as a basic right to health education. If you are refusing entry on the grounds of religion then its decriminalisation.
Kids should be going to school for an education... not to 'grow in love' with Jesus.
If schools want to do that then it can be done outside school time or Sunday school.

Great news... now I don't have to get my kid baptised.

Hotblack Desiato

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Have to laugh at the hysteria with 'stone age beliefs'and 'indoctrination'. Such laughable nonsense. Some people here are full time anti Catholic keyboard warriors. Seems Protestant and Muslim schools are excluded from this.

No. My kids go to the local CoI school, they're not baptised and we were never members of the CoI. It's actually the nearest school to us. They are allowed opt out of most, but not all, the religious stuff. However many schools are not at all accommodating of parents' constitutional rights.

There will be a leaving ceremony for 6th class tomorrow. Not in the school though, in the church, so my kids won't be going. Shame some people have to impose religion on things which have nothing to do with religion.

Oh and families of CoI kids are very much the minority in this school, if it wasn't for the rest of us it would have shut down years ago, but now it's full to capacity (to the extent Kid no.2 only got in on the sibling rule.)

lawred2

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Yet again the 'let em build their own school' fallacy.
Would you say the same for non-Catholic children showing up to an A&E in a Catholic hospital... and they were asked for their baptism cert?

This isn't about religion , it's about a basic right to education, the same case as a basic right to health education. If you are refusing entry on the grounds of religion then its decriminalisation.
Kids should be going to school for an education... not to 'grow in love' with Jesus.
If schools want to do that then it can be done outside school time or Sunday school.

Great news... now I don't have to get my kid baptised.

This proposed legislation is a pretence - I can't see much real change in it.

Hotblack Desiato

The ironic thing is that if nobody baptised their kids just for school admission, then nobody would have to, because a baptism-priority system would become unworkable.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are teachers ever going to have freedom of conscience with regard to religion in Ireland?

Teachers already have freedom of conscience with regard to religion in Ireland? Nobody is forced to train to become a teacher, and nobody is forced to seek employment in a school with a religious ethos.

Hermy wrote: »

My view is that so-called faith formation has no place in the education system as it isn't education.
If kids want religion let them make up their own minds about it when they're old enough to understand it.
In the meantime there's more than enough on the school curriculum to stimulate young minds without bothering with the made up nonsense that is religion.

Isn't that their parents decision? It's a particular type of education that parents want for their children, no different to parents who want any other particular type of education for their children. The State has to provide for education, so it's going to have to fund the education that parents want for their children, and if parents decide that they want their children educated in a school with a religious ethos, then the State must fulfil it's obligation to provide for the education of those children.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State has to provide for education, so it's going to have to fund the education that parents want for their children, and if parents decide that they want their children educated in a school with a religious ethos, then the State must fulfil it's obligation to provide for the education of those children.

The state has no such obligation to provide for a religious education. Where on earth did you get that wrongheaded idea from?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I suspect your logic is somewhat incomplete there. How about

(c) That nobodies child should be educated contrary to their beliefs, or more simply, that within reason* religious instruction and faith formation be made an extra curricular activity across the school system.

Those are reasonable propositions, but neither of them reflect Hermy's view that "faith formation has no place in the education system".

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

The state has no such obligation to provide for a religious education. Where on earth did you get that wrongheaded idea from?

Article 42 of the Irish Constitution?


1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3.1°:The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

3.2°:The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4:The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Article 42 of the Irish Constitution?


1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

2: Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.

3.1°:The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

3.2°:The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

4:The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

where's the bit about the state being obliged to provide a religious education?

Safehands

lawred2 wrote: »

It's all sectarian stone aged nonsense in my eyes

yes, but Islamic or Church of Ireland beliefs are equally stone age beliefs, but they are not included. Why?

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

where's the bit about the state being obliged to provide a religious education?

I didn't say anything about the State being obliged to provide religious education in the first place? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you misunderstood my post in the first place when I said that the State was obliged to provide for education (it doesn't specifically state "provide religious education", so I wasn't sure where you got that from, only by misreading my post).


But for further context, Article 44 is worth a read:


2.2°: The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

2.3°: The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

2.4°: Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

2.5°: Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.

2.6°: The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

Peregrinus

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Yet again the 'let em build their own school' fallacy.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

Non-Catholics, non-Christians and non-believers have just as much right to have schools for their children provided/supported as Catholics/believers do, and at the moment they don't.

My point is a purely tactical one. Pressure to provide more non-Catholic, etc, schools comes partly from the fact that non-Catholics face greater barriers than Catholics do in getting into Catholic schools, which at present are the overwhelming majority of schools. If that changes, and more non-Catholics are admitted to Catholic schools, the number of non-Catholics seeking places in non-Catholic schools will fall, which will reduce the pressure.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Those are reasonable propositions, but neither of them reflect Hermy's view that "faith formation has no place in the education system".

I ain't Hermy

Personally, I tend to agree with the Educate Together stance that faith formation be allowed for as an extra curricular activity where there is demand for it by parents, where those parents may also be required to provide the necessary teacher / priest / imam or whatever. Just because I'm an atheist, as are my kids, doesn't imply I have any problem with other families being afforded the opportunity to raise their children in their faith. Where I have a problem is people trying to push their religion onto my kids.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Personally, I tend to agree with the Educate Together stance that faith formation be allowed for as an extra curricular activity where there is demand for it by parents, where those parents may also be required to provide the necessary teacher / priest / imam or whatever. Just because I'm an atheist, as are my kids, doesn't imply I have any problem with other families being afforded the opportunity to raise their children in their faith.

Right, but why have the parents indoctrinate their kids in their own religions on the school premises at all. Surely the home and the local church/mosque/temple/shrine is the place for that?

After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned, any more than after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

Right, but why have the parents indoctrinate their kids in their own religions on the school premises at all. Surely the home and the local church/mosque/temple/shrine is the place for that?

After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned any more that after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them.

Because the school was set up to provide religious education. This isn't chicken and egg stuff - religion definitely came first, education came second.

With regard to the Ministers comments on what is called "the baptism barrier", I don't see anything that's actually changed. It's just saying the same thing differently. Apart from that, the State could not withdraw State aid from schools with a religious ethos in order to appease a minority.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Teachers already have freedom of conscience with regard to religion in Ireland? Nobody is forced to train to become a teacher, and nobody is forced to seek employment in a school with a religious ethos.

So you seriously think that :

- Teachers are forced to teach a religion as fact in 96% of primary schools

- Teachers who are not RC will not be employed in >90% of primary schools

- Non-religious teachers are employable in only 4% of primary schools


does NOT conflict with their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

Seroiously?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Right, but why have the parents indoctrinate their kids in their own religions on the school premises at all. Surely the home and the local church/mosque/temple/shrine is the place for that?

After-school religious indoctrination classes should not be banned, any more than after-school judo classes. But I fail to see why a school would be automatically considered the right place for either of them.

Convenience for the parents primarily, which in turn leads to less resistance to a positive change that meets everyone's needs. Just as the school gym should be a freely available facility for extra curricular sports such as Judo, making classrooms freely available for religious instruction on an extra curricular basis is reasonable. If you take a stance that this should not be the case basically you're placing a burden of extra journeys and organisation on parents that do want their children to receive religious instruction. The effect of this is that such parents will fight against such a change, and as such the change will never happen while they remain a majority. A more pragmatic approach, and IMHO a fairer one too, is to seek a solution that is acceptable to the majority of parents.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the school was set up to provide religious education....

At a time when everyone went to church at least once a week, it was illegal to be homosexual, the priests were feared, and we were sending pregnant daughters to the nuns. Ireland has thankfully moved on. We are not the same society that set these schools up.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you seriously think that :

- Teachers are forced to teach a religion as fact in 96% of primary schools

- Teachers who are not RC will not be employed in >90% of primary schools

- Non-religious teachers are employable in only 4% of primary schools


does NOT conflict with their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

Seroiously?

Yes, seriously - human rights aren't based on a persons chosen career choice. People, whether they are teachers or not, are not denied their freedom of conscience. Like any other chosen career choice, there are certain criteria which an employer is entitled to look for. People who train to become teachers are more than well aware of those criteria before they ever start applying for positions in schools (regardless of the ethos of the school).

If I were unfit for or unable to do a job on the basis that it violated or was contrary to my principles or world view, then common sense would suggest I seek alternative employment which would be more in line with my principles or world view. If someone were to apply for a position, knowing the criteria and the responsibilities that position requires, and lied to meet all the criteria, or misled potential employers to give the impression they met the criteria, then who's responsibility is that really?

It sure as hell isn't the employers responsibility.

Hotblack Desiato

Unbelieveable.

They're educators not clerics.

These are state-funded roles, to add insult to injury.

Safehands

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you seriously think that :

- Teachers are forced to teach a religion as fact in 96% of primary schools

- Teachers who are not RC will not be employed in >90% of primary schools

- Non-religious teachers are employable in only 4% of primary schools


does NOT conflict with their freedom of religion and freedom of conscience?

Seroiously?

My spouse is a teacher. The majority of her colleagues do not believe in the religious curriculum they teach. They have to teach it all the same.
Members of the clergy regularly chair the boards of managements of schools, or if they don't, they appoint the chairperson, even if they have no educational qualifications. Why does that matter? Because these chairpeople have a major say in the appointment of school principals and teachers, if a teacher is honest and declares his or her lack of faith, they have very little chance of being appointed. If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Unbelieveable.

They're educators not clerics.

These are state-funded roles, to add insult to injury.

You're acting as though they're entitled to a job just because they decided to become teachers?

They're not.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're acting as though they're entitled to a job just because they decided to become teachers?

They are entitled not be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs though, both legally and as a human right. Safehands' post is one I've heard on a number of occasions from other friends who are teachers.

One eyed Jack

Safehands wrote: »

My spouse is a teacher. The majority of her colleagues do not believe in the religious curriculum they teach. They have to teach it all the same.
Members of the clergy regularly chair the boards of managements of schools, or if they don't, they appoint the chairperson, even if they have no educational qualifications. Why does that matter? Because these chairpeople have a major say in the appointment of school principals and teachers, if a teacher is honest and declares his or her lack of faith, they have very little chance of being appointed. If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required

Of course there are other clues required if you're asking people to guess who would be the more suitable candidate for the role.

You're also leaving out the fact that any teacher applying for a position in the school would also have had to meet other criteria first, like registration with the teaching council, Garda vetting, an interview before a three person panel, approval of the nominated candidate by the Board of Management.

In other words - it wouldn't really matter that you on your own might consider them to be a brilliant educator if they don't meet the criteria required for the position as advertised, member of Opus Dei or not.

tabby aspreme

Safehands wrote: »

My spouse is a teacher. The majority of her colleagues do not believe in the religious curriculum they teach. They have to teach it all the same.
Members of the clergy regularly chair the boards of managements of schools, or if they don't, they appoint the chairperson, even if they have no educational qualifications. Why does that matter? Because these chairpeople have a major say in the appointment of school principals and teachers, if a teacher is honest and declares his or her lack of faith, they have very little chance of being appointed. If a prospective principal declares himself or herself to be a member of Opus Dei, with little other experience and the other candidates are luke warm in the practice of their faith, but will be brilliant educators, who will be most likely to get the job? No clues required.

May have been the case in the past.
Three people now sit on the interview panel, school Principal , chair of BOM, and another Principal, usually from a nearby school. The panel then has to have authority from the full board to carry out the recruitment process . The chairperson has no more say than any other person on the interview panel