Aodhán Ó Ríordáin wants to ban single sex schools
Comments
-
Hang on - you've shifted the goalposts here a bit here - people being against same-sex schools is NOT the same as being against religious schools!
Fair point - I misread the post about prqacticing religion - but in fairness, how about pointing this out instead of claiming intolerance? And it happened once, not three times. I'm not perfect, nor do I claim to be.
What people want is access to a secular education for their kids THEIR kids, not anyone else's. THIS is where the opposition comes from and it's got nothing to do with same sex or mixed schools. You seem to be under the impression (and again - CORRECT me if I am wrong instead of claiming I misquoted you three times) that going to a religious school is a right. If so, where is this stated in the Irish Constitution? If not, please clarify.
Your last paragrapgh is flawed logic on two counts: 1 - it implies that religion can not be practied without a school or education; 2 - it implies that options are being "removed". Who by? How? If they are no longer avaialble due to reasons of viability or lack of numbers, then that's a simply/demand issue, not a democratic one.
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
1 -
The State doesn’t fund religious instruction. The State provides funding on the basis that the school teaches the national curriculum, which includes Arts and physical education, or music, ballet, piano, GAA and other sports.
There was the idea of a national curriculum regarding education in ethics and beliefs was floated a few years back, but it ran into some fairly obvious legal obstacles rather quickly -
0 -
Hang on - you've shifted the goalposts here a bit here - people being against same-sex schools is NOT the same as being against religious schools!
How do you think the discussion shifted to religious schools? The idea that segregation based on gender was due to religion (and why single sex schools should be abolished). That was the original association, and not one of my making.
Fair point - I misread the post about prqacticing religion - but in fairness, how about pointing this out instead of claiming intolerance? And it happened once, not three times. I'm not perfect, nor do I claim to be.
I wasn't being serious about you being intolerant. It was in response to your attempt to cast me as playing the victim.
Your last paragrapgh is flawed logic on two counts: 1 - it implies that religion can not be practied without a school or education; 2 - it implies that options are being "removed". Who by? How? If they are no longer avaialble due to reasons of viability or lack of numbers, then that's a simply/demand issue, not a democratic one.
You're implying logical statements where there was none were made. This is about choice, and many people want to have the option of sending their children to a religious school. There is a push to remove religion from the administration of schools.. today it's about not providing extra funding, tomorrow it will be no funding at all, or that all schools should be free of religion except as a abstract subject to be learned (which has happened or in the process of happening in other countries). The sentiments by many on the thread towards religion reflect that push to counter the presence of religion in Ireland, due to their feelings about past behaviour.
What people want is access to a secular education for their kids THEIR kids, not anyone else's. THIS is where the opposition comes from and it's got nothing to do with same sex or mixed schools. You seem to be under the impression (and again - CORRECT me if I am wrong instead of claiming I misquoted you three times) that going to a religious school is a right. If so, where is this stated in the Irish Constitution? If not, please clarify.
You raised the concepts of rights in terms of education and religion. I responded to that.
TBH I feel we're going far off base here... I'm not terribly interested in a long-drawn out discussion about religion and schools. That was another persons concern and I'm not going to adopt it... I jumped in because I found some of the remarks to be rather narrowminded, but that was a mistake on my part.
Sorry. I'll leave it (the religious aspect) here.
1 -
So you refuse to elaborate on 'a religious education' as a right and and hide behind an unsubstantiated claims of a link between sex based schools and religious schools. Fine.
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
1 -
The fact that Aodhan O'Riordain is supporting this measure makes me think as if I should automatically oppose it. He is one of the worst grifters in this country. Has he apologies to the teachers in Carlow presentation yet? He'd doing anything for a few minutes of airtime.
2 -
Advertisement
-
I went back in the thread to be sure I was understanding your point correctly when you said this -
You are guaranteed freedom of education and freedom of religion - but that doesn't impky that you have to be guaranteed a religious education.
That’s exactly what is implied by article 42 and article 44 of the Constitution.
EDUCATION
ARTICLE 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
RELIGION
ARTICLE 44
1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.
2 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
5° Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.
It’s untrue too btw to suggest that opposition to religious education has nothing to do with opposition to single-sex schools, particularly in Ireland where the two are inextricably linked by the fact that single-sex schools were established by religious orders to promote their religious values as well as providing education. Sure wasn’t it the bould Aodhán himself who declared “Let’s get them out” in relation to the practice of religious patronage of schools -
School patronage
The Labour Party's Education Spokesperson Aodhán Ó Ríordáin told the party's national conference the practice of religious patronage of schools needs to be ended.
He said: "If that requires a referendum, we should do it and we should win it."
To loud applause from the floor, he said: "Let's get them out."
Deputy Ó Ríordáin also said that parents should not have to pay voluntary contributions to their children's schools because education should be free.
https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/1113/1259680-labour-national-conference/
The people who are calling for the exclusion of religious patrons from the patronage system in Ireland clearly haven’t the foggiest. It’s empty populist rhetoric at best with no recognition of the legal battles and the enormous cost of same legal battles were the State to even so much as attempt to introduce legislation to deprive religious patrons of funding from the Oireachtas to provide for education, let alone to try and deprive single-sex schools of funding.
Government has only one option open to them really, and it’s not a vote-getter in the current socioeconomic climate - provide funding for the establishment of more schools where the Minister for Education is the patron. That wouldn’t go down well with Aodhán either though considering his low opinion of the current Minister for Education -
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/minister-norma-foley-branded-bad-25587800
I dunno ‘bout you, and maybe it’s the fact that I was was taught manners and respect for other people as part of my education, but Aodhán doesn’t strike me as the kind of person who has a clue about either manners, respect or how to speak to people without being an arsehole.
1 -
What I'm saying there is that you can't just rock up and demand a catholic (or whatever) education because its your right and article 44.2 would seem to spell that out. Now if you want to set up a private denominational school and fund it yourself, sure - but the government is not oblighed to fund and byuild it for you.
Regarding O riordan, don't know the guy, so basis this purely on the idea.
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
2 -
This conversation has come up with people I’ve met in the last few days .Apparently Joe Duffy covered the issue in one of his radio shows ( didn’t hear it though) . As a parent with a child going into first year my child has opted to go to a co Ed school . Speaking to other parents, there seems to be a move in this direction with parents saying the same kind of thing that mixed schools are a more natural kind of environment. Probably good to have co Ed primary schools too with boys and girls growing up with an understanding of each other. Wouldn’t agree with banning any schools but think we are going to just gravitate towards the mixed schools. Wouldn’t call it woke either, ( people I know) probably never even heard of the word ) but just feel that segregated schools aren’t healthy or a reflection of society.
2 -
No, i really cant be bothered with your badgering style of posting. It's not related to the thread topic, and.. meh. There's no enjoyment in discussing the topic with you, because there's always a dig waiting to come out... even to the point where you ignore what is written. (look back regarding these "unsubstantiated claims", because you've just ignored what was written)
5 -
I'm not associating conservativism to a particular flag nor party. I've even stated in the post you quoted that Irish conservatives are far more malleable than their contemporaries elsewhere in the world, and I'm grateful for that.
I'd be happy for you to address the rest of my post in which I lump conservatives into one group.
0 -
Advertisement
-
You can just rock up and demand a catholic education (or whatever) though, precisely because it’s your right to demand that the State provide for education which meets your children’s needs. What 44.2 means is that the State guarantees not to favour any religion, say for example Christianity or Islam, that’s all. It implies the State is secular.
What both articles mean is that parents are free to provide the type of education for their children that they wish, and that education can be religious, and they provide that education in schools recognised by the State. The Constitution also places an obligation on the State that it shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
One of the criteria for schools to be recognised by the State and receive public funding is that they have an ethos (doesn’t have to be religious), and the State cannot discriminate between one religion and another, or none.
The State also upholds the right of children to attend a publicly funded school and not attend religious instruction, and that’s where the fuss tends to kick off, because in practice it appears that the State IS endowing religion by failing to uphold the right of children to attend a publicly funded school and not attend religious instruction - in reality it’s impractical in many cases that schools while they are expected to respect that right, the ethos of the school makes it impossible for children attending the school to avoid religious instruction.
I think where @[Deleted User] is coming from is pointing out the same thing as yourself in that while the State is obligated to provide for education, it’s not obligated to provide for a particular type of education favoured by parents, religious or not, which is how the Dept. of Education gets around the whole idea of being obligated to provide funding for schools which do not have a religious ethos by pointing out that there are sufficient places in religious schools in any given area.
It’s claimed the State is essentially failing to accommodate parents who do not wish to have their children educated according to values and world views which are in violation of their conscience - The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State, according to article 42.
I think the point being made is turning that idea on it’s head, as if it were possible - that the parents of children who want a religious education for their children would not be accommodated by the State, and what do those parents do then. That would simply put them in the same position as parents now who do not want a religious education for their children.
The problem with the whole idea of ‘getting religion out of schools’, is that the schools were established by religious orders for the express purpose of providing religious education - education is the bolt-on to religion, as opposed to the idea that religion is the bolt-on to education in a religious school. Religion is the bolt-on to education in schools which are not religious, such as the type of education provided by patrons like the Educate Together organisation or Secular Schools Ireland. So the idea of ‘getting religion out of’ religious ethos schools, just does not compute.
As it stands, any provider of education can rock up to the Department of Education and demand to be considered for funding, as long as they meet the criteria which are specified by the Dept of Education, and any organisation which is excluded from consideration may appeal the decision, and it would be up to the Courts to determine whether or not they had a legitimate argument according to Irish law -
Same standards apply to the providers of religious education. The only thing that’s different is that the representative patron body of Catholic Education, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, have a considerable advantage over other patrons by virtue of the fact that they are by far and away the largest provider of education in the State, managed by the CPSMA, and to exclude them from applying for State funding would not only be regarded as unlawful discrimination, it would deprive families and parents of their right to a religious education for their children.
The single-sex and religious aspects of education and whether or not a particular set of circumstances constitutes unlawful discrimination, is already provided for in legislation under the Equal Status Act 2000, section 7 -
(3) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that—
(a) where the establishment is not a third-level institution and admits students of one gender only, it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that gender,
(b) where the establishment is an institution established for the purpose of providing training to ministers of religion and admits students of only one gender or religious belief, it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that gender or religious belief,
(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply—
(a) in respect of differences in the treatment of students on the gender, age or disability ground in relation to the provision or organisation of sporting facilities or sporting events, to the extent that the differences are reasonably necessary having regard to the nature of the facilities or events, or
(b) to the extent that compliance with any of its provisions in relation to a student with a disability would, by virtue of the disability, make impossible, or have a seriously detrimental effect on, the provision by an educational establishment of its services to other students.
That last clause is a real kick in the teeth for parents of children with disabilities, and again - anyone does actually have the right to rock up demanding that the State fulfil it’s obligation to provide for the education of all children by providing for the type and standard of education which they are arguing is necessary to meet their children’s needs -
The Constitution requires that children receive a certain minimum standard of education, moral, intellectual and social, but what constitutes that minimum standard is determined on a case by case basis, as opposed to there existing an objective standard by which it could be said the State is failing in its obligation to ensure that every child is actually receiving an education which meets their needs.
Post edited by One eyed Jack on1 -
In the school in Asia I've taught in for a decade, there are a few classes each year that are focused on Maths and Literature, which are usually all boys or all girls. Even within a mixed school, the single-sex classes are noticeably different, and having taught at least 30 of these classes, there is no way I'd choose that environment for a child of mine if mixed were available. Even adding two or three students of the opposite gender does wonders for neutralising the negatives of a single-sex classroom.
As for academic performance, even if there is some benefit, it is not worth it. I had no female friends between primary school and university. I barely had any interactions with girls at all, and it is fairly absurd to go through puberty and your growth into an adult like that. It's like something you'd hear David Attenborough say about a tribe in Papua New Guinea. "And now that puberty is about to begin, the males and the females are separated until they are adults, when they will meet again under the influence of alcohol to do a mating dance and find a partner."
4 -
The wording of 44.2 world then be 'between' religious, should it not? How you define it does not sound like secularism.
What I'm saying here is that, it's but a right, in the same way a job is not a right - you seem to think by right I mean that the State is obligated to fund schools of any given denomination upon demand.
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
1 -
As a parent in a town with only single sex secondary schools, I feel quite strongly about this.
Like many others, I felt it best that my eldest (others are still in primary - mixed) be in a mixed secondary, the nearest one being a 40 min bus drive away (around €900 a year in bus fares). To read people on this thread saying things like "just send them to a mixed school if they don't like single sex" riles me up tbh. He does go to a mixed school, but its inconvenient all round. However it's still the best thing for my child and I don't regret it.
Single sex schools are an outdated concept, and I'm baffled why they still exist. There's no single sex primary schools in our town so it's not like it's keeping the kids at what they're used to.
3 -
I'm not reading the entire thread, but what is the argument in favour of single sex schools? Is it just a religious thing?
0 -
I don’t see how inserting “between” there would make any sense PB? If the State already guarantees not to endow ANY religion, that simply means it doesn’t favour any religion, as opposed to say for example how it appears that the State favours Christianity, and in particular Roman Catholicism, the denomination of Christianity most prevalent in Ireland.
I’m trying to understand what you’re saying, but when you say that a job is not a right, it’s true that anyone is not entitled to be offered a job by an employer, and I can see how that maps to anyone making demands of Government to provide for their children’s educational needs, that doesn’t mean the Government has an obligation to provide everything anyone is demanding.
But, at the same time as the State is obligated to uphold the right of everyone to work, the State is also obligated to uphold everyone’s right to education, and everyone’s right to freedom of religion (the corollary of that being that the State is also obligated to uphold everyone’s right to freedom from religion).
I don’t think that by right you mean the State is obligated to fund the schools of any religion on demand, I think that people have the right to demand that the State fund education which meets their children’s needs. Arguing that the State shouldn’t fund education that is meeting children’s needs, as determined by their parents or guardians, just isn’t going to get those people anywhere, and there just wouldn’t be a referendum where the proposal would be to deprive anyone of their human rights.
That’s why I’m perplexed as to what Aodhán might have been referring to when he suggested a referendum, let alone suggesting that it would pass. A referendum on what exactly? 😳
(I know you don’t know him personally so you’re not able to answer for him, it’s an entirely rhetorical question)
0 -
Like many others, I felt it best that my eldest (others are still in primary - mixed) be in a mixed secondary, the nearest one being a 40 min bus drive away (around €900 a year in bus fares).
I know it’s not much of a reduction, but it might help in your circumstances that Government has just announced a reduction in caps on school transport fees -
- reduced caps for multiple children on school transport fees to €500 per family post primary and €150 for primary school children
1 -
It clarifies. Article could be read either way, but your interpretion excludes athiesm.
No one has the democratic right to a job - but we do have a democratic right to seek and take up employment. We're entitled to it, but we don't have the right to it. The govenrment is not upholding "rights" - it;s making sure that the the entitlement is not taken away.
What you're teling me is that the government has the responsibility to make sure that every citizen has the facilities for the education of their child in whatever denomination they choose, be it catholic, protestant, islam, judiasm, and so on. Or to put it another way, if you have the right to free specch than the government MUST provide you with a platform on which to speak.
I'm saying you have the right to speech, but not to the platform.
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
2 -
I’m open to correction on this, but atheism is not a religion.
I’m saying that the State has an obligation to provide for education, that every child has the right to an education which is appropriate for their educational needs. It’s for this reason that the State is constantly criticised by the UN, because it is failing in it’s duty to provide for education when it is not providing for education which is designed to meet the needs of children.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It's not - that's my point: your interpretation assumes everyone belongs to a religion.
I'd argue that "a [state] education which is approriate for their educational needs" would and should not involve religion. As far as I can tell, the UN only guarantees the "right of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children" - it doesn't say anthing about this happening in a state school.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/freedomreligion/pages/standards.aspx#11
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
2 -
Where in there does it say a state funded religious education? You seem to be confusing the freedom to choose one, with it being provided for you.
1 -
I can understand your frustration that the type of education that you believe is best for your child has been made so inconvenient. But imagine if there was talk of banning it altogether. Because that's what is being discussed for those who believe a single-sex education would be best for *their* child.
1 -
There's a long-held belief that girls do better in single-sex schools, but modern data is not finding that this actually holds up. Previous studies were probably done in decades where girls in co-ed schools were routinely discriminated against and intimidated in school, resulting in poorer performance.
It's probably true that girls do better in single sex schools, thereason being that most single-sex schools are intended for middle-class kids, whose parents push them harder. So girls in middle-class and upper-class schools are pushed harder, and get better results than girls in community colleges and comprehensives. If you were to limit the comparison to schools in better-off areas, I bet the difference would be small if it even existed.
Single-sex schools for boys mainly push competitive sports to a greater extent than mixed schools. So logically a cohort of them don't work so hard at the academic side of things. Again they'll be taken into daddy's business, so no worries there about future employment. I'd guess that boys who aren't involved in team sports get better results than boys who are.
0 -
I think that amount might build a single room in our new children's hospital ... but hurry, that hospital's price is going up fast. It might only build half a room in the hospital next year!
0 -
But they aren't on equal footing in terms of availability in most parts of Ireland. Single sex schools have been normalised here for a long time, and that in itself is an outdated concept compared to the rest of the western world.
I highly doubt they'll be eradicated anyway, but there should at the very least be equal choice and availability.
1 -
My interpretation doesn’t do any such thing? This is what we’re referring to -
2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
It would be impossible to infer from that provision that the State assumes everyone belongs to a religion. It refers to religions, not to members of any religion. Affairs of the State and affairs of religion are separate, ie - secularism.
You’re perfectly entitled to argue whatever you like is or isn’t appropriate for others, that doesn’t prohibit them from arguing what they feel is appropriate for themselves in terms of the education of their own children.
That’s why for example organisations like Atheist Ireland exist to lobby Government and make representations at the UN on behalf of people who want an education for their children that does not include religious instruction or faith formation.
Religious ethos schools are not State schools, and religious education is not funded by the State. What any school which qualifies as a recognised school receives funding for is for providing education to the nation’s children according to the national curriculum. It doesn’t matter if the school itself is religious or not.
0 -
It’s implied from the fact that the State is obligated to provide for education, that they provide for education that is religious, and education that is not religious, ie - the State provides for education, there’s no stipulation or provision that the State is obligated to fund religion.
0 -
Not my arguments.
The State gurantees not to endow any religion. Full stop. The constitution is very specific and if it meant "over another" it would have stated such. You say "affairs of State and religion are seprate" which is prerry blunt - no endowment full stop. That's what "seperate" means. To say it should not endow one over another means the State is collaborating with them - which is pretty much the antonym for serperation.
The UN states "religious and moral education of... children" but makes no mention of State facilitation.
Neither document states a right to a religious education - just the grounds to ensure on which said rights can be praccticed.
This is what "secular" means. No stare endowment. Seperation. Not equal endowment for all religions.
Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
2 -
Advertisement
-
For the progressives, it really must grind their ideological gears that there still is a core of parents who wish their kids not to be guinea pigs for whatever the latest leftish fad is en vogue and instead enroll their kids in traditional schools which concentrate on treaching & education. British Labour went through just such a phase and lead to their destruction in the polls.
2
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
