National Synodal Assembly to be held within five years

Background
Since the 2018 Ordinary General Assembly of Bishops in Rome on the theme of young people, the faith and vocational discernment, we have been giving active consideration to calling a National Synodal Assembly for the Church in Ireland. Conversations at local, regional and national level have informed the work of a subgroup of the Episcopal Conference which was established to explore the idea further. During the 2020 Winter General Meeting of the Bishops’ Conference we decided to proceed along a synodal pathway, and, since then, we have been assisted and greatly encouraged by Cardinal Grech and Sr. Natalie Becquart, of the General Secretariat for the Synod of Bishops, who addressed us on 3 February last, see https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2021/03/04/address-of-cardinal-mario-grech-to-the-bishops-of-ireland-on-synodality-2/

Context: Challenges and Hopes
We are mindful of the challenges and opportunities that provide a context for a synodal pathway leading to a National Synod at this pivotal time for the Church.
Solidarity, Outreach to the Peripheries and the Promise of a New Pentecost
Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation The Joy of the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium), together with his encyclicals, Laudato Si’ and Fratelli Tutti offer a challenging framework for the Church of today and tomorrow – calling us in particular to solidarity with the poor, the excluded and those “on the peripheries”, who yearn for the Good News. This calling also includes initiatives of social friendship in favour of our sisters and brothers in other continents.
Speaking at the end of the World Meeting of Families in Phoenix Park, Dublin 2018, Pope Francis encouraged the people of Ireland to be open to the work of the Holy Spirit:
“who constantly breathes new life into our world, into our hearts, into our families, into our homes and parishes. Each new day in the life of our families, and each new generation, brings the promise of a new Pentecost, a domestic Pentecost, a fresh outpouring of the Spirit, the Paraclete, whom Jesus sends as our Advocate, our Consoler and indeed our Encourager. How much our world needs this encouragement that is God’s gift and promise!”

Listening to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church in an Ireland faced with rapid transformation
Secularisation of Society. A synodal pathway leading to a National Synod is inviting us to journey together in discernment of what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church in Ireland at this time. We are acutely aware of the huge challenges to the faith over the past fifty years from the rapid transformation and secularisation of society in Ireland bringing with it a major decline in practice of the faith and in the number of vocations to the priesthood and the religious life.

Shocking Revelations. Like so many others we are appalled by the findings in published Reports into institutional and clerical abuse; the recent shocking revelations about Mother and Baby homes in Ireland – north and south – have further reminded us of the deep trauma felt by so many in the Body of Christ and the need for inner healing and hope.

The need to promote peace-making and a culture of welcome. One hundred years on from the partition of Ireland we also recognise the need for ongoing peace-making, the building of trust and reconciliation, and for a culture of welcome and integration for migrants and the many newcomers who have arrived to live on this island.

Listening to the Cry for Transparency. We hear a cry for transparency, greater participation and accountability in the Church.

Discovering the Family as “Domestic Church”. We see the tremendous potential for the support and renewal of faith within the family. The restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic prompted a new discovery of the family as the “domestic Church”.

Connecting with Young People. We are alert to the need to connect with the energy and gifts of our young people, forming and enabling them to be missionaries to each other and inviting them to spread the Good News not only in Ireland but around the world that Christ is Alive!

Honouring the Contribution of Women. While many women are very engaged in Church life in Ireland, we acknowledge the critical need to honour the contribution of women, to hear their deep concerns, to formally recognise their roles and articulate new models of co-responsibility and leadership involving all lay people – women and men. We are also aware that many people have left Church behind and in some cases feel ignored, excluded or forgotten – we need to hear their voices also.

The Initial Phase – Prayer, Listening, Consultation, Discernment
The initial two-year phase of embarking on the synodal pathway and leading, in time, to a National Synod, helpfully coincides with preparation for the 2022 Ordinary General Assembly of Bishops in Rome entitled, For a synodal Church: communion, participation and mission.
We envisage the next two years as a period of prayer, listening and discernment, involving a nationwide consultative conversation on this theme. This will allow individuals and parishes, religious orders and associations as well as groups, movements and organisations both within the Church and in Irish society at large, to share their insights into the Church in Ireland – past, present and future. It will also include discussion and debate via related information sessions and educational programmes on the meaning and processes of synodality. We will research best practice in listening and synodal processes and assemblies at home and around the world.

The Planning Phase – Preparation for a National Synodal Asembly
The planning and preparation phase for a National Synodal Assembly will bring together and seek to implement the fruits and recommendations from the Initial Phase. It will, in particular, take account of the conclusions of the General Assembly in Rome in 2022, together with any Apostolic Exhortation by the Holy Father emerging from the General Assembly. The aim of this phase will be to design the particular form of our National Synod and prepare directly at local, regional and national level for the holding of the Synod.

What is a Synod?
The word “synod” evokes the image of “walking together on the way”. For the Church it is a time-honoured way of working out together the “navigation map” for the Church at particular times. Synodality is about the whole People of God helping each other listen to what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Church. Pope Francis emphasises that this is not simply a matter of discussion as in a parliamentary debate. Rather it is primarily a prayerful spiritual time of communitarian discernment. It is about finding the best ways for every baptized person to fulfil the Church’s mission of proclaiming to the world, God’s love and salvation in Jesus Christ.
Pope Francis has emphasised that “it is precisely this path of synodality which God expects of the Church of the third millennium”. Synodality is at the heart of the pastoral conversion that Pope Francis emphasises in the Joy of the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium).
https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2021/03/10/statement-of-the-spring-2021-general-meeting-of-the-irish-catholic-bishops-conference/

Big news, it has the potential, in my opinion, to be the most important Synod in several centuries. It will be interesting to see how the major issues and challenges are addressed.

Thinkingaboutit

I expect it to be the usual Francis-scheming, with radical changes threatened, but instead a strategic agitation of two sets of rivals, Cardinal Burke neo-cons, and rich (and pastorally appalling Germans), which he will then feed little tidbits to keep them well behaved.

I think what needs to be addressed is the role of the Church in schools. The current set up does not work for anyone. For all the moaning about "indoctrination" of students it is clear that the vast majority do not practice their religion, and cannot demonstrate even a rudimentary level of catechesis.

In my opinion the church should summarily ditch the vast majority of schools on the state for a nominal rent or donation of the land the school buildings are on. The state would have great fun trying to run things.

The church should maintain a small elite of dedicated catholic schools across the country, where parents, who want a genuine catholic education, can send their kids. Their should also be new hedge schools for religious education based in the local parish outside of regular school time.

uptherebels

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

I think what needs to be addressed is the role of the Church in schools. The current set up does not work for anyone. For all the moaning about "indoctrination" of students it is clear that the vast majority do not practice their religion, and cannot demonstrate even a rudimentary level of catechesis.

In my opinion the church should summarily ditch the vast majority of schools on the state for a nominal rent or donation of the land the school buildings are on. The state would have great fun trying to run things.

The church should maintain a small elite of dedicated catholic schools across the country, where parents, who want a genuine catholic education, can send their kids. Their should also be new hedge schools for religious education based in the local parish outside of regular school time.

If the church isn't willing to pick up the tab now, where do you think this sudden splurge on maintaing elite schools would come from?

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

If the church isn't willing to pick up the tab now, where do you think this sudden splurge on maintaing elite schools would come from?

Elite was a reference to their ethos and admissions, not necessarily facilities.

uptherebels

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

Elite was a reference to their ethos and admissions, not necessarily facilities.

To attract elite admissions they would need suitable facilities, why and how would the church suddenly cough up the money cover this?

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

To attract elite admissions they would need suitable facilities, why and how would the church suddenly cough up the money cover this?

The ethos of a genuine catholic education will attract the students whose parents want this for them.

uptherebels

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

The ethos of a genuine catholic education will attract the students whose parents want this for them.

You seem to dodging the question. You said elite admissions. Now it's just admissions. How are they going to pay for anything? No state money for salaries or maintenance.

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

You seem to dodging the question. You said elite admissions. Now it's just admissions. How are they going to pay for anything? No state money for salaries or maintenance.

lol Try reading my posts again.

The 'elite' nature would be the ethos of the school, i.e a smaller number than present where there is a genuine catholic ethos for those who want that. Sure I thought the church was rolling in money :rolleyes:

uptherebels

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

lol Try reading my posts again.

The 'elite' nature would be the ethos of the school, i.e a smaller number than present where there is a genuine catholic ethos for those who want that. Sure I thought the church was rolling in money :rolleyes:

So you are just going to ignore the admissions part of you plan now?
Again how are they going to pay for it? No state money for salaries or maintenance.
The church does have money, the problem is it only only goes in one direction. Hence the my question on funding that you keep dodging.

Peregrinus

Whatever you think of ex loco's plan, nothing in it involves no state money for church schools. He suggests the church should withdraw from many of the schools that it currently runs or patronises, and concentrate its resources on delivering a distinctively Catholic education in the remaining schools, in a way designed to appeal to parents who particularly want that kind of education. This is entirely consistent with those schools continuing to be funded in the way they are funded now.

uptherebels

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whatever you think of ex loco's plan, nothing in it involves no state money for church schools. He suggests the church should withdraw from many of the schools that it currently runs or patronises, and concentrate its resources on delivering a distinctively Catholic education in the remaining schools, in a way designed to appeal to parents who particularly want that kind of education. This is entirely consistent with those schools continuing to be funded in the way they are funded now.

Oh I fully expect the church to keep leeching off the state to provide its "elite" ethos education. Like I have already said, the money in the church only goes one way.
I'm just curious why the above poster is unwilling to admit it or propose an alternate funding method. I suppose saying fee charging and so only for the rich doesn't sound very christian.

Peregrinus

uptherebels wrote: »

Oh I fully expect the church to keep leeching off the state to provide its "elite" ethos education. Like I have already said, the money in the church only goes one way.
I'm just curious why the above poster is unwilling to admit it or propose an alternate funding method. I suppose saying fee charging and so only for the rich doesn't sound very christian.

I don't see that ex loco needs to propose an alternate funding method; he is not suggesting anything which would require an alternate funding method.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that ex loco needs to propose an alternate funding method; he is not suggesting anything which would require an alternate funding method.

Yes, this is correct.

Hotblack Desiato

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

In my opinion the church should summarily ditch the vast majority of schools on the state for a nominal rent or donation of the land the school buildings are on. The state would have great fun trying to run things.

The RCC has practically no role in the running of schools at present, apart from mandating a religion syllabus and carrying out inspections in relation to that.

The church should maintain a small elite of dedicated catholic schools across the country, where parents, who want a genuine catholic education, can send their kids.

Like they do already?

Their should also be new hedge schools for religious education based in the local parish outside of regular school time.

I fully agree that all religions should make their own local arrangements for religious education. ET schools facilitate this in the school after school hours, there is no reason why all schools cannot do the same.

uptherebels wrote: »

To attract elite admissions they would need suitable facilities, why and how would the church suddenly cough up the money cover this?

They don't need to. They charge massive fees.

uptherebels

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that ex loco needs to propose an alternate funding method; he is not suggesting anything which would require an alternate funding method.

His model would need to be private or semi private so state funding alone wouldnt cover enough.

uptherebels

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

Yes, this is correct.

That's clutching at straws, because you don't actually have a alternative.

uptherebels

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They don't need to. They charge massive fees.

Oh I know that, and you know that, but some people are in denial

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

That's clutching at straws, because you don't actually have a alternative.

I think you are just looking for an argument at this stage.

Peregrinus

uptherebels wrote: »

His model would need to be private or semi private so state funding alone wouldnt cover enough.

No, it wouldn't. His model is that the church should "ditch the vast majority" of the schools that it runs and "maintain" the small remainder as "dedicated catholic schools" offering "a genuine catholic education". Nothing in there about any change to funding arrangements.

There might be good reasons for criticising or opposing such a plan. But the fixation in this thread on a spurious funding problem suggests that people haven't found them yet.

uptherebels wrote: »

That's clutching at straws, because you don't actually have a alternative.

You have yet to explain why you think an alternative will be required. Why will the current funding mechanisms not suffice?

uptherebels

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it wouldn't. His model is that the church should "ditch the vast majority" of the schools that it runs and "maintain" the small remainder as "dedicated catholic schools" offering "a genuine catholic education". Nothing in there about any change to funding arrangements.

There might be good reasons for criticising or opposing such a plan. But the fixation in this thread on a spurious funding problem suggests that people haven't found them yet.


You have yet to explain why you think an alternative will be required. Why will the current funding mechanisms not suffice?

If they want a choice in who they admit it is private or semi private. In either of those cases state funding isn't enough.
So either his "elite ethos and admissions" is in name only or the money to support it has to come from somewhere.
I don't understand what part of this is difficult for you.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have yet to explain why you think an alternative will be required. Why will the current funding mechanisms not suffice?

The RCC is not allowed to exclude pupils on the grounds of religion while continuing to receive state funding for schools.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The RCC is not allowed to exclude pupils on the grounds of religion while continuing to receive state funding for schools.

In many towns there are multiple primary and secondary schools. In my own town there are at least 6 primary and 5 secondary. Except for 2 small schools all are nominally catholic. What I am saying is that perhaps only one of each should be Catholic, but with a much more authentically catholic ethos. Parents who do not want this ethos would have five (or thereabouts) other options within a relatively small radius. People who do want this ethos will have a proper option.

The state should increase funding and expand schools where the demand warrants it.

Do you not think this is a better situation than what we have now?

uptherebels

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

In many towns there are multiple primary and secondary schools. In my own town there are at least 6 primary and 5 secondary. Except for 2 small schools all are nominally catholic. What I am saying is that perhaps only one of each should be Catholic, but with a much more authentically catholic ethos. Parents who do not want this ethos would have five (or thereabouts) other options within a relatively small radius. People who do want this ethos will have a proper option.

The state should increase funding and expand schools where the demand warrants it.

Do you not think this is a better situation than what we have now?

why should the state double pay for school places?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The RCC is not allowed to exclude pupils on the grounds of religion while continuing to receive state funding for schools.

I don't think they'd need to. In ex loco's plan a relatively small number of schools would offer an intensively Catholic education, and the great majority would offer a secular, or at any rate not distinctively Catholic, education. In that scenario I think the non-Catholic students would exclude themselves, because why would they choose an intensively Catholic education when other options are available?

(And if they did choose an intensively Catholic education despite not being Catholic, I don't think the churchy schools would have any qualms about accepting them.)

Peregrinus

uptherebels wrote: »

why should the state double pay for school places?

I don't see any proposal for double payment here. What ex loco is proposing is the same number of places overall, but fewer places in Catholic schools (because fewer Catholic schools) and more places in non-Catholic schools (because more non-Catholic schools).

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think they'd need to. In ex loco's plan a relatively small number of schools would offer an intensively Catholic education, and the great majority would offer a secular, or at any rate not distinctively Catholic, education. In that scenario I think the non-Catholic students would exclude themselves, because why would they choose an intensively Catholic education when other options are available?

(And if they did choose an intensively Catholic education despite not being Catholic, I don't think the churchy schools would have any qualms about accepting them.)

Yes, exactly. I'm not sure why this is proving hard to grasp for some, it seemed relatively straightforward to me.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think they'd need to. In ex loco's plan a relatively small number of schools would offer an intensively Catholic education, and the great majority would offer a secular, or at any rate not distinctively Catholic, education. In that scenario I think the non-Catholic students would exclude themselves, because why would they choose an intensively Catholic education when other options are available?

I think the reasons parents pick any given school for their children are many and varied. Religious ethos is certainly one, others include academic reputation and standing in exam results tables, proximity, range and quality of facilities, reputation in sports, co-ed or single sex, whether siblings are going to the same school, whether friends of the pupil are going to the same school. Not to forget availability of places.

(And if they did choose an intensively Catholic education despite not being Catholic, I don't think the churchy schools would have any qualms about accepting them.)

I think the more important issue for a state funded school is whether a potentially exclusionary or preferential admissions policy should be allowed in the first instance. I would rather hope not and would hope that any state funded school should have an inclusive admissions policy first and foremost, regardless of the ethos.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I think the reasons parents pick any given school for their children are many and varied. Religious ethos is certainly one, others include academic reputation and standing in exam results tables, proximity, range and quality of facilities, reputation in sports, co-ed or single sex, whether siblings are going to the same school, whether friends of the pupil are going to the same school. Not to forget availability of places.

Oh, sure. But I think there's widespread recognition that there are far more placed in Catholic-church sponsored schools than is justified by parental demand, and that many people send their child to a Catholic school not because it is their preference, but because they have no practical alternative. Ex loco's plan would improve this situation, by signficantly increasing the number of places in non-Catholic schools. The objective is that people who ant places in non-Catholic schools would be better served, and that the remaining Catholic schools would cater more for people who want places in Catholic schools because they prefer a Catholic ethos.

smacl wrote: »

I think the more important issue for a state funded school is whether a potentially exclusionary or preferential admissions policy should be allowed in the first instance. I would rather hope not and would hope that any state funded school should have an inclusive admissions policy first and foremost, regardless of the ethos.

Mmm. Would you apply that to the schools that at present serve minority communities. Should, say, a Jewish school be forbidden from preferencing Jewish applicants?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. Would you apply that to the schools that at present serve minority communities. Should, say, a Jewish school be forbidden from preferencing Jewish applicants?

It's a tough one for sure, but on balance I'd say yes, this kind of preferential treatment on admissions for fully state funded schools should be forbidden. We've been through this recently in our ET secondary where we had to decide whether to prefer ET primary feeder schools in the admission policy. On the one hand, it was the parents of those ET primaries that were instrumental in building the ET secondary and it can seem desperately unfair that their place is taken by another child who's family had no such input. On the other hand, if you cherish inclusivity and equal opportunity for all, you have to accept that this isn't always going to work in your favour. My personal opinion is that any kind of exclusionary enrollment policy is an anathema to how we should run our publicly funded schools. We should not discriminate against children based on their creed, ability, ethnicity or background. Again from an ET perspective, diversity is something to be celebrated, not shunned by siloing kids of into groups with similar religious beliefs or cultural practises.

I fully accept why others might think differently but fundamentally don't agree with them.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It's a tough one for sure, but on balance I'd say yes, this kind of preferential treatment on admissions for fully state funded schools should be forbidden. We've been through this recently in our ET secondary where we had to decide whether to prefer ET primary feeder schools in the admission policy. On the one hand, it was the parents of those ET primaries that were instrumental in building the ET secondary and it can seem desperately unfair that their place is taken by another child who's family had no such input. On the other hand, if you cherish inclusivity and equal opportunity for all, you have to accept that this isn't always going to work in your favour. My personal opinion is that any kind of exclusionary enrollment policy is an anathema to how we should run our publicly funded schools. We should not discriminate against children based on their creed, ability, ethnicity or background. Again from an ET perspective, diversity is something to be celebrated, not shunned by siloing kids of into groups with similar religious beliefs or cultural practises.

I fully accept why others might think differently but fundamentally don't agree with them.

But there's a big difference between the decision made by the management of a particular school as to whether that school should operate a preferential admission policy on the basis of creed, sex, academic attainment or whatever, and a decision that is to apply to all schools — i.e., a decision that school managers should not be allowed to make this decision. "This school should not preference of the basis of gender, etc" is a very different matter from "no school should be allowed to preference on the basis of gender, etc".

A couple of thoughts occur to me here. In no particular order:

- If we adopt the rule you favour, minority communities will suffer, since they will be deprived of institutions that are significant to their community. In particular, Ireland will be come the first European country since 1945 to adopt a policy with the practical effect of forcing the closure of the country's Jewish schools. Is that really where we want to position ourselves?

- If you favour diversity in education, so that parents actually have a meaningful choice of school types, then different admission policies have a significant role to play in fostering different school communities.

- What does the research suggest about the correlation, if any, between diversity or homogeneity of school communities and educational outcomes? Shouldn't we at least ask ourselves that question before a decision to impose a particular kind of enrolment policy on all schools (or, to be fair, before a decision not to do so)? Or do we subordinate that question to what are essentially ideological considerations?

- A point I've already made in this thread: ex loco's proposal doesn't involve the reduced number of Catholic schools operating a "Catholics only" admission policy and, if anything, it it is likely to reduce the incentive for them to adopt such a policy (because the pool of applicants will be overwhelmingly Catholic in any case).

looksee

Ideally all schools should teach a secular National Curriculum with the ethos of teaching children to be tolerant, fair, honest and other moral ideals that are common to all societies regardless of religious beliefs. Beyond that, religious teaching should be the responsibility of parents.

Sometimes this does not work as demonstrated by some of the evangelistic cults (mostly) in the US, but also elsewhere, that are actively damaging to children. These include such large organisations as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and others, but who is to decide where to draw the line between 'real' religious beliefs and those that are described as cults? And this is only within Christianity. To what extent do 'foreign'/other religions get to start schools here?

However, realistically there are sufficient numbers of Catholics in Ireland that their right to choose how schools should be run has to be recognised, and this could be resolved by having an appropriate proportion of specifically Catholic schools offering a Catholic ethos. They should not be required to have inclusive admission policies, provided that other schools did not have a Catholic/religious bias in the school.

All children in the state are entitled to an education, regardless of their parents' beliefs, so their education should be funded just the same in Catholic (or other speciality) schools as in secular schools. All schools should be required to teach the National Curriculum, and be inspected. Catholic parents get what they want and parents who want a religion-free school for their children get what they want also. Both pay taxes, both do in fact pay significant contributions to the schools anyway. Ownership of land would have to be negotiated, but the government has been maintaining and extending school buildings for many years and many of the older religious school buildings are more of a liability at this stage in terms of maintenance. No one expects the Church to be a charity, but they have been largely 'bought out' at this stage.

The glitch in this plan is in the vast number of smaller towns where there is no choice of school, one option of a local village primary school and one secondary school in a small town maybe 10km away. How is that made to work?

There is a degree of commentary (not necessarily from people on this thread, but in general) that would have religion (well, specifically Christianity) eliminated from the public sphere entirely and relegated to some hidden practice that some people do at the weekend, but is not allowed to have any influence or relevance outside of that. Such an approach is not compatible with a pluralist society. Rather, it is thinly disguised bigotry, as it does not allow people to live their lives in accordance with their religion, or to raise and educate their children in a manner which they desire, because they view this as being 'wrong'. There are some people who hate religion, specifically Catholicism in this country, to such a degree that they object to any catholic ethos in any school - i.e. they object to the way some parents choose to raise their children, such is the contempt for religion. Where is the tolerance here?

If you want a pluralist society, it will have groups of people living their lives in different ways, which, at times, will undoubtedly lead to some tension. A pluralist society must allow and support different communities, which must include the state supporting and providing infrastructure, including allowing people to educate their children in a way which conforms with their religious beliefs. So there will be secular schools, Islamic schools (in particular in the years to come), Catholic schools, COI schools etc. A plurality of options.

But of course, a pluralist society is not one which is really desired, rather they want a 'multicultural' society where a central aspect of a groups culture, their religion, is banished from day to day life entirely, suppressed to where the only acceptable expression is an 'out of sight' one. The idea that some sort of utopia can be generated by trying to engineer conformity to some secular (read atheistic) ideal is extremely naïve. The only hope for a decent, peaceful society with disparate ethnic and cultural groups is that these groups are allowed to live out their lives, to the greatest degree possible, as they choose. Immigrant groups will do this anyway, it is best that this is embraced, rather than force them to do so in some subversive manner contrary to the effective goals of the state.

Now, in the real world, people are not half as hostile to religion when it is considered on the local level in terms of their local schools, parishes and local churches. Most decent people are happy, and would be happy, if greater choice in terms of school were offered, and would balk at any suggestion that certain types of schools to cater for certain communities were effectively banned.

The greatest difficulty with my idea would be dealing with the massive objections from the schools and parents of students aghast at the church removing itself entirely from the schools, and at the change in ethos.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Ownership of land would have to be negotiated, but the government has been maintaining and extending school buildings for many years and many of the older religious school buildings are more of a liability at this stage in terms of maintenance. No one expects the Church to be a charity, but they have been largely 'bought out' at this stage.

The Church in Ireland has spent lots of money on schools over hundreds of years, as well as investing countless hours, not only on teaching, but on admin too. The church has not been "bought out", the vast majority of schools built before 2000 were funded locally through the efforts of the patron, usually on a site they provided or bought.

Many businesses lease or rent properties, and spend lots of money fitting them out, and on further development. This does not mean that they now own the land, the warehouse or whatever.

That said, I think there is a solid argument that the sites schools buildings are on (and the buildings themselves) that are not to be retained should either be donated to the state, or leased to them long term on very favorable terms. This would be a very generous approach.

The glitch in this plan is in the vast number of smaller towns where there is no choice of school, one option of a local village primary school and one secondary school in a small town maybe 10km away. How is that made to work?

Villages are dying. Give it another few decades and this won't be a problem.

Personally, if the choice is between the nominal catholic schools we have now, or "secular" schools (almost the same anyway) then I would favour the latter, coupled with outside religious education. However, it is in some rural areas where the support for religious education is the strongest, probably due to the make up of the local population so local views should be taken into account.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

But there's a big difference between the decision made by the management of a particular school as to whether that school should operate a preferential admission policy on the basis of creed, sex, academic attainment or whatever, and a decision that is to apply to all schools — i.e., a decision that school managers should not be allowed to make this decision. "This school should not preference of the basis of gender, etc" is a very different matter from "no school should be allowed to preference on the basis of gender, etc".

A couple of thoughts occur to me here. In no particular order:

- If we adopt the rule you favour, minority communities will suffer, since they will be deprived of institutions that are significant to their community. In particular, Ireland will be come the first European country since 1945 to adopt a policy with the practical effect of forcing the closure of the country's Jewish schools. Is that really where we want to position ourselves?

- If you favour diversity in education, so that parents actually have a meaningful choice of school types, then different admission policies have a significant role to play in fostering different school communities.

- What does the research suggest about the correlation, if any, between diversity or homogeneity of school communities and educational outcomes? Shouldn't we at least ask ourselves that question before a decision to impose a particular kind of enrolment policy on all schools (or, to be fair, before a decision not to do so)? Or do we subordinate that question to what are essentially ideological considerations?

- A point I've already made in this thread: ex loco's proposal doesn't involve the reduced number of Catholic schools operating a "Catholics only" admission policy and, if anything, it it is likely to reduce the incentive for them to adopt such a policy (because the pool of applicants will be overwhelmingly Catholic in any case).

I think this largely boils down to how you look at diversity within education and broader society. Supporting a variety of rigidly single ethos schools tends to foster multi-culturalism. Removing exclusionary and preferential entry criteria, while respecting and celebrating differences, promotes interculturalism. The risk is rejecting cultural diversity and pushing monoculturalism.

I'm not seeing the logic where removing preferential entry policy for a Jewish ethos school would force that school to close down. It might mean that they have to accept some non-Jewish students and accommodate those students by allowing them alternatives to religious instruction classes but this is the same for any other school. I'm not sure why any religion would have a problem with this, nor why such intolerance (were it to exist) should be funded by the taxpayer.

With respect to having a meaningful choice, it is worth that remembering that every school that would prefer to exclude your child is one less option in what is already Hobson's choice for most. I would agree entirely with your point were we to have unlimited resources, but this is in fact the opposite of where we currently are in terms of state funded education. Single gender schools and schools with restrictive admission policies actually reduce rather than increase the choice for most. They also reduce teacher student ratios, variety of options and quality of facilities within any given school.

As for educational outcomes, this can also lead to very skewed optics where exclusionary entry criteria are used. For example, should a school choose to exclude a demographic with poor academic prospects, they will show better educational outcomes than schools who do not. I'm also becoming increasingly wary of what we as a society class as a good educational outcome in this day and age. We currently tend to look at the points race to the detriment of all else and I'd wonder how well that reflects the benefits a school has accorded a young person in growing up to be a happy, well adjusted adult and productive member of our community.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I think this largely boils down to how you look at diversity within education and broader society. Supporting a variety of rigidly single ethos schools tends to foster multi-culturalism. Removing exclusionary and preferential entry criteria, while respecting and celebrating differences, promotes interculturalism. The risk is rejecting cultural diversity and pushing monoculturalism.

That puts it very well.

smacl wrote: »

I'm not seeing the logic where removing preferential entry policy for a Jewish ethos school would force that school to close down. It might mean that they have to accept some non-Jewish students and accommodate those students by allowing them alternatives to religious instruction classes but this is the same for any other school. I'm not sure why any religion would have a problem with this, nor why such intolerance (were it to exist) should be funded by the taxpayer.

Bit of poisoning the well, there, describing an admission policy that preferences Jewish applicants as “intolerant”. Is an admission policy that preferences in-area applicants “intolerant”? Don’t do this.

Why would the Jewish school close? It depends on what admission policy you adopt in place of Jewish-preference. If the school is oversubscribed, there has to be some criterion for deciding which applicants to admit and which to reject. If you can’t preference the Jewish applicants but have to preference instead in-area applicants, or draw names from a hat, or whatever, then you end up with a substantially non-Jewish student body. In which case (a) the school becomes less characteristically Jewish, and (b) the Jewish community may not have the resources to sponsor a school that, largely, doesn’t serve their community; they may need to divert their resources into out-of-school programmes serving Jewish children who can no longer secure admission to the now-no-longer-Jewish school. What does all this achieve, other than pandering to the notion that establishing a school to serve the Jewish community is “intolerant”?

smacl wrote: »

With respect to having a meaningful choice, it is worth that remembering that every school that would prefer to exclude your child is one less option in what is already Hobson's choice for most. I would agree entirely with your point were we to have unlimited resources, but this is in fact the opposite of where we currently are in terms of state funded education. Single gender schools and schools with restrictive admission policies actually reduce rather than increase the choice for most. They also reduce teacher student ratios, variety of options and quality of facilities within any given school.

Unless the total number of school places is increased, choice is always pretty much as limited as it is now. But, right now, I might have the choice of (say) a mixed-sex school and a single-sex school for my child; I can choose whichever I think will be best for my child. (Not every parent has this choice, obviously, but some do.) But if we remove single-gender schools schools (or coeducational schools; the argument holds good either way) then no parent does. They may have more schools to which they can send their child, but a less meaningful choice, since a school type that used to be available no longer is.

smacl wrote: »

As for educational outcomes, this can also lead to very skewed optics where exclusionary entry criteria are used. For example, should a school choose to exclude a demographic with poor academic prospects, they will show better educational outcomes than schools who do not. I'm also becoming increasingly wary of what we as a society class as a good educational outcome in this day and age. We currently tend to look at the points race to the detriment of all else and I'd wonder how well that reflects the benefits a school has accorded a young person in growing up to be a happy, well adjusted adult and productive member of our community.

I couldn’t agree more. (And, for the record, I choose a Catholic school for my child partly because (in marked distinction to the very middle-class state alternative) it didn’t evaluate itself - and therefore its students - in terms of achieving outstanding academic results.) But, regardless of what educational outcomes you value, if you value any at all then surely you have to evaluate your “no preferential admission policies” strategy in terms of how it affects the attainment of those outcomes?

All of this is a bit away from ex loco’s proposal for fewer but more intensively Catholic schools. Just as he didn’t suggest any change to the funding model, so he hasn’t suggested any change to the rules around admission policies. It seems to me that the argument around admission policies is a quite separate one, that arises whether or not ex loco’s proposal is advanced. Indeed, as I’ve suggested, it seems to be that ex loco’s proposal takes some of the steam out of that argument, since if his proposal were implemented the number of schools operating a Catholics-preferred admission policy, and the number of school places to which access is controlled by such a policy, would be greatly reduced. Presumably, given your distaste for such a policy, you would regard that as welcome development?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bit of poisoning the well, there, describing an admission policy that preferences Jewish applicants as “intolerant”. Is an admission policy that preferences in-area applicants “intolerant”? Don’t do this.

Why would the Jewish school close? It depends on what admission policy you adopt in place of Jewish-preference. If the school is oversubscribed, there has to be some criterion for deciding which applicants to admit and which to reject. If you can’t preference the Jewish applicants but have to preference instead in-area applicants, or draw names from a hat, or whatever, then you end up with a substantially non-Jewish student body. In which case (a) the school becomes less characteristically Jewish, and (b) the Jewish community may not have the resources to sponsor a school that, largely, doesn’t serve their community; they may need to divert their resources into out-of-school programmes serving Jewish children who can no longer secure admission to the now-no-longer-Jewish school. What does all this achieve, other than pandering to the notion that establishing a school to serve the Jewish community is “intolerant”?

Not really buying that P. By that logic, should every cultural minority that would prefer their children educated primarily in isolation from other cultures be equally accommodated and resourced by the taxpayer? If not, members of any given cultural minority that aren't preferred students for their local schools have less choice and are unfairly disadvantaged. This has been the case for very many Irish children with the whole baptismal cert nonsense and a reason why many cultural and ethnic minority families have difficulty finding any school place. Preferential admissions policies in the context of scarce school places amount to exclusionism and do indeed seem very intolerant to those on the sharp end of it.

Unless the total number of school places is increased, choice is always pretty much as limited as it is now. But, right now, I might have the choice of (say) a mixed-sex school and a single-sex school for my child; I can choose whichever I think will be best for my child. (Not every parent has this choice, obviously, but some do.) But if we remove single-gender schools schools (or coeducational schools; the argument holds good either way) then no parent does. They may have more schools to which they can send their child, but a less meaningful choice, since a school type that used to be available no longer is.

Again, the logic here is flawed. Say we have three schools in a given area, a girls school, a boys school and a co-ed. Every child in the area is fully excluded from one school, whereas if they were all co-ed this would not be the case. Three co-ed schools means every student has the choice of three schools. There are many reasons why families with boys and girls would want all their children to go to the same school in addition to being co-ed. They are seriously disadvantaged in the above scenario. Providing single gender schools is hence removing a choice to support a preference. We need to distinguish between choice and preference here. There are a lot of other examples I could give where exclusionary admission policies disadvantage many, most notably minorities and those already disadvantaged in other ways, e.g. those without the means to transport their kids to a preferred more distant school. Should we publicly fund what one person prefers for their child at the cost of removing choice for others?

All of this is a bit away from ex loco’s proposal for fewer but more intensively Catholic schools. Just as he didn’t suggest any change to the funding model, so he hasn’t suggested any change to the rules around admission policies. It seems to me that the argument around admission policies is a quite separate one, that arises whether or not ex loco’s proposal is advanced. Indeed, as I’ve suggested, it seems to be that ex loco’s proposal takes some of the steam out of that argument, since if his proposal were implemented the number of schools operating a Catholics-preferred admission policy, and the number of school places to which access is controlled by such a policy, would be greatly reduced. Presumably, given your distaste for such a policy, you would regard that as welcome development?

I have no issue with Ex Loco's notion for schools with a strong Catholic ethos, I don't doubt that some already exist were you to go looking. My position is that if they are to be state funded, they should not be allowed to prefer Catholics as part of an admissions policy and that they should cater for any student who enters in an entirely equitable and unprejudiced manner.

My own personal bias is that we should favour integration over segregation while actively acknowledging and celebrating cultural diversity. The rationale here is that we live in an increasingly polarised world, this is becoming a problem and enabling segregation tends to magnify it. I think we should teach our children that diversity adds a richness to our society as opposed to a threat.

Just my 2c on ground we've both treaded numerous times before.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not really buying that P. By that logic, should every cultural minority that would prefer their children educated primarily in isolation from other cultures be equally accommodated and resourced by the taxpayer?

Yes, why not? That seems like a no-brainer to me. Members of cultural minorities are taxpayers too; why should public money not be available to schools that cater to them just as much as schools that cater to the cultural majority? You’re back to arguing that Jewish schools should be closed, and I’m slightly surprised that you’re not more uncomfortable to find yourself there than you seem to be.

smacl wrote: »

If not, members of any given cultural minority that aren't preferred students for their local schools have less choice and are unfairly disadvantaged. This has been the case for very many Irish children with the whole baptismal cert nonsense and a reason why many cultural and ethnic minority families have difficulty finding any school place. Preferential admissions policies in the context of scarce school places amount to exclusionism and do indeed seem very intolerant to those on the sharp end of it.

Precisely. That’s because the school system is set up to cater only to the cultural majority. But this isn’t a problem that is solved by closing the few remaining schools that cater to minorities. What you end up with is schools that anyone can get into, but all of which are dominated by, and cater predominantly to, the majority community.

smacl wrote: »

Again, the logic here is flawed. Say we have three schools in a given area, a girls school, a boys school and a co-ed. Every child in the area is fully excluded from one school, whereas if they were all co-ed this would not be the case. Three co-ed schools means every student has the choice of three schools. There are many reasons why families with boys and girls would want all their children to go to the same school in addition to being co-ed. They are seriously disadvantaged in the above scenario. Providing single gender schools is hence removing a choice to support a preference. We need to distinguish between choice and preference here. There are a lot of other examples I could give where exclusionary admission policies disadvantage many, most notably minorities and those already disadvantaged in other ways, e.g. those without the means to transport their kids to a preferred more distant school. Should we publicly fund what one person prefers for their child at the cost of removing choice for others?

I’m not sure I’m following your choice/preference distinction. In your scenario, currently parents who prefer single-sex schools and parents who prefer co-ed schools are catered for, and every student can apply to a single-sex school and a co-ed school (though of course admission to either is not guaranteed). In your alternative scenario every student can apply to three schools (though, again, there is no guarantee that they will be admitted to any particular school) but no student can apply to a single-sex school. Having the number of schools that you don’t want to attend increased from one to three is not normally seen as an enhancement of your choice, when it involves no longer being able to apply to the school that you do want to attend.

There’s a trade-off, obviously between diversity of school types on the one hand and number of schools for which a particular student is eligible on the other. Trade-offs are always difficult; how do you identify the “sweet spot”; the point where number of schools open to you plus diversity of school types maximises utility/benefit? And, even if you can identify it, practical constraints (like population density) may make it difficult to attain; if a particular catchment area can really only support one school, then diversity of school types is impossible.

All of this makes it a bit messy, which is upsetting to tidy minds. But I don’t think the appropriate reaction is to avoid the trade off altogether by abandoning diversity altogether in order to maximise the number of schools open to each student. If I already live in a place where four schools are open to me, the marginal utility of a fifth school being opened to me is low. Whereas if school that is materially different, that offers new options - a Montessori school, say, or a Quaker school - is offered, that might considerably enhance my utility.

smacl wrote: »

I have no issue with Ex Loco's notion for schools with a strong Catholic ethos, I don't doubt that some already exist were you to go looking. My position is that if they are to be state funded, they should not be allowed to prefer Catholics as part of an admissions policy and that they should cater for any student who enters in an entirely equitable and unprejudiced manner.

Ex loco hasn’t suggested that the “ultra-Catholic” schools would prioritise Catholic applicants. My own view is that they are unlikely to need to, since relatively few non-Catholic applicants will present themselves.

smacl wrote: »

My own personal bias is that we should favour integration over segregation while actively acknowledging and celebrating cultural diversity. The rationale here is that we live in an increasingly polarised world, this is becoming a problem and enabling segregation tends to magnify it. I think we should teach our children that diversity adds a richness to our society as opposed to a threat.

Well, I’m with you there. I’m just unconvinced that homogenising the schools, adopting policies that lead to the closure of Jewish schools, is an effective way of “acknowledging and celebrating cultural diversity”; rather the opposite, I would have thought. Culture is communal as much, or more, than it is individual; celebrating the culture of the individual student while denying or excluding the culture of a distinctive school community sends — I’m putting this as charitably as I can — a very mixed message.

Hotblack Desiato

There is one Jewish primary school in Ireland. It has 97 pupils. Whatever admission policy they adopt is going to have very little effect on education generally in their area, never mind our education system as a whole.

My kids both went to the local CoI primary (as it happens, the nearest to us and the only co-ed option in the area) and CoI families would be very much in the minority there, however the school is full and turning pupils away to the extent that the younger one only got in on the sibling rule. OK so many families especially non-Irish would be from a non-CoI reformed church background, but there are many Irish families too who want co-ed or simply a non-RCC option which otherwise doesn't exist.

So are we non-CoI'ers "diluting" their school or making it a success and keeping it open? Until about 10 years ago, numbers were low and dropping and its future was in doubt.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is one Jewish primary school in Ireland. It has 97 pupils.

The fact that there is only one makes it of singular importance to the community. And it preferences Jewish applicants. It's not likely that it would survive as a Jewish school if it had to preference, e.g., in-area applicants.

Same goes for the one Jewish secondary school in Ireland.

This is a much bigger issue for schools that cater to minority communities. If Catholic national schools were obliged to ignore faith in their admission criteria, the great bulk of them would still end up with a large majority of at least nominally Catholic students. But Jewish (and other minority) schools certainly would not. Which is why the ability to secure state funding/support for schools that cater to minority communities tends to be very important to those communities, for whom those schools are significant social and community institutions.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Indeed, as I’ve suggested, it seems to be that ex loco’s proposal takes some of the steam out of that argument, since if his proposal were implemented the number of schools operating a Catholics-preferred admission policy, and the number of school places to which access is controlled by such a policy, would be greatly reduced.

RC schools are no longer allowed to operate such a policy (since about 2 years ago IIRC) but minority religions are.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, why not? That seems like a no-brainer to me. Members of cultural minorities are taxpayers too; why should public money not be available to schools that cater to them just as much as schools that cater to the cultural majority? You’re back to arguing that Jewish schools should be closed, and I’m slightly surprised that you’re not more uncomfortable to find yourself there than you seem to be.


Precisely. That’s because the school system is set up to cater only to the cultural majority. But this isn’t a problem that is solved by closing the few remaining schools that cater to minorities. What you end up with is schools that anyone can get into, but all of which are dominated by, and cater predominantly to, the majority community.


I’m not sure I’m following your choice/preference distinction. In your scenario, currently parents who prefer single-sex schools and parents who prefer co-ed schools are catered for, and every student can apply to a single-sex school and a co-ed school (though of course admission to either is not guaranteed). In your alternative scenario every student can apply to three schools (though, again, there is no guarantee that they will be admitted to any particular school) but no student can apply to a single-sex school. Having the number of schools that you don’t want to attend increased from one to three is not normally seen as an enhancement of your choice, when it involves no longer being able to apply to the school that you do want to attend.

There’s a trade-off, obviously between diversity of school types on the one hand and number of schools for which a particular student is eligible on the other. Trade-offs are always difficult; how do you identify the “sweet spot”; the point where number of schools open to you plus diversity of school types maximises utility/benefit? And, even if you can identify it, practical constraints (like population density) may make it difficult to attain; if a particular catchment area can really only support one school, then diversity of school types is impossible.

All of this makes it a bit messy, which is upsetting to tidy minds. But I don’t think the appropriate reaction is to avoid the trade off altogether by abandoning diversity altogether in order to maximise the number of schools open to each student. If I already live in a place where four schools are open to me, the marginal utility of a fifth school being opened to me is low. Whereas if school that is materially different, that offers new options - a Montessori school, say, or a Quaker school - is offered, that might considerably enhance my utility.


Ex loco hasn’t suggested that the “ultra-Catholic” schools would prioritise Catholic applicants. My own view is that they are unlikely to need to, since relatively few non-Catholic applicants will present themselves.


Well, I’m with you there. I’m just unconvinced that homogenising the schools, adopting policies that lead to the closure of Jewish schools, is an effective way of “acknowledging and celebrating cultural diversity”; rather the opposite, I would have thought. Culture is communal as much, or more, than it is individual; celebrating the culture of the individual student while denying or excluding the culture of a distinctive school community sends — I’m putting this as charitably as I can — a very mixed message.

Had a much longer post penned but got caught in a power outage here so I'll give the abbreviated version. Basically, catering for specific preferences by providing specific schools doesn't scale up to the needs (or desires) of a complex multi-cultural society. So for example dividing by gender while also providing co-ed requires three times the number of schools as just providing co-ed. Dividing again by religious creed could add another multiplier on to that, so we now have demand for maybe six or twelve times the number of schools. This isn't sustainable, remembering that parental preferences run way beyond just gender and religious segregation. People want to go to a local school, a school with a good parent teacher ratio, a school with great facilities for academics and sports, a school that can accommodate all the siblings in the one location. This list goes on and many of these preferences run contrary to one another. We're also trying to achieve this on a very limited budget, limited space for new buildings in the desired locations and a scarcity of qualified teachers. Publicly funded education can't ignore the value delivered by economies of scale, wherein any child can receive a good education in any school.

Like yourself, I'm not a huge fan of trying to homogenise people but would dispute they necessarily have to lose their individual or cultural identities by studying in a common environment. There is no reason we should not cater for the diverse needs and parental preferences of a large student body in a single school. What I have seen in many, which I am quite sure is not true of your good self, is a desire for elitism. i.e. the belief that doing the best for your child involves having advantage over others, largely through a process of exclusion.

Peregrinus

If the problem is elitism, wouldn't it be best to tackle that directly - i.e. to forbid admission on the basis of academic attainment or aptitude or socioeconomic status, or on the basis of characteristics which are proxies for that?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the problem is elitism, wouldn't it be best to tackle that directly - i.e. to forbid admission on the basis of academic attainment or aptitude or socioeconomic status, or on the basis of characteristics which are proxies for that?

To my mind it gets caught up in other kinds of preferential admission policies. So for example, if you have a school that prefers Muslims, you are effectively excluding travellers. What you find as a result is that some minorities find themselves excluded from a large number of schools and end up concentrated in wherever is left. So while I agree that exclusion based on explicit aptitude or socioeconomic status should not be allowed, we similarly need to look for and deal with implicit forms of exclusion. I'm of the opinion the easiest way to achieve this is to make unqualified inclusiveness an explicit part of the admissions policy for any publicly funded school.

Again, I'll admit my bias here in favour of an intercultural approach. If we have a society comprised of a variety of cultures working in harmony to form a community, it seems sensible that children from these diverse groups benefit from being educated together. At the same time, we need to support rather than supress the diversity. This is where I think the Laïcité expression of secularism employed in French schools has it badly wrong, and I say that as a committed secularist.

I think that's a pipe dream Smacl. Society doesn't work "in harmony" across class lines even when culturally they agree on major reference points and life in general.

If you want a scenario where you force disparate groups together that fundamentally disagree with each other, and at the same time foster diversity, you will just end up with a majorly fragmented school community where people are defined by their culture and background; muslim kids do x, christian do y etc. If you try and suppress diversity, that (as you have alluded to) just won't work. And besides, why should the state dictate how children should be educated by forcing a philosophy on others? The decision on this is the responsibility of parents. Curious how some object to certain philosophies, yet say that their own should be forced on everyone, under the guise of "secular" - which is often a smokescreen for religious intolerance.

This would just lead to more parents sending their children to private schools - hardly the best way to combat elitism.

No, I think it is best that, if the parents want, children can be educated within their community where they can be defined as an individual and not their background. There is nothing wrong with people and communities being different, and separate to a degree. This gives people the space they need to live and grow, and is how immigrant and minority communities end up living anyway.

In any case, my point was not to exclude anyone, but rather that if you choose to send your child to a Catholic school when other options are readily available, you will not have any grounds for complaint when they get a catholic education. Currently there are grounds for complaint, because for many that is the only option. As a result, the ethos is watered down and no one is happy.

Anyway, I made a proposal that was essentially that the number of catholic schools should be greatly reduced. For some, it seems they will not be happy until there are no catholic schools at all.

Hotblack Desiato

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

If you try and suppress diversity, that (as you have alluded to) just won't work. And besides, why should the state dictate how children should be educated by forcing a philosophy on others?

This is exactly what churches are doing in 96% of our primary schools. Suppressing diversity and forcing a philosophy on others, often against the explicit stated wishes of parents and in violation of their constitutional rights (Article 44.2.4)

The decision on this is the responsibility of parents.

It seems many parents do not want this responsibility and are happy to have their kids go along with religion in school provided the parents don't have to take part or do anything other than show up on the 'big day'. Howls of outrage from the "bouncy castle" brigade when a bishop suggested that kids about to take first communion should attend 6 masses en famille first.

Curious how some object to certain philosophies, yet say that their own should be forced on everyone, under the guise of "secular" - which is often a smokescreen for religious intolerance.

It's a bit much for a proponent of denominational schooling to be complaining about religious intolerance when until very recently 96% of primary schools in this country were legally able to exclude pupils on the grounds of religion!

Educate Together schools are not religiously intolerant. They have religious education. They just don't teach a specific religion as fact during the school day. Most hold religious instruction classes in the school after the school day for those who wish to avail of them.

No, I think it is best that, if the parents want, children can be educated within their community where they can be defined as an individual and not their background.

Talk of "their community" is so reminiscent of Northern Ireland and all its problems.

There are not "two communities" or several communities, there is one community.

As a result, the ethos is watered down and no one is happy.

How, in practice, is it watered down though? Kids still get religion throughout the school day, prayer, class mass, sacramental preparation. Is the purported advantage flowing from the exclusion of non-Catholics, or the exclusion of "bouncy castle" Catholics as well?

smacl

Mod note: While I appreciate the term "bouncy castle Catholic" has appeared in the media on a number of occasions it would be considered derogatory by many and is best avoided on this forum.

Hotblack Desiato

KINOs - Katholics In Name Only...?
(that c/k horror show in the English language strices again, oops, strikes )

BDOCs - Big Day Out Catholics?

There was one about those who attend a church at Christmas and Easter but I can't remember it now - and twice a year is probably optimistic in this case

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

KINOs - Katholics In Name Only...?
(that c/k horror show in the English language strices again, oops, strikes )

BDOCs - Big Day Out Catholics?

There was one about those who attend a church at Christmas and Easter but I can't remember it now - and twice a year is probably optimistic in this case

Mod: After having already being asked not to use derogatory terms for how Catholics do or don't practise their religion you go and add a few more. Carded for trolling. Any responses by PM or to the feedback thread only. Thanks for your attention.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is exactly what churches are doing in 96% of our primary schools. Suppressing diversity and forcing a philosophy on others, often against the explicit stated wishes of parents and in violation of their constitutional rights (Article 44.2.4)

The Catholic church running the schools was a legacy of (rather heroic) native resistance to British imperialism and a desire to educate those who otherwise would have received no education. This was followed by a very poor 'free state' which did not have the capability or capacity to run essential social services itself, so it 'outsourced' it to religious and charities. (This continues in many areas today). The conditions which necessitated the Church having such a large role in the provision of education no longer exists, or is desirable. This is why I am suggesting that the number of Catholic schools be greatly reduced, but not eliminated entirely. Do you disagree with my suggestion that the number of Catholic schools should be reduced? Do you believe they should all be banned?

It seems many parents do not want this responsibility and are happy to have their kids go along with religion in school provided the parents don't have to take part or do anything other than show up on the 'big day'. Howls of outrage from the "bouncy castle" brigade when a bishop suggested that kids about to take first communion should attend 6 masses en famille first.

Yes, many parents do a very poor job in raising their children and making decisions about their futures. Some even teach their kids a philosophy of pure materialism!

But of course, just because some parents make a rather poor go of things, does not mean that this responsibility should be removed from them.

It's a bit much for a proponent of denominational schooling to be complaining about religious intolerance when until very recently 96% of primary schools in this country were legally able to exclude pupils on the grounds of religion!

Em, my position is that the number of Catholic schools should be greatly decreased.

Educate Together schools are not religiously intolerant. They have religious education. They just don't teach a specific religion as fact during the school day. Most hold religious instruction classes in the school after the school day for those who wish to avail of them.

Yeah, grand, if that's what parents want for their children then work away, they should have that option. There should be a number of options, so parents can send their children to the type of school they think is best for their child.

Talk of "their community" is so reminiscent of Northern Ireland and all its problems.

There are not "two communities" or several communities, there is one community made up of diverse parts.

There most certainly are, at least, two communities in the north. This was literally by design, via the plantations. Recognition of this is the basis of the Good Friday Agreement. This division will continue, in my opinion, until the link to Britain is broken, and people will have to define themselves on the basis of individual day to day experience, and rely on themselves removed from outside interference. (We have recently seen how the Tories banged the old orange drum and left unionists up excrement creek). Once the external factor is removed (for a long time with the EU it had been greatly diluted), so will the main reason for division. At least, that would have been the case in the past, who knows with our brave new world.

Within the 26 counties today there are many different communities. The days of a recognizable national community are gone. The future is a pluralist society where many different communities (hopefully) coexist - now you might stick a nationalistic label on this collection of communities and claim it as some sort of national community, but that is mere geography, and means little in real terms.

Now of course, you could try and force people who are fundamentally different to think (or at least act out) the same things, but this never ends well. Often this 'vision' of a melded community is really based upon a supremacist vision that everyone who moves here will change how they live, and the native population will somehow also change how they live, with both ,magically, dispensing with aspects of their culture and beliefs to form a new belief made in the vision of the ideologue who tried to force this. No, this is nonsense. We will have a situation where people who have the most in common and share the most beliefs will congregate and form distinct communities. This is the case already. We need to try and bring about a situation where such communities can co-exist in peace.

Personally, I think there is a rather bleak future on this point in Ireland. We will see a huge rise in the far right, all it will take is someone competent who speaks well, and is not a joke like the current motley crew. I am sure we all remember the old bigoted canard that rascists would spew about "immigrants" getting free houses and xyz. This was all lies of course, aimed at fostering division. I (and perhaps yourself I don't know your position on the fascist issue) spent quite a long time arguing and refuting this bile. This involved a recognition that if people believed such lies it would foster division and increase racism and fascism. Now the government actually propose to do this, whereby any asylum seeker (a significant amount of whom will always fail in their application) will get "own door" accommodation within 4 months of arrival as well as perhaps a right to work and various other things. Mana for the far right, that this should happen when we are faced with a massive housing crisis.

So, the future is bleak. The government have a habit of making things worse. It is bad enough to allow and facilitate such a level of homelessness and a housing crisis. It does not help the situation to do nothing to address it, but at the same time give preferential treatment to immigrants, given that the predictable outcome will be a rise in intolerance and perhaps worse in terms of what type of politicians will cash in on this. It is possible to be right in terms of the principle involved (i.e. proper housing/accommodation for everyone including immigrants and asylum seekers), but to go about things totally cack-handed in the wrong way and make things worse. The government are masters of this art.

Anyway, if you want one coherent community it needs to share a majority basis for viewing and understanding the world. It has to be more than where someone lives, and when the pressure is on it has to be more than supporting the local GAA team. A majority shared basis for viewing and understanding the world is fast fading among people who previously had this, and lots of new people with fundamentally different views are arriving. This means that these different communities will respond to challenges in different ways, and when the pressure is really on, any façade of "we are all one single community" will break along those fault lines, and recriminations will ensue. Now, if we recognise this reality from the start, we can have an acceptance that of course people think differently, and when a different position is adopted by some communities this is accepted, rather than viewed as some betrayal of some made up single community.

How, in practice, is it watered down though? Kids still get religion throughout the school day, prayer, class mass, sacramental preparation. Is the purported advantage flowing from the exclusion of non-Catholics, or the exclusion of "bouncy castle" Catholics as well?

Of course it is watered down. Very very few young people would be able to answer even basic questions about Catholic teaching. This is because it is not even attempted to be taught. There is far more to Catholic education than the odd token prayer at an assembly. Post Vatican 2 it seems that, for most, the traditional Catholic intellectual rigor when it comes to faith was let lapse, to be replaced by bland, unobjectionable, unchallenging sentimentality that teaches nothing, and does not give people an intellectual basis for their faith.

This is often not the fault of faithful teachers, a good portion of the reason for this dilution was an attempt to cater to (or at least not offend) everyone while staying within loose bounds of a 'catholic' ethos. The result being no one is happy.

I have to say I am at something of a loss as to the strident objections and challenges my suggestion that the church should reduce the number of schools it runs has received. Is this because I did not suggest that there should be no Catholic schools?

Of course, the other option (more likely perhaps) is that the schools will be transferred to lay run Catholic groups to continue having a 'catholic ethos'. This would not be incompatible with my central idea of having a smaller number of these schools be more authentically Catholic. I should note at this point that I am making these comments within the context of the National Synod, and what the Catholic church should do within its own sphere of control, which is of course strictly a matter for the Church and the faithful and not anyone else.

smacl

Bodie White Luck wrote: »

I think that's a pipe dream Smacl. Society doesn't work "in harmony" across class lines even when culturally they agree on major reference points and life in general.

If you want a scenario where you force disparate groups together that fundamentally disagree with each other, and at the same time foster diversity, you will just end up with a majorly fragmented school community where people are defined by their culture and background; muslim kids do x, christian do y etc. If you try and suppress diversity, that (as you have alluded to) just won't work. And besides, why should the state dictate how children should be educated by forcing a philosophy on others? The decision on this is the responsibility of parents. Curious how some object to certain philosophies, yet say that their own should be forced on everyone, under the guise of "secular" - which is often a smokescreen for religious intolerance.

Perhaps you're not aware that the Dept of Educations strategy going forward is to promote interculturalism (source).

Dept of Education wrote:

This Intercultural Education Strategy ("IES") aims to ensure that:

1 - all students experience an education that "respects the diversity of values, beliefs, languages and traditions in Irish society and is conducted in a spirit of partnership" (Education Act, 1998).

2 - all education providers are assisted with ensuring that inclusion and integration within an intercultural learning environment become the norm.

The IES was developed in recognition of the recent significant demographic changes in Irish society, which are reflected in the education system. The Strategy builds on existing work in this area and seeks to be of relevance for all sectors of education, in line with the high level goal of the Department of Education and Skills ("DES") to "support and improve the quality, relevance and inclusiveness of education for every learner in our schools".

Unless you can come up with similar support for your own arguments, I would humbly suggest that the pipe dreams are yours.