Baptism barrier to be abolished (nearly)

evolving_doors

So a bill is being drafted to remove the use of religion in enrolment selection criteria (except for minority faiths!).
Will this require an amendment to the constitution?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/baptism-barrier-to-catholic-schools-to-go-next-year-1.3488198?mode=amp

seamus

No, I don't believe it requires a constitutional amendment. The baptism barrier itself is arguably unconstitutional.

I'll believe this when I see it. When the bishops get their teeth into it by proxy of the catholic TDs, we'll see what comes out the other side.

recedite

The dilemma for Minister Bruton is that he wants to maintain a public education system that is managed by private (mostly religious) "patrons", but at the same time he faces mounting pressure from within Ireland, and from outside it, to end state-sponsored religious discrimination.

The fact that large numbers of young children entering the Irish education system are now coming from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds is bringing this matter to a head.

The best he can hope to achieve with this latest idea is that schools managed by the RCC could continue to indoctrinate while they educate, but they could not discriminate in their admissions policies.

Schools managed by other religions could continue to discriminate, which is an obvious inequality in the levels of (publicly funded) inequality allowed.
But the madness does not end there. The publicly funded RC school could eventually find itself with only a minority of catholic pupils. Making it in effect a state-funded missionary school. Like this one.

Roughly 10% of the students in the new school have Irish parents while the other 90% would have parents who have immigrated into Ireland.
She said the school’s enrolment policy is not be based on religious affiliation as Le Cheile Trust welcomes students from all faith traditions and none but on catchment area.
“We are open to everybody; that is very much what catholic education is about – being open to everybody and learning from one another. We have Muslims students, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Christians and a small percentage of Catholic students. Most of our Irish students would describe themselves as nominally catholic – church attendance in the area is low.”

So, a new school, fully funded by the state, built by the state, on state land, being managed by the Le Cheile Trust to provide a catholic "ethos" for people who would prefer not to have "a catholic education".
For those who don't know, that particular trust is an amalgamation of the interests of 14 different RC religious orders, many of which were involved in scandals in the past and still owe money to the state for various incarnations of the Redress scheme.

At some point IMO, you have to say, enough is enough; these patches are not going to work in the long term. Its time to start again from scratch and devise a whole new system.

smacl

evolving_doors wrote: »

So a bill is being drafted to remove the use of religion in enrolment selection criteria (except for minority faiths!).
Will this require an amendment to the constitution?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/baptism-barrier-to-catholic-schools-to-go-next-year-1.3488198?mode=amp

Article is behind a paywall so only really go the headline. I'm assuming that any faith other than Catholicism is a minority faith, but what about other selection criteria. I'm of the opinion we need a single transparent set of enrolment criteria common to all public funded schools, which basically comes down to a lottery that is weighted towards parental preference, travel distance, and currently attending siblings. I don't the any child should be excluded from any publicly funded school based on arbitrary criteria chosen by the school rather than the public.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Article is behind a paywall so only really go the headline. I'm assuming that any faith other than Catholicism is a minority faith, but what about other selection criteria. I'm of the opinion we need a single transparent set of enrolment criteria common to all public funded schools, which basically comes down to a lottery that is weighted towards parental preference, travel distance, and currently attending siblings. I don't the any child should be excluded from any publicly funded school based on arbitrary criteria chosen by the school rather than the public.

. . . rather than smacl, I think you mean.

nozzferrahhtoo

Was discussed on Radio today.

magicbastarder

from what i'm hearing from my folks, this is being spun as an anti-catholic action from the pulpit where they go to mass, and has been so for several months. the 'they're forcing this on catholic schools but not COI ones' message is a nice easy way to distil it.

has legislation actually been passed? if not - if the government lasts long enough to pass this, i'll be surprised.

Michael Nugent

Here is the joint response from Atheist Ireland, the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland, and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland:

Minister for Education Richard Bruton has announced plans to prohibit State-funded primary schools run by the Catholic Church from discriminating in access on the ground of religion, but which will allow State-funded schools run by minority religions to continue to discriminate on the ground of religion if they are oversubscribed.

Atheist Ireland, the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland, and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland, welcome the first part of this announcement. Despite our very different world views, we campaign together for a State-funded secular education system that respects equally everybody’s constitutional and human rights in our schools.

This welcome development is part of a pattern of Irish Governments starting to address the breaches in our schools of the rights of secular and minority faith students. Recently, as a result of our intensive campaigning over many years on a human rights basis:

• Parents and students are now more aware of their constitutional and human rights to not be discriminated against;
• Schools are no longer legally obliged to integrate religion throughout the school day;
• ETB second level schools must now give pupils a timetabled alternative to religion;
• The majority of primary schools will now have to stop discriminating on the ground of religion in access to schools;
• Also, under this Bill, schools will have to tell parents what their arrangements are for opting out of religion.

However, these welcome developments on their own will not end the breaches of constitutional and human rights in our schools. Contrary to caricature slogans, this issue is not about baptism certs. It is about changing the culture of our schools. It is about respecting the fundamental human rights principle of the right to equal participation in all aspects of State-funded schools for all children, regardless of the religious or nonreligious beliefs of their parents.

The first part of this plan could form part of making that happen, if accompanied by other legal changes. But there is no point in getting equal access to a State-funded school that is then allowed to discriminate against you and evangelise you once you get inside. And there is no point in just fine tuning religious discrimination by allowing some minority religions to continue to discriminate in ways that people of other religious or nonreligious beliefs can not.

Instead, the Government should protect the Constitutional and human rights of the real religious minorities: individual parents, children, and teachers, regardless of their religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Ending some of the discrimination by Catholic schools

The first part of the Minister’s plan (prohibiting Catholic primary schools from discriminating in access) could form part of respecting the Constitutional and human rights of parents and students. We have been campaigning for this development for years. We said at the time of the Minister’s consultation process that this option was the only one of the Minister’s four options that had the potential to do respect constitutional and human rights.

But it can only succeed in doing this if the Government also removes the right of school patrons to evangelise inside the schools (including by integrating a religious ethos throughout the whole school day, and discriminating against teachers on the ground of religion) and if the Government instead ensures that pluralism is promoted within the schools. Also, the proposals should apply equally to second level schools as well as primary schools.

This package requires outright repeal of section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act in respect of publicly-funded primary schools, which relates to discrimination in access; and amendment of Sections 9(d), 15(2)(b) and 30(2)(b) of the Education Act 1998, which relate to discrimination based on school ethos, which have been identified as problems by the NCCA in 2017, and which were proposed by Solidarity in its Equal Participation in Schools Bill 2016.

Continuing discrimination by minority religion schools

The second part of the Minister’s plan (allowing minority religion schools to continue to discriminate in access) simply maintains the pattern of fine-tuning religious discrimination instead of ending it. Under this part of the plan, the Government will be privileging some minority religions over other minority religions, over atheists, and indeed over the Catholic religion.

The discrimination by Catholic schools is by far the most damaging aspect of religious discrimination in Irish schools. But no child should have to attend any religious school except by explicit parental choice, and minority faith schools should not be allowed to discriminate against others in a geographical location where no other viable non-Catholic option exists for parents.

Atheist Ireland, the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland, and the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Ireland, are working for a State-funded secular education system that respects equally everybody’s constitutional and human rights in our schools. We also agree that parents have the right to educate their children consistently with their religious beliefs.

Whenever we reach the stage of having a State-funded secular education system, we have different beliefs about how best to enable parents to educate their children in accordance with their religious beliefs. Some of us believe that the State should also fund a parallel system of faith schools, and some of us believe that religions should fund any faith schools.

We look forward to the day when we are addressing this difference of approach as to how alternative schools to a State-funded secular system are to be run, instead of the current position of still working to bring about a State-funded secular education system in the first place.

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Recommendations

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has already made the wider point that we are raising, by asking the Government to amend the Admission to Schools Bill to ensure the religious discrimination in access is removed and that the State curriculum is delivered in an objective, critical and pluralist manner. The IHREC Recommendations to the Minister on the issue are:

“The Commission recommends that the Equal Status Act be amended to give effect to the Principle that no child should be given preferential access to a publicly funded school on the basis of their religion.”

“The Commission recommends that the new section 62(6) to be inserted into the Education Act should be amended to the effect that, in setting out the characteristic spirit and general Objectives of the school, outside the specific context of faith formation and religious Instruction which parents wish to avail of and where exemptions apply, regard shall be had to providing information in relation to religion in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner that avoids indoctrination, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.”

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

has legislation actually been passed?

The proposed legislation was announced here and has been released as a series of diff's against the current legislation:

https://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Legislation/admission-schools-report-stage-amendment-a.pdf

Can anybody find the full text with diff's applied?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

The proposed legislation was announced here and has been released as a series of diff's against the current legislation:

https://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Legislation/admission-schools-report-stage-amendment-a.pdf

Can anybody find the full text with diff's applied?

Doesn't officially exist yet, and hasn't been compiled in a published form. There's enough data out there from which you could compile it yourself, if sufficiently motivated, but it won't be done officially until the Dail has voted on the amendments and the Bill moves on to the next stage of the parliamentary process.

And a nitpick: it's not a series of diffs from the current legislation; it's a series of diffs from draft legislation currently before the Dail. The draft legislation is itself a set of amendments to the current legislation. So what we have is new amendments to the already-proposed amendments to the current legislation.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages—the less you know about the process the more you respect the result." - attrib. to Otto von Bismarck.

recedite

An article here says

The country's Catholic bishops are unlikely to take a legal challenge over proposals which will prohibit the Church's primary schools from giving priority to Catholic children in their enrolment policies.

However if you read the archbishop's quote, it does not actually support the headline. Instead the bishops are still playing their cards close to their chest.
If you make one rule for the majority religion, and another for minorities, is that unfair discrimination? Arguably, "positive discrimination" is acceptable in some circumstances, but whether this is one of those, is untested.

Hotblack Desiato

The Irish Times was saying the opposite, that challenges from the RCC were likely. All speculation in any case.

How about allowing religious ethos schools to reserve, say, 40% of their places for their co-religionists and the rest open to all (with no religious preference allowed) ? That would make little difference to either RC or CoI schools in practice, our local CoI primary has had a non-CoI majority for years.

It's still religious discrimination, which is wrong in principle, but in effect it should be fairer than now and doesn't mean writing a law which applies to one religion but not another.

recedite

Looking at the bigger picture, I'm still not seeing any benefit to the kids in segregating them according to their religion. So why bend over backwards trying to find a way to do it legally?
It may benefit religion(s), but it does not benefit people.

LFCFan

Even if this goes ahead, you still have the ridiculous situation where parents feel forced in to their children's participation in religious studies and ceremonies because of the 'day out' mentality of the communion and confirmation. Parents are worried about their kids being left out of all the buzz around these days. Not only should the baptism barrier be removed but all religious studies and ceremonies should be removed from schools and if practicing Catholics want to have their kids do their communion and confirmation then they can do it in their own time, through their church.

expectationlost

this was stalled for ages and then suddenly passed the dail in two evenings https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2018-05-30a.478&s=%22School+Patronage%22#g669 can't but feel there some rushing going on, FF says they would be in favour for the amendment put forward by the SDs re religion at the end of the school day but not now


FF going on about their catchment areas plan for schools and then didn't even move the amendments https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2016/58/dail/4/amendment/numberedList/eng/b58a16d-drn.pdf

magicbastarder

we're just drunk on secularism given the events of the past week.

expectationlost

this plan to lease schools from the churches rather then try to change ownership, it would be even easier for the church to put religious conditions on those leases

and the ET have a problem with the ETBs organising the patronage surveys ( although the gov say its the local authority childcare committees who'll run the surveys), I'd be reasonably happy to have the local government ETBs take on all the new schools but then I share ETs concern about church conditions on any CNS' schools

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

this plan to lease schools from the churches rather then try to change ownership, it would be even easier for the church to put religious conditions on those leases

Well, it's only easy if the state agrees to accept the religious conditions. There's no lease unless lessor and lessee agree.

realdanbreen

seamus wrote: »

. When the bishops get their teeth into it by proxy of the catholic TDs, we'll see what comes out the other side.

How many TD's regard themselves as atheist? Ruari Quinn is the only one I've heard say he was but that was only after being pressurised by an interviewer.

magicbastarder

john halligan too, based on the recent minor kerfuffle over him acting as sponsor for a confirmation.

iomusicdublin

Just remove the catholic church from having anything to do with schools like you would a convicted pedo.


If you want religion then do it on your own time.

Cabaal

iomusicdublin wrote: »

If you want religion then do it on your own time.

They could even use the many hundreds of under used church buildings for bible study and Sunday schools.

Parents need to be far more involved in faith formation, this shouldn't be anything to do with the state or state paid for teachers

BSquared

Can I just clarify that you no longer need to have your child Baptised to be considered for a Catholic school (most schools are) but the syllabus will remain the same with Catholic religion being thought and the Communion and Confirmation ceremonies still being prepared for in the school?

Peregrinus

BSquared wrote: »

Can I just clarify that you no longer need to have your child Baptised to be considered for a Catholic school (most schools are) but the syllabus will remain the same with Catholic religion being thought and the Communion and Confirmation ceremonies still being prepared for in the school?

Yes, that's the plan.

Or, at any rate, the recently announced measures only address the question of admission priorities. That's not to say there might not be other measures in the future addressing other questions. But, as of now, there are no such measures.

And, just a quibble: when you say "you no longer need to have your child baptised to be considered for a Catholic school", as of right now the law still hasn't been changed. A change has been proposed by the government, but it hasn't yet been enacted by the Oireachtas or brought into force.

And, one more quibble: when you say "you no longer need to have your child baptised to be considered for a Catholic school", the current position is that you don't have to have your child baptised to be considered but, if the school is oversubscribed, the school may prioritise the baptised children over the unbaptised. Most schools are not oversubscribed, and all applicants are admitted, so the question of baptism is irrelevant. In schools that are oversubscribed, unbaptised applicants may still be admitted; it depends on the relative numbers of baptised and unbaptised applicants.

I don't think there's any school that simply flat-out won't consider an unbaptised applicant.

recedite

BSquared wrote: »

Can I just clarify that you no longer need to have your child Baptised to be considered for a Catholic school (most schools are) but the syllabus will remain the same with Catholic religion being thought and the Communion and Confirmation ceremonies still being prepared for in the school?

You are right to identify these two separate facets.
The cynic might say that a deal has been done between govt. and the RCC (as majority church) such that the church will concede on its imposition of religious discrimination in the admissions policies of publicly funded schools, so long as it gets to keep the religious indoctrination. BTW not all RC schools imposed that discrimination anyway, but the more "sought after" ones did.


Once enrolled in a school, there has always been a constitutional right to opt out of any such indoctrination, but that has rarely been granted in practice (because "resources" and "impractical")


As P pointed out, the legislation has not been passed yet, and indeed there was some other proposed legislation along similar lines a few years ago which was discontinued after the govt. of the time came to an end.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

You are right to identify these two separate facets.
The cynic might say that a deal has been done between govt. and the RCC (as majority church) such that the church will concede on its imposition of religious discrimination in the admissions policies of publicly funded schools, so long as it gets to keep the religious indoctrination. BTW not all RC schools imposed that discrimination anyway, but the more "sought after" ones did.

I doubt that there's a deal. Given the constitutional provisions, it would be next to impossible for the government to exclude religion from publicly-funded education, and I don't detect any appetite in government to try. So I don't think the church would feel any great need to make concessions in a bargain to dissuade the government from this course of action.

There may be a trade-off, though, in another sense. The easier it is for people to get their children into the school of their choice, the less political pressure there is for new schools to be provided. If the people who are systematically unsuccesful in getting their children in are non-Catholics/non-religious, that increases the pressure for new schools, and for new schools under non-Catholic, and particularly ET, patronage.

That's more theoretical than realistic, though. Everyone, even the church, accepts that there's an oversupply of Catholic schools, and the likelihood of the church being given patronage of new schools is already remote. Nor, I suspect, do they want it. So, again, I don't see them strategising or sacrificing other interests to avoid the prospect of more ET schools.

It's possible to be a cynic without being a conspiracy theorist. The church has not welcomed the proposed new rules restricting their admission policies and, while it's possible to hypothesise that there is a secret deal about this and they are only objecting for the sake of appearance, a perfectly cromulent explanation for their objections is that there's no deal and no deceptive strategising, and they do actually dislike the measure.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I doubt that there's a deal. Given the constitutional provisions, it would be next to impossible for the government to exclude religion from publicly-funded education, and I don't detect any appetite in government to try.

I wouldn't want religion excluded, I'd lump it in with civics and ethics.
Its religious indoctrination I want excluded from public schools, and I don't see any real constitutional barrier to that.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There may be a trade-off, though, in another sense. The easier it is for people to get their children into the school of their choice, the less political pressure there is for new schools to be provided. If the people who are systematically unsuccesful in getting their children in are non-Catholics/non-religious, that increases the pressure for new schools, and for new schools under non-Catholic, and particularly ET, patronage.

On that point, I would take the opposite view. If anything, there is an inefficiency of placements attached to having multiple school patron types.

As an analogy imagine you had spilled a whole load of pegs randomly on the floor of a big room; round pegs, square pegs, star shaped pegs and oval pegs. You have 4 types of boxes (the school patrons) to put your pegs in, each box suitable for one type of peg. Once you put a box on the floor, the pegs can only be picked up from within a one metre radius of the box.
So obviously this is going to be a lot more difficult compared to the same job if all the boxes were suitable for any shape of peg. And you'd need a lot more boxes when insisting on the 4 different/special box types, which costs more money.
In the real world its not going to be quite as expensive, because a lot of the square pegs can be forced into round holes, with only minimal damage. At least, that's how we have been managing so far.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I wouldn't want religion excluded, I'd lump it in with civics and ethics.
Its religious indoctrination I want excluded from public schools, and I don't see any real constitutional barrier to that.

Read the relevant provisions again, paying close attention to the distinction between "education" and "instruction", and also to the roles alloted to parents and to the state.

recedite wrote: »

On that point, I would take the opposite view. If anything, there is an inefficiency of placements attached to having multiple school patron types.

As an analogy imagine you had spilled a whole load of pegs randomly on the floor of a big room; round pegs, square pegs, star shaped pegs and oval pegs. You have 4 types of boxes (the school patrons) to put your pegs in, each box suitable for one type of peg. Once you put a box on the floor, the pegs can only be picked up from within a one metre radius of the box.
So obviously this is going to be a lot more difficult compared to the same job if all the boxes were suitable for any shape of peg. And you'd need a lot more boxes when insisting on the 4 different/special box types, which costs more money.
In the real world its not going to be quite as expensive, because a lot of the square pegs can be forced into round holes, with only minimal damage. At least, that's how we have been managing so far.

Your analogy assumes that there exists a type of school which is equally suited to those who want a secular education and those who want a religious education.

evolving_doors

Peregrinus wrote: »

I doubt that there's a deal. Given the constitutional provisions, it would be next to impossible for the government to exclude religion from publicly-funded education, and I don't detect any appetite in government to try. So I don't think the church would feel any great need to make concessions in a bargain to dissuade the government from this course of action.

There may be a trade-off, though, in another sense. The easier it is for people to get their children into the school of their choice, the less political pressure there is for new schools to be provided. If the people who are systematically unsuccesful in getting their children in are non-Catholics/non-religious, that increases the pressure for new schools, and for new schools under non-Catholic, and particularly ET, patronage.

That's more theoretical than realistic, though. Everyone, even the church, accepts that there's an oversupply of Catholic schools, and the likelihood of the church being given patronage of new schools is already remote. Nor, I suspect, do they want it. So, again, I don't see them strategising or sacrificing other interests to avoid the prospect of more ET schools.

It's possible to be a cynic without being a conspiracy theorist. The church has not welcomed the proposed new rules restricting their admission policies and, while it's possible to hypothesise that there is a secret deal about this and they are only objecting for the sake of appearance, a perfectly cromulent explanation for their objections is that there's no deal and no deceptive strategising, and they do actually dislike the measure.

On the point above I kind of agree. But in terms of patronage, new patronage will be given.... but I suspect they will amalgamate other schools under old patronages. And well see the story spun as 'RELIGIOUS PATRONAGE IS DECREASING' when in fact itll be 2 or 3 schools amalgamating into one with the same number of pupils. With bigger schools, economies of scale and resources follow.

If anything it might be prudent for religious orders to consolidate their schools and actually compete with other denominations (and none]. Set themselves as different rather than the norm.
Just an anecdote, but a friend from India (who's A Hindu) said he wanted a Catholic education for his kids as it was the most valued in India and went out of his way but a house in that catchment area. People of different faiths always viewed that education as the most desirable. Not true for all of course and India is a very big country!
In Ireland in terms of single sex Catholic schools I know that parents from certain religions don't want the student genders mixed (risk of immoral behaviour etc.). Although in saying that there are a few voluntary schools who have had to amalgamate the Girls and Boys in order to get a new school e.g. Le Cheile in Tyrrelstown.
But in any event (and despite my anecdote!) I think there is an acceptance that consolidation is happening and Catholic patronage will still be a desirable option for many parents. Also in terms of new buildings on new land the religious trustees can keep the old land and realise it's values I doubt it's all being thrown back to the government in reparations for abuse etc.
I'm thinking in terms of the voluntary schools more so than the ETBs under religious patronage.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

As an analogy imagine you had spilled a whole load of pegs randomly on the floor of a big room; round pegs, square pegs, star shaped pegs and oval pegs. You have 4 types of boxes (the school patrons) to put your pegs in, each box suitable for one type of peg.

Current Dept of Ed approach...

The biggest box is for round pegs, so you pick all of the round pegs up first and put them in that box or any other box for that matter. This leaves a fair bit of space in the big box. You then start picking up the other pegs to put them into their respective boxes which are far too small to accomodate them, so you chuck them into big box if there's any space left, or just bin them if not. :pac:

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your analogy assumes that there exists a type of school which is equally suited to those who want a secular education and those who want a religious education.

Well no, the box which is suitable for any shape of peg represents a public multi-denominational or even a non-denominational school.

It can accept kids of any religion or none.


For those who want an education permeated with custom religious instruction, private schooling would be the way to go.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Well no, the box which is suitable for any shape of peg represents a public multi-denominational or even a non-denominational school.

It can accept kids of any religion or none.

In other words, the multi- or non-demonational schools is not equally suitable for all.

recedite wrote: »

For those who want an education permeated with custom religious instruction, private schooling would be the way to go.

Which is where you run up against the the constitutional provisions. The state requires that all children "receive a certain minimum education", and it must "provide for" free primary education, but this has to be done "with due regard . . . for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation". It's parents, not the state, who decide whether children are to receive education involving religious formation and, if so, what kind they are to receive.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which is where you run up against the the constitutional provisions. The state requires that all children "receive a certain minimum education", and it must "provide for" free primary education, but this has to be done "with due regard . . . for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation". It's parents, not the state, who decide whether children are to receive education involving religious formation and, if so, what kind they are to receive.

Not another referendum? So soon.

Joking aside, it really comes down to what the majority want, which isn't something we know as we haven't recently measured it at a national level. Suggesting parents are choosing an education involving religious education where that's the only kind of education available to the vast majority of them is clearly an utter nonsense. While I appreciate the argument that differing preferences can be catered for by more smaller schools, including separation by religion and/or gender, the economy of scale of larger schools allows for better facilities, better teacher to pupil ratio, broader subject choices and shorter travel distances. Questions put to parents in terms of their preferences need to be framed with this is mind, as I suspect for many overall quality of education would trump ethos.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not another referendum? So soon.

Joking aside, it really comes down to what the majority want, which isn't something we know as we haven't recently measured it at a national level. Suggesting parents are choosing an education involving religious education where that's the only kind of education available to the vast majority of them is clearly an utter nonsense. While I appreciate the argument that differing preferences can be catered for by more smaller schools, including separation by religion and/or gender, the economy of scale of larger schools allows for better facilities, better teacher to pupil ratio, broader subject choices and shorter travel distances. Questions put to parents in terms of their preferences need to be framed with this is mind, as I suspect for many overall quality of education would trump ethos.

It might. On the other hand a lot of people might seek to balance the two. And while there may be a considerable tension between them in sparsely populated areas, in more densely-populated areas there's no reason why people can't have a degree of choice between different schools which both offer quality education.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

It might. On the other hand a lot of people might seek to balance the two. And while there may be a considerable tension between them in sparsely populated areas, in more densely-populated areas there's no reason why people can't have a degree of choice between different schools which both offer quality education.

If you think about it though, by providing specific ethos schools for particular groups, what you're actually doing is reducing the amount of choice for everyone. Say you have three groups of children, atheist and religiously indifferent, Catholic and Muslim, and you have three multi-denominational or non-denominational mixed gender schools in their catchment area. Any child can go to any school, they're all equally suitable. If however you have a multi-denominational school, a Muslim school, and a Catholic school, you actually reduce the choice as the the only people wanting to attend the Muslim schools will be the Muslims, the atheists and Muslims won't want to attend the strongly Catholic school, etc... Once you add single sex schools into the mix this becomes even worse, effectively halving the number of choices available to any given student.

I'd also ask that if you were to create more schools catering to individual preference, there are probably better dividing lines to choose than religious ethos. So if you had those same three schools, and one was focussed heavily on the sciences, another on languages and the arts and another on sports, all choices would available to all parents based on the child's natural preference and abilities.

Peregrinus

The three schools are "equally suitable", but they are also equally unsuitable. This tells us nothing about how suitable in absolute terms they are. How well-positioned is this three-school system to provide the type of education that parents want?

In general, a homogenous system is the least efficient way of meeting diverse demand, since regardless of how many different demands there are, it can optimally deliver only one of them. (This is generally true; it's not something confined to schools.) If demand is diverse, then provision for meeting that demand should be similarly diverse. This doesn't guarantee that every demand will be med, but it tends to maximise the number of demands which will be met.

If all stout served in Ireland were Guinness, then all pubs would be equally suitable at meeting the demands of drinkers who prefer Guinness, equally suitable at meeting the demands of drinkers who prefer Murphy's but will another stout Guinness if they can't get Murphy's, and equally suitable at meeting the demands of drinkers who prefer Beamish but will drink another stout if they can't get Beamish. But if different pubs served different stouts, then the number of stout-drinkers who could get their preferred stout would be maximised, even if there were still some drinkers still could not get their preferred stout because they only live within staggering distance of the one pub or two pubs.

(There's a term for this in choice theory, but I can't remember what it is.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The three schools are "equally suitable", but they are also equally unsuitable. This tells us nothing about how suitable in absolute terms they are. How well-positioned is this three-school system to provide the type of education that parents want?

That goes back to my original point that we don't know until such time as we ask those parents and present them with possible options. it is pure supposition to say that a neutral ethos school is unsuitable until such time as we have this information. Similarly we can't say whether if we were to offer some choice of education that preferred dividing lines should be religion and gender. In an increasingly secular society, it may well be that parents would prefer schools based on entirely different criteria, such as facilities, teacher ratios, range of subjects offered, etc... You have to present the options and the probability that by choosing a smaller specific ethos or gender school you're making compromises elsewhere.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

That goes back to my original point that we don't know until such time as we ask those parents and present them with possible options. it is pure supposition to say that a neutral ethos school is unsuitable until such time as we have this information. Similarly we can't say whether if we were to offer some choice of education that preferred dividing lines should be religion and gender. In an increasingly secular society, it may well be that parents would prefer schools based on entirely different criteria, such as facilities, teacher ratios, range of subjects offered, etc... You have to present the options and the probability that by choosing a smaller specific ethos or gender school you're making compromises elsewhere.

But this cuts both ways. The suggestion that rec made that a multi/non-denominational school is suitable for everyone is equally premature, if we haven't asked people what they want. It may be that in an increasingly secular society denominational character would be a less weighty factor for many parents than before, but that still doesn't mean they would be indifferent to it. (And in fact it seems unlikely that they would be; secular parents might have a pronounced preference for secular schools, for example, and there is no reason to think that religious parents would have no preference.)

Evidence from the consultation on patronage a few years back suggest that there is still marked preference as between differfent patronage models; I see no reason to think that will have evaporated. And evidence from other countries that are more secular than Ireland, and have been for longer, suggests that there is still a diversity of preference, with some parents preferring denominational schools, and some not.

Obviously, other preferences are possible, e.g. between single-sex and co-ed schools, between academic and comprenensive, etc, etc. But if we don't mandate a one-size-fits-all approach there, there seems no reason to do so when it comes to denominational character.

smacl

No argument with any of that P., simply that we need to gather comprehensive information relating to parental preferences if we're to make informed choices. The previous study from memory only related to primary schools and was reasonably limited in scope. There hasn't really been much debate about the shape that education should take going forward at a national level other than vocal dissatisfaction with the baptism barrier. In order to advocate solutions, which includes maintaining the status quo, we need to understand preferences and possible options based on available resources.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which is where you run up against the the constitutional provisions. The state requires that all children "receive a certain minimum education", and it must "provide for" free primary education, but this has to be done "with due regard . . . for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation". It's parents, not the state, who decide whether children are to receive education involving religious formation and, if so, what kind they are to receive.

No, actually that is where the right to opt-out of a denominational religious education comes from.

That is not the same thing as a right to receive a denominational education at the states's expense.
Where in the constitution does it say the state will fund religious indoctrination?

smacl wrote: »

Joking aside, it really comes down to what the majority want....

Peregrinus wrote: »

But this cuts both ways. The suggestion that rec made that a multi/non-denominational school is suitable for everyone is equally premature, if we haven't asked people what they want.

What I said is true regardless of whether the majority want it or not.
The majority might decide they want "whites only" schools but there would still be no constitutional imperative to provide them. A political imperative, yes, but that is a different matter.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

No, actually that is where the right to opt-out of a denominational religious education comes from.

That is not the same thing as a right to receive a denominational education at the states's expense.
Where in the constitution does it say the state will fund religious indoctrination?

Stop using loaded terms like "indoctrination", or at least stop using them selectively only in relation to religion, and the discusion might make more progress.

The Constitution recognised the right of parents to educate their children. It obliges the state to "provide for" education, but "with due regard to the rights of parents . . . in the matter of religious and moral formation".

I think if the state adopted a policy of providing for education, but only education which excludes religious formation, that policy could not survive constitutional scrutiny. That would not be having due regard to the rights of parents who want an education imbued with religious formation, as is their right.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think if the state adopted a policy of providing for education, but only education which excludes religious formation, that policy could not survive constitutional scrutiny. That would not be having due regard to the rights of parents who want an education imbued with religious formation, as is their right.

Again you're assuing that religious formation is "a right" within the state education system. And you are deducing that from what is actually a right to opt-out of it.

I think we can only say that the constitution is a bit weaselly around the whole issue. The state can decide to fund religious instruction to schools if it wants to, and that has survived constitutional scrutiny in the past (barely). On the other hand, if it decides not to in the future, that will also survive constitutional scrutiny, even without any change in the constitution.

The fact that Archbishop McQuaid "helped" De Valera draft the original constitution is relevant here. Interesting that another of his helpful suggestions (the primacy or special status of the RCC) has already been repealed and another (the women's place is in the home part) is unlikely to survive beyond the end of this year.



If you add into that mix the existing constitutional prohibition on "the endowment of religion" then the continued state funding of religious indoctrination/instruction looks increasingly precarious.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Again you're assuming that religious formation is "a right" within the state education system. And you are deducing that from what is actually a right to opt-out of it.

Not at all. I haven't said anything remotely like that. There are no assumptions involved and my argument does not depend at all on the constitutional right to opt out of religious instruction set out in Art 44. Pay close attention, now:

- The Constitution explicitly recognises the right and duty of parents to provide for the education, including the religious and moral education, of their children; Art 42.1.

- Parents are free to provide this education in their homes, in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State; Art 42.2.

- The State must require that all children receive a certain minimum education; Art 42.3.2.

- The State must provide for free primary education, and must endeavour to support other educational initiatives, with due regard for the rights of parents, especially in relation to religious and moral formation; Art 42.4.

Given that, I do not think that the provision of state support for education on condition that religious formation is excluded could survive constitutional scrutiny. Both Art 42.2 and Art 42.4 affirm a right to religious education in state-supported schools. It is precisely because of the constitutional imperative in Art 42 to accommodate religious education/formation in state-supported schools that 44.2.4 needs to provide a right to opt out of religious instruction.

recedite wrote: »

The fact that Archbishop McQuaid "helped" De Valera draft the original constitution is relevant here. Interesting that another of his helpful suggestions (the primacy or special status of the RCC) has already been repealed and another (the women's place is in the home part) is unlikely to survive beyond the end of this year.

Both of those required a referendum. I think eliminating this would too.

(And, on a nitpick, the "special position" clause wasn't McQuaid's idea. McQuaid wanted a clause that affirmed that "the true religion is that established by Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ Himself, which he committed to his Church to protect and propagate" and that "the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.” De Valera put that in his first draft, but his Ministers were appalled, and he took it out, eventually inserting the "special position" language instead. McQuaid and Cardinal McRory both objected to Dev's language, but the government stuck to it.)

recedite wrote: »

If you add into that mix the existing constitutional prohibition on "the endowment of religion" then the continued state funding of religious indoctrination/instruction looks increasingly precarious.

I don't think that carries much weight. Nearly every country in Europe (possibly, indeed, actually every country) provides state support for religious schools, and many of them also have constitutional prohibitions on the endowment of religion and/or constitutional guarantees of the secularity of the state. I don't think that provisions of this kind constitute any barrier at all to the provision of state support for church-linked schools. (You might have a better case relying on them to object to a state policy of supporting only church-linked schools.)

Pherekydes

Peregrinus wrote: »

Stop using loaded terms like "indoctrination", or at least stop using them selectively only in relation to religion, and the discusion might make more progress.

Teaching of [church] doctrine is indoctrination.

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

Teaching of [church] doctrine is indoctrination.

Teaching of any doctrine is indoctrination. And anything which is "taught or laid down as true concerning a particular subject or department of knowledge" is a doctrine.

So, if you want to use "indoctrination" in relation to what goes on in schools, then use it systematically, not just in relation to religion (unless you're trying to poison the well, of course).

But if you want to talk about what the constitutional rights and obligations in regard to religion in schools are, probably best to avoid the term. The Constitution talks variously about religious education, religious instruction and religious formation but not at all about religious indoctrination. If you really want to use the term at the very least you need to explain what you mean by it, and say how you think it relates to the constitutional provisions. But that seems to needlessly complicate the discussion, so think carefully before making this choice.

Pherekydes

Peregrinus wrote: »

Teaching of any doctrine is indoctrination. And anything which is "taught or laid down as true concerning a particular subject or department of knowledge" is a doctrine.

So, if you want to use "indoctrination" in relation to what goes on in schools, then use it systematically, not just in relation to religion (unless you're trying to poison the well, of course).

But if you want to talk about what the constitutional rights and obligations in regard to religion in schools are, probably best to avoid the term. The Constitution talks variously about religious education, religious instruction and religious formation but not at all about religious indoctrination. If you really want to use the term at the very least you need to explain what you mean by it, and say how you think it relates to the constitutional provisions. But that seems to needlessly complicate the discussion, so think carefully before making this choice.

This is the definition that people like me (not in thrall to any church) use:

"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group."

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

This is the definition that people like me (not in thrall to any church) use:

"a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group."

Well, if there's not agreement on the meaning of the term, or of the term legitimately has more than one meaning and either could be relevant to the context, then employing the term is likely to generate more heat than light, isn't it? So, I still maintain, best avoided.

evolving_doors

Peregrinus wrote: »

Teaching of any doctrine is indoctrination. And anything which is "taught or laid down as true concerning a particular subject or department of knowledge" is a doctrine.

So, if you want to use "indoctrination" in relation to what goes on in schools, then use it systematically, not just in relation to religion (unless you're trying to poison the well, of course).

But if you want to talk about what the constitutional rights and obligations in regard to religion in schools are, probably best to avoid the term. The Constitution talks variously about religious education, religious instruction and religious formation but not at all about religious indoctrination. If you really want to use the term at the very least you need to explain what you mean by it, and say how you think it relates to the constitutional provisions. But that seems to needlessly complicate the discussion, so think carefully before making this choice.

Jeez who died and made you the boss of this thread:rolleyes:

Anyhow here's a definition indoctrination:
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

The religion class can have all the discussion it wants, but the learning outcome always remains the same.
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Ergo: There is only one true religion, sure there are others and here's what they believe, but this is what we must believe in this school.

If there is critical enquiry going on in the religion class then there must be room left for different conclusions and an acceptance that conclusions other than the ones proffered could be correct. And following the statistics... has a school ever concluded... "ya know Jimmy, yer right, nobody actually knows what happens when you die and people saying they know based on faith and visions mightnt be right."

But no, it's always the same conclusion. Teacher is right because they say so. There's only a veneer of critical enquiry.

So I say he's right to use the word. No need to 'muddy the waters' saying they're poisoning your well. The discussion is about religion and not other subjects.

Peregrinus

evolving_doors wrote: »

Jeez who died and made you the boss of this thread:rolleyes:

Anyhow here's a definition indoctrination:
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

And who are you to lay down definitions with an authority to which all must give devout submission of will and intellect?

I'll say to you what I said to Pherykedes; employing terms that you have to argue about the meaning of is not likely to make for a productive discussion.

Nobody really cares whether you or I or Pherydes or Recedite or anyone else thinks that religious education/instruction/formation can properly be called "indoctrination", or for that matter whether analogous non-religions education/instruction/formation can be called "indoctrination" or, in either case, exactly what we mean by the term. As regards what the Constitution has to say about education and religion, it's completely irrelevant. It may or may not be the intention, but insisting on employing the term in this discussion looks like an attempt to frame the discussion on the basis that religious education has to be bracketed as some kind of brainwashing that occurs only in connection with religion, and not allowing the discussion to proceed unless everyone involves accepts that, or at least allows it to go unchallenged. Which is why I say it's a massive distraction from the question of what the Constitution actually provides.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pay close attention, now:

- The Constitution explicitly recognises the right and duty of parents to provide for the education, including the religious and moral education, of their children; Art 42.1.

- Parents are free to provide this education in their homes, in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State; Art 42.2.

- The State must require that all children receive a certain minimum education; Art 42.3.2.

- The State must provide for free primary education, and must endeavour to support other educational initiatives, with due regard for the rights of parents, especially in relation to religious and moral formation; Art 42.4.

Given that, I do not think that the provision of state support for education on condition that religious formation is excluded could survive constitutional scrutiny.

I am paying close attention, and what I see is somebody assembling four different elements, and then trying to sell them as a mythical Fifth Element; a veritable chimera.
Its truly a miracle, created before our very eyes.. "The State must provide for free faith formation in schools"

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody really cares whether you or I or Pherydes or Recedite or anyone else thinks that religious education/instruction/formation can properly be called "indoctrination"... Which is why I say it's a massive distraction from the question of what the Constitution actually provides.

It is important to state that religious education, or education about religion(s) is not in itself indoctrination.
Religious "instruction" and "faith" formation definitely constitute religious indoctrination.


So while I get your point that the law does not use the term "indoctrination" it does use the other three terms, and people should always be aware of which ones constitute religious indoctrination and which one does not.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I am paying close attention, and what I see is somebody assembling four different elements, and then trying to sell them as a mythical Fifth Element; a veritable chimera.
Its truly a miracle, created before our very eyes.. "The State must provide for free faith formation in schools"

However close your attention has been, rec, it has not bee close enough. I have not said that the state must provide for free faith formation in schools. I have said that the state cannot make its support for education conditional on the exclusion of faith formation. It can certainly support secular schools; it cannot support only secular schools.