Minister signals "baptism barrier" to go

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

The Black Oil

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

recedite

more info here

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hotblack Desiato

A very inadequate proposal but not at all unexpected.

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

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

eviltwin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A very inadequate proposal but not at all unexpected.

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

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

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

Peregrinus

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

jimmycrackcorm

Hermy wrote:

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

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

yoganinja

recedite wrote: »

more info here

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

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

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

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

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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

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

Peregrinus

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

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

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

@Peregrinus

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

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

yoganinja wrote: »

According to Min Bruton's tweet:

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

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

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

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

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

It's all sectarian stone aged nonsense in my eyes

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

So it's all true then?

lawred2 wrote: »

It's all sectarian stone aged nonsense in my eyes

Bit of a difference in timing between those events.

Hermy wrote: »

So it's all true then?

Never said it was it wasnt.

[Deleted User]

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

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Never said it was it wasnt.

Make up your mind!:p

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

@Peregrinus

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

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

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

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

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

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

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Bit of a difference in timing between those events.

which events?

lawred2 wrote: »

which events?

Stone age and birth of Christianity

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Stone age and birth of Christianity

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

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I suspect your logic is somewhat incomplete there. How about

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

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

evolving_doors

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hotblack Desiato

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

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

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

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