Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Equal Participation in Schools Bill

Options
  • 17-05-2017 3:03pm
    #1
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭


    Tomorrow, Thursday 18 May, the Dail will vote on the Equal Participation in Schools Bill that it debated yesterday. Please contact your TDs today and ask them to vote for this.

    It is proposed by Solidarity and People Before Profit, and it incorporates proposals from Atheist Ireland and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.

    It is an an important step towards secular State-funded schools that respect everybody equally, and the eventual separation of Church and State.

    It recognises that Irish schools breach human rights by evangelising religion throughout the whole school day, and not merely by discriminating in access.

    It proposes five steps that are radical in Irish terms, but that would be uncontroversial minimum standards for State-funded schools in most modern pluralist Republics.
    1. It would prevent schools from discriminating in access on the ground of religion.
    2. It would replace the duty to have regard to a school’s ‘characteristic ethos’ with a duty to have regard to ‘the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned’.
    3. It would move religious instruction and faith formation classes to after school hours.
    4. It would oblige schools to establish minimum standards for accommodating students whose parents opt them out of classes that are contrary to their conscience.
    5. It would oblige schools to deliver the State-prescribed curriculum in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner that avoids indoctrination.
    Fine Gael and Fianna Fail both spoke against the Bill yesterday, so it will be defeated in the vote tomorrow. However, it is is still important to contact your TDs, so that they know that their constituents want them to vote for equal participation n schools.

    Sinn Fein, the Green Party and some independents also spoke in support of the Bill yesterday. The Labour Party and Social Democrats did not attend the debate.

    How the Equal Participation in Schools Bill would make these changes:

    The Bill would amend the Equal Status Act 2000 as follows:

    Section 7(3)(c) privileges schools that have an objective that promotes certain religious values, by allowing them to give preference to co-religionists in access, and to refuse admission to a pupil if it is necessary to protect the school’s ethos. This Bill would delete this subsection.

    The Bill would amend the Education Act 2000 as following:

    Section 2 is the Interpretation section. It says that ‘characteristic spirit’ means ‘the characteristic spirit referred to in Section 15(2)(b).’ This Bill would delete this reference, as well as the reference in Section 15(2)(b).

    Section 9(d) says that schools must ‘promote the moral, spiritual, social and personal development of students’. This Bill would remove the word ‘spiritual’ from that list. Section 9(d) also says that schools must act ‘having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school’. This Bill would replace that with ‘having regard to the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned’.

    Section 15(2)(b) says that school boards must ‘uphold, and be accountable to the patron for so upholding, the characteristic spirit of the school,’ and goes on to say that this spirit would be ‘determined by the cultural, educational, moral, religious, social, linguistic and spiritual values and traditions which inform and are characteristic of the objectives and conduct of the school.’

    Section 15(2)(d) says that the Minister can make certain directions to schools ‘having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school and the constitutional rights of all persons concerned.’ This Bill would delete the reference to ‘the characteristic spirit of the school,’ and retain the reference to ‘the constitutional rights of all persons concerned.’

    Section 30(2)(b) says that, when prescribing the school curriculum, the Minister ‘shall have regard to the characteristic spirit of a school.’ This Bill would delete that reference.

    Section 30(2)(d) says that, when prescribing the school curriculum, the Minister ‘shall allow reasonable instruction time’ for ‘subjects arising from the characteristic spirit of the school.’ In practice, for most schools, this means religious instruction and faith formation. This Bill would replace this subsection with the following: ‘shall ensure that religious instruction and faith formation classes shall take place after core school hours.’

    Section 30(2)(e) says that a school shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of their parents, or themselves if over 18. This Bill would add a duty to ‘establish minimum standards in relation to the nature of exemptions’ for such students, ‘having regard to the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned.’

    This Bill would add a new Section 30(2)(f) that shall ‘require all schools to provide knowledge and information in the State-prescribed curriculum in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner that avoids indoctrination, outside of the specific context of religious instruction and faith formation classes where 10 exemptions apply.’


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    3 - It would move religious instruction and faith formation classes to after school hours.
    4 - It would oblige schools to establish minimum standards for accommodating students whose parents opt them out of classes that are contrary to their conscience.

    Probably a silly question, but on the assumption that faith formation classes are extra curricular as per point 3, what is the thinking behind point 4 here? Scratching my head. the only things that spring to mind are a creationist family having the option to exclude their child from a science class that might include evolution, or maybe a Jewish family skipping a cooking class that included pork, but both seem pretty far fetched.


  • Options
    #3
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    smacl wrote: »
    Probably a silly question, but on the assumption that faith formation classes are extra curricular as per point 3, what is the thinking behind point 4 here? Scratching my head. the only things that spring to mind are a creationist family having the option to exclude their child from a science class that might include evolution, or maybe a Jewish family skipping a cooking class that included pork, but both seem pretty far fetched.
    There is a constitutional right to opt out of anything contrary to conscience, which is a wider concept than just religious instruction, so I assume that that is why it is addressed. In practice, I think the most likely area might be sex education?


  • Options
    #4
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    There is a constitutional right to opt out of anything contrary to conscience, which is a wider concept than just religious instruction, so I assume that that is why it is addressed. In practice, I think the most likely area might be sex education?
    I don't think this is quite right. There's two relevant provisions here:

    Under Art 42.3.1 parents can't be obliged "in violation of their conscience and lawful preference" to send their children to state-established schools, or to any particular type of school. But once you're in a particular school, Art. 42.3.1 doesn't confer any right to withdraw from particular aspects of the school's instruction.

    Under Art. 44.2.4, legislation provided state aid for schools may not affect prejudicially the right of a child to attend the school without attending religious instruction. The effect of Art. 44.2.4 is that, if your child is in a state-funded or state-aided school, you can withdraw him or her from religious instruction, but it doesn't confer a right to withdraw a child from any other aspect of instruction.


  • Options
    #5
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    I dunno I mean doesnt this go from one extreme i.e. being effectively forced to go through a faith school for a large portion of the population to the other i.e. effectively preventing faith schools from operating?

    An an atheist of the live and let live school (rather than the "must crush all religion" type), I think this law will do more harm than good and will make religious people more extreme than they already are.

    Plus Im uneasy with anything "socialists" try to do - its never what it seems to be on its face.


  • Options
    #6
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I dunno I mean doesnt this go from one extreme i.e. being effectively forced to go through a faith school for a large portion of the population to the other i.e. effectively preventing faith schools from operating?

    I think in real terms it makes very little difference to the day to day running of a typical Catholic school other than they can't prefer one child over the next based on their religion and religion classes are moved to the end of the school day such that those who don't want them simply go home.
    I think this law will do more harm than good and will make religious people more extreme than they already are.

    I think the opposite, in that children will tend to mix more irrespective of their background, which to me is a good thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »

    Plus Im uneasy with anything "socialists" try to do - its never what it seems to be on its face.

    the old if the Greens and SF are for it Im aginn it :D

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #8
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    silverharp wrote: »
    the old if the Greens and SF are for it Im aginn it :D

    Not against, just deeply skeptical. I mean the reason the constitution was framed as it was and why equality legislation gives protection to religions is to allow Protestant and other minority religions to set up schools with a religious ethos.

    Theres no reason why parents who feel strongly about atheist beliefs cant set up their own school if they wish


  • Options
    #9
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Theres no reason why parents who feel strongly about atheist beliefs cant set up their own school if they wish

    Nor is there any reason why any citizen should be have their child put at the back the queue when it comes to entering into their local state school which is funded by the taxes that citizen pays. Similarly there is no reason why a child should be subjected to unwanted religious instruction in their local school.


  • Options
    #10
    yoganinja
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭yoganinja


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Not against, just deeply skeptical. I mean the reason the constitution was framed as it was and why equality legislation gives protection to religions is to allow Protestant and other minority religions to set up schools with a religious ethos.

    Theres no reason why parents who feel strongly about atheist beliefs cant set up their own school if they wish
    but it's not about people feeling strongly about "atheist beliefs" (what ARE they anyway), it's about people feeling strongly that publicly funded services should not favour any belief system


  • Options
    #11
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    This again is trying to create a system that is all inclusive and it just doesn't work! If they are Catholic schools then preference should be there to accommodate Catholics! Why do people enrol their children in to a school and then decide to pick and choose what they want from the school?

    It's not a restaurant where you can go al a carte!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    I'll be emailing TDs to oppose this.


  • Options
    #13
    yoganinja
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭yoganinja


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    This again is trying to create a system that is all inclusive and it just doesn't work! If they are Catholic schools then preference should be there to accommodate Catholics! Why do people enrol their children in to a school and then decide to pick and choose what they want from the school?

    It's not a restaurant where you can go al a carte!!!



    Because it is the local state funded school and you want your child to go to the same school with all their friends
    Because there are entire counties where denominational schools are the ONLY choice
    Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs


  • Options
    #14
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    yoganinja wrote: »
    Because it is the local state funded school and you want your child to go to the same school with all their friends
    Because there are entire counties where denominational schools are the ONLY choice
    Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs

    Maybe in extreme cases but essentially a crock of ....!


  • Options
    #15
    yoganinja
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭yoganinja


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    Maybe in extreme cases but essentially a crock of ....!
    you might want to take that up with the legislators so - because that's what the constitution guarantees


  • Options
    #16
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    yoganinja wrote: »
    Because it is the local state funded school and you want your child to go to the same school with all their friends
    Because there are entire counties where denominational schools are the ONLY choice
    Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs.

    Lets assume then that as a parent I'm a racist! I hate blacks, Asians, eastern Europeans, all foreigners in this country!
    Keep Ireland for the Irish is my mentality!!! My child sharing a class with foreigners conflicts with my beliefs. What steps should the school take to 'accommodate' my conflicts of interest?


  • Options
    #17
    yoganinja
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭yoganinja


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    Lets assume then that as a parent I'm a racist! I hate blacks, Asians, eastern Europeans, all foreigners in this country!
    Keep Ireland for the Irish is my mentality!!! My child sharing a class with foreigners conflicts with my beliefs. What steps should the school take to 'accommodate' my conflicts of interest?
    OK - I'll bite :), even though you appear to misunderstand what the constitution guarantees

    What accommodation would you ask for?


  • Options
    #18
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    yoganinja wrote: »
    OK - I'll bite :), even though you appear to misunderstand what the constitution guarantees

    What accommodation would you ask for?

    Maybe I am misunderstanding it but I'm just reading the last line 'children are not obliged....'

    That in my view leaves a wide open door! Speaking now as a non-racist! :)


  • Options
    #19
    yoganinja
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭yoganinja


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    Maybe I am misunderstanding it but I'm just reading the last line 'children are not obliged....'

    That in my view leaves a wide open door! Speaking now as a non-racist! :)
    again - what accommodation do you think you, as a racist (hyptothetical), want?


  • Options
    #20
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    Lets assume then that as a parent I'm a racist! I hate blacks, Asians, eastern Europeans, all foreigners in this country!
    Keep Ireland for the Irish is my mentality!!! My child sharing a class with foreigners conflicts with my beliefs. What steps should the school take to 'accommodate' my conflicts of interest?

    Do you really think a parent's desire to have the educated free from faith formation is anyway comparable to racism?

    Besides it's not like atheists are demanding their children be educated away from children of faith, quite the opposite in fact.


  • Options
    #21
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,479 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    smacl wrote: »
    Nor is there any reason why any citizen should be have their child put at the back the queue when it comes to entering into their local state school which is funded by the taxes that citizen pays. Similarly there is no reason why a child should be subjected to unwanted religious instruction in their local school.

    Well the problem there is that there are very few state schools. Certainly Id be in favour of having no religious education in national schools and only comparative religion in state owned secondary schools. You could campaign government for more non denominational schools but that costs money. So its easier to just force private schools to comply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    yoganinja
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭yoganinja


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Well the problem there is that there are very few state schools. Certainly Id be in favour of having no religious education in national schools and only comparative religion in state owned secondary schools. You could campaign government for more non denominational schools but that costs money. So its easier to just force private schools to comply.


    and another simple solution is to make any public funding of any school conditional on all children have equality of access and equal respect in that school


  • Options
    #23
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    This again is trying to create a system that is all inclusive and it just doesn't work! If they are Catholic schools then preference should be there to accommodate Catholics!

    You're assuming there that most Catholics want to send their children to Catholic ethos schools, whereas there is no evidence to suggest this. If you look at what relatively few secular schools we have in this country, primarily Educate Together, you'll see they are far more heavily oversubscribed than their religious ethos counterparts. At the same time, for many of them the bulk of the pupils are Catholic. Perhaps you could come up with some solid figures that outline what proportion of nominal Catholics in this country actually want Catholic ethos schools for their children, because from what I can see very many Irish Catholics favour secularism and have little time for the RCC running any of our state institutions. They certainly don't attend mass much any more, none of them seem to want to become priests or nuns either, and they flatly ignore the what's preached from Rome when it comes to issues like same sex marriage, contraception and abortion. What makes you think the majority want religious ethos schools?

    FWIW, I asked an open poll question relating to this on the Christianity forum on this issue a couple of years back, and 73% of those that responded that they were against the church running schools or hospitals. Small sample of a pretty eclectic group, but it matches my own experience talking to Christian friends.


  • Options
    #24
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Well the problem there is that there are very few state schools. Certainly Id be in favour of having no religious education in national schools and only comparative religion in state owned secondary schools. You could campaign government for more non denominational schools but that costs money. So its easier to just force private schools to comply.

    As per my previous post, I think the elephant in the room here is that as a country we haven't actually asked the citizenship what type of schooling system they want. The figure for nominal religion from the census is used by those that favour maintaining the status quo to suggest that this is what people want, but all the signs on the ground suggest this isn't the case. Before making sweeping changes based on the whim of any politician or lobby group, it would seem prudent to me to carry out a larger scale controlled survey asking the population what they actually want, providing a list of feasible alternatives.

    Cynically, my feeling is that there are a fair number of Catholic parents out there who want there children to be raised Catholic but couldn't be arsed putting any effort into it themselves, e.g. by taking them to the local church more than a couple of times a year. While I'd question this position, each to their own, and these people need to be accommodated same as everyone else. As such I think religious instruction as an optional extra curricular item is a good compromise. I'm certainly strongly opposed to any state funded school being allowed to maintain entry policies that discriminate on religious grounds.


  • Options
    #25
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    smacl wrote: »
    Probably a silly question, but on the assumption that faith formation classes are extra curricular as per point 3, what is the thinking behind point 4 here? Scratching my head. the only things that spring to mind are a creationist family having the option to exclude their child from a science class that might include evolution, or maybe a Jewish family skipping a cooking class that included pork, but both seem pretty far fetched.
    Another possible effect of this might be for a strictly RC or muslim family to opt out of any teaching about birth control, within a more "liberal" type of school.
    As Michael said in his synopsis..
    Section 30(2)(e) says that a school shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of their parents, or themselves if over 18. This Bill would add a duty to establish minimum standards in relation to the nature of exemptions for such students, having regard to the constitutional and human rights of all persons concerned.
    It does specifically say "concience" and not "religious beliefs". However I'm not sure whether the legislators intended to widen the concept of conscientious objection beyond religion, or whether this just happened "by accident" in the drafting of the bill back in 1998.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I don't think this is quite right. There's two relevant provisions here:

    Under Art 42.3.1 parents can't be obliged "in violation of their conscience and lawful preference" to send their children to state-established schools, or to any particular type of school. But once you're in a particular school, Art. 42.3.1 doesn't confer any right to withdraw from particular aspects of the school's instruction.

    Under Art. 44.2.4, legislation provided state aid for schools may not affect prejudicially the right of a child to attend the school without attending religious instruction. The effect of Art. 44.2.4 is that, if your child is in a state-funded or state-aided school, you can withdraw him or her from religious instruction, but it doesn't confer a right to withdraw a child from any other aspect of instruction.
    While these are indeed the only relevant constitutional rights granted, the 1998 legislation seems to have gone beyond that, to grant a right under the legislation.

    I'm inclined to think the withdrawal of kids from classes on the basis of "conscientious objection" while generally a good thing now, would become a bad thing after the religious indoctrination had been moved outside of school hours. Most likely it would be used by various cranks and extremists. So it would have been better to remove it from the legislation altogether, as part of this current bill. It would be better to control what the school is teaching, so that it is generally acceptable to all.(ie use the national curriculum).

    That being said, I'd still support the bill.



    edit; Yes I do see the irony of my position, ie atheists were formerly considered to be "cranks and extremists" :D


  • Options
    #26
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    yoganinja wrote: »
    again - what accommodation do you think you, as a racist (hyptothetical), want?


    Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs.


    I have come to your school and I have expressed my shock and horror, fear and
    anxiety over the inclusion of lesser people partaking in education to the detriment of my own flesh and blood. What are 'you' going to do to allay my fears?


  • Options
    #27
    yoganinja
    Registered Users Posts: 49 ✭yoganinja


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    Because parents are recognised as the primary educators of children and their children are not obliged to participate in anything that conflicts with their beliefs.


    I have come to your school and I have expressed my shock and horror, fear and
    anxiety over the inclusion of lesser people partaking in education to the detriment of my own flesh and blood. What are 'you' going to do to allay my fears?


    as I said earlier you don't seem to understand what the constitution means on this (I think you referred to it as a crock of ......)

    The state recognises you as the primary educator of your child and respects your right to be as bat **** crazy and racist as you wish, it will not "allay your fears", it will merely allow you to chose not to be around these "lesser people" - you can do as you wish educationally, well it says it will ensure your child is provided with a minimal education but does not (helpfully) define this.


  • Options
    #28
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    recedite wrote: »
    While these are indeed the only relevant constitutional rights granted, the 1998 legislation seems to have gone beyond that, to grant a right under the legislation.
    Good point.

    I think what's going on here is that the 1998 legislation gave the Minister (for the first time) the right to prescribe what schools were to teach. And, possibly in recognition of the constitutional principle that parents are the primary educators, the quid pro quo was a right for parents (and adult students) to opt out of any part of the prescribed curriculum.

    It's possibly also relevant that the European Convention on Human Rights mentions this issue in Art. 2, and in slightly broader terms than the Constitution does:

    "No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

    There may be a view that the ECHR requires that any law allowing for a prescribed/national curriculum must also allow for an opt-out, and not just on religious grounds.

    (On edit: ECRH Art. 2 is expressed affirmatively (the right to education in conformity with convictions) rather than negatively (the right to withdraw from education not in conformity with convictions). A more robust reading of ECHR Art. 2, then, might suggest that, if the state is in the business of funding schools, it cannot refuse to fund religious schools, if that's what parents want. At any rate, you could make the argument. And SFAIK no European country does refuse to fund religious schools. All this is for a different thread, though.)


  • Options
    #29
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    As per my previous post, I think the elephant in the room here is that as a country we haven't actually asked the citizenship what type of schooling system they want. The figure for nominal religion from the census is used by those that favour maintaining the status quo to suggest that this is what people want, but all the signs on the ground suggest this isn't the case. Before making sweeping changes based on the whim of any politician or lobby group, it would seem prudent to me to carry out a larger scale controlled survey asking the population what they actually want, providing a list of feasible alternatives.
    Well, in fact the Dept of Education did precisely that a few years back - remember? They had a very large consultation in a substantial number of school districts where there was a demographic case for new schools to determine the patronage of the new schools. The exercise was much discussed on this board at the time. The consultation extended to parents of primary-school-age and younger children, and in each district parents were asked to indicate their preference between the "feasible altenatives' - the patron bodies who were available to sponsor a school in that district. I think in every district the available options included the Catholic bishop and Educate together, and one or more other options from Gaelscoileanna, minority churches, etc, depending on who was interested.

    In every single district, bar one, the most favoured patron for any new school turned out to be the Catholic church. (The one district that didn't was Dublin 6, the pagans.)

    However, the purpose of the consultation was not simply to identify the most favoured patron, but to identify demand for patronage of a type not already adequately provided, so the "winner" in each case was not the most popular patron, but the patron for whom there was greatest unmet demand, having regard to the existing pattern of patronage in the district's schools. On those criteria, I don't think the Catholic church was the "winner" in any district.

    But if you're just asking the question of how popular various patrons/patronage models are among parents of children of the relevant age, there's actually some pretty solid data on that in that consultation.
    smacl wrote: »
    Cynically, my feeling is that there are a fair number of Catholic parents out there who want there children to be raised Catholic but couldn't be arsed putting any effort into it themselves, e.g. by taking them to the local church more than a couple of times a year. While I'd question this position, each to their own, and these people need to be accommodated same as everyone else. As such I think religious instruction as an optional extra curricular item is a good compromise. I'm certainly strongly opposed to any state funded school being allowed to maintain entry policies that discriminate on religious grounds.
    The problem with the last point is that it mainly affects minority schools. If you fill all schools by drawing names out of hat (or some equally religion-blind method) the census results suggest all or nearly all schools will have a majority of pupils from Catholic-identifying families, and the consultation results suggest that all or nearly all schools will have a parent group that prefers Catholic patronage over any other model.

    And this may not actually be the outcome we want. For Catholic schools it means not much change from the current position, in terms of make-up of the student body or attitudes/values/expectations/perferences of the parent group, but for minority schools it means, in many cases, extinction. I'm not sure that irish society would be improved by this enforced educational homogeneity. Do we really want to be the first European county since - well, let's not Godwin the thread so, no names, no pack-drill - to adopt policies to ensure the closure of its Jewish schools?

    In the interests of diversity and the protection and support of minority communities, I would favour creating a space in which minority schools could be selective - e.g. if a school is the only one of its patronage type in the district, then it can be selective on criteria relevant to its patronage type, but if there are two or more schools of that type, then, no. That would leave the Catholic church having to choose between patronising, in each district, one selectively Catholic school, or a number of non-selective Catholic schools.


  • Options
    #30
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,725 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, in fact the Dept of Education did precisely that a few years back - remember? They had a very large consultation in a substantial number of school districts where there was a demographic case for new schools to determine the patronage of the new schools. The exercise was much discussed on this board at the time.

    In every single district, bar one, the most favoured patron for any new school turned out to be the Catholic church.

    However, the purpose of the consultation was not simply to identify the most favoured patron, but to identify demand for patronage of a type not already adequately provided, so the "winner" in each case was not the most popular patron, but the patron for whom there was greatest unmet demand. But if you're just asking the question of how popular various patrons/patronage models are, there's actually pretty good data on that in that consultation.

    Not sure we're reading off the same page here, are you referring to the Report on the surveys regarding parental preferences on primary school patronage? If so, the conclusion it arrived at was;
    DoE report or preferred patronage wrote:
    The detailed analysis of the parental preferences expressed in each of the areas surveyed as part of the survey exercise indicates that there is sufficient parental demand supporting immediate changes in school patronage in 23 of the 38 areas.

    Could you point out the section where the preferred patron of any new school is the Catholic church, as I don't see it in my reading of the linked document?
    Peregrinus wrote:
    The problem with the last point is that it mainly affects minority schools. If you fill all schools by drawing names out of hat (or some equally religion-blind method) the census results suggest all or nearly all schools will have a majority of pupils from Catholic-identifying families, and the consultation results suggest that all or nearly all schools will have a parent group that prefers Catholic patronage over any other model.

    And this may not actually be the outcome we want. For Catholic schools it means not much change from the current position, in terms of make-up of the student body or attitudes/values/expectations of the parent group, but for minority schools it means, in many cases, extinction. I'm not sure that irish society would be improved by this enforced educational homogeneity. Do we really want to be the first European county since - well, lets not Godwin the thread so, no names, no pack-drill - to adopt policies to ensure the closure of its Jewish schools?

    In the interests of diversity and the protection and support of minority communities, I would favour creating a space in which minority schools could be selective - e.g. if a school is the only one of its patronage type in the district, then it can be selective on criteria relevant to its patronage type, but if there are two or more schools of that type, then, no. The Catholic church would have to choose between patronising, in each district, one selectively Catholic school, or a number of non-selective Catholic schools.

    You talk about not Godwinning, but that seems to be precisely what you're doing with respect to Jewish schools. I assume from the above arguments you are against allowing the RCC to prefer Catholic students on the basis that Catholicism is not a minority (yet ;) ). On what grounds to you think we should fund religious minorities to exercise religious discrimination while not allowing larger groups to do so? I'd also question the use of census data as being suggestive of secularist preferences as you appear to be doing above.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,165 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Not sure we're reading off the same page here, are you referring to the Report on the surveys regarding parental preferences on primary school patronage? If so, the conclusion it arrived at was;

    Could you point out the section where the preferred patron of any new school is the Catholic church, as I don't see it in my reading of the linked document?
    It's not in the Report because, as already stated, the purpose of the report wasn't to identify the most popular form of patronage in absolute terms. It was to establish the level of demand for wider choice than currently exists, which means that the report focusses on the desires/preferences of parents who aren't satisfied with the current offerings, rather than the desires/preferences of all parents. So, if you look at the "conclusions" section on page 8, you'l find the question they'e answering is basically this: For each of 38 school districts, is their enough demand for a new patronage model to justify diverting one existing school from its current patronage? And the answer: in 23 districts, yes. In 15 districts, no.

    A moment's thought will show you that this doesn't tell us a huge amount in absolute terms. Basically, there's "sufficient demand" in a district if the parents who say they would avail of a not-currently-available patronage have, between them, enough children to populate the school they want with at least 51 children after 3 years (this being the criterion for viability). What's that as a percentage of total demand for school places? How does it stack up against the number of parents happy with the current patronage offerings? We're not told; it's not relevant to the purposes of the report.

    But if we drill down into the actual survey responses, which are set out in tedious detail in appendices to the report, there is relevant data. Both the parents who wanted new patronage options and the parents who didn't were asked about their preferences, and by aggregating those figures we can get a picture of the pattern of preferences among parents as a whole. I did this exercise and posted about it a few years back, but if that's a bit tl;dr for you, the aggregate picture for preferred patron seems to be:

    Catholic bishop: 41.9%
    Educate Together: 13.9%
    Couldn't give a stuff: 13.3%
    An Foras Patrunachta: 8.3%
    VEC: 4%

    And everyone else less than that.

    My longer post that I link to explains some reservations I have about the interpretation of the data, and I'm not saying we couldn't or shouldn't get better data, but this was actually a pretty large exercise, and did tick a number of boxes by e.g. only consulting the parents of children of the relevant age, and only offering patronage options that were "feasible" - i.e. where there was a patron actually willing to patronise a school. And it suggests that, actually, the preference for Catholic patronage is pretty strong, and certainly considerably stronger than the preference for any other model.
    smacl wrote: »
    You talk about not Godwinning, but that seems to be precisely what you're doing with respect to Jewish schools. I assume from the above arguments you are against allowing the RCC to prefer Catholic students on the basis that Catholicism is not a minority (yet ;) ). On what grounds to you think we should fund religious minorities to exercise religious discrimination while not allowing larger groups to do so?
    I'm in favour of accommodating minorities here because I think diversity is a good thing, and the tyranny of the majority a bad thing. I'm not actually suggesting having one rule for Catholic and another rule for everyone else. My suggestion was that the same rule would apply to everybody; if your patronage model is unique in your district, then you can operate admission criteria connected with your patronage model, since this will help to keep your school (a) viable, and (b) distinctive, and (c) available to the minority for whom it particularly seeks to cater. But if there are multiple schools in the district with the same patronage model then you can't, because none of those considerations seem to apply.
    smacl wrote: »
    I'd also question the use of census data as being suggestive of secularist preferences as you appear to be doing above.
    Not sure what you mean by this. I'm not drawing any inference about preferences from the census figures. My point is just that if you choose pupils by religion-blind criteria, then all or nearly all school well have a majority of pupils from families who, for census purposes at least, identify as Catholics. If census identification as a Catholic is positively correlated with preference for Catholic patronage, which is plausible but by no means established, then that would tend to mean that a preference for Catholic patronage would be uniform across all schools. And if, as the consultation suggests, Catholic patronage is the most popular mode, effectively what you have done is to design a system which will tend to ensure that Catholic patronage is the most popular model in all or nearly all schools. Which, within any school, is going to make it more difficult to justify, or win acceptance for, the appointment of any other patron to the school. Which is probably the opposite outcome from the one you hope for.

    Essentially, what you have done is to replicate the deficiencies of the first-past-the-post electoral system. under which the party which gets more votes than any other party gets a huge bonus in terms of seats, and all other parties are crucified.


Advertisement