snor wrote: » I find this post very odd and OTT. I have taught in Ceist schools and they are not much different to non- Ceist schools. Yes, they uphold the catholic ethos but you knew that when you enrolled your child in the school. We have a parent who moans to the school every time a prayer is said in our school - for a family member RIP etc. Why did they send their child to the school. - they had plenty of choice. Maybe move your own child to the local ET school if you have an issue.
Parent12345 wrote: » Hi all, I'm a parent of a student in a wonderful modern progressive school in the West. The school has just advertised for a new Principal. The school is under the trusteeship of CEIST. I work in a different area of education and I have some experience of CEIST. They're seen as an increasingly conservative and fundamentalist group who are leaning toward the David Quinn school of thought. Their bottom line has been the maintenance of religion in schools in the past few years. Education, children etc are very much secondary priorities. As I've mentioned this school and the current principal are wonderfully progressive on issues such as LGBTQ, different faiths, etc. There is no overbearing religious theme and all students generally feel comfortable there. However reading the job description for the role new Principal, the first 2 pages contain some very surprising criteria. They mention criteria such as "the new Principal will have to be able to lead all meetings and assemblies in prayer" and "maintain role of Catholic church in an increasingly diverse society" That's not the role of the Principal! There is lots more in there too that leaves no doubt that CEIST are seizing this opportunity to install a deeply religious figure as the principal of this school. I'm not the only one concerned, other parents and teachers are concerned that this is an attempt to claw back control and turn this school into a religion 1st, education 2nd establishment. We're also worried that there are some great candidates who will miss this opportunity as they don't meet the strict criteria. This may seem as an over reaction but it's all there in the document and I and others are genuinely worried for the future of my son's school. If you really want to see what school I'm talking about, it's not hard to find it with the details I've mentioned above.
Calahonda52 wrote: » OP, that is a really big statement that you have repeated several times in this thread. As it stands, without any evidence, you are undermining and diminishing the role the school plays in education, especially the other teachers and their commitment to education. Therefore it cannot be left unchallenged.
am_zarathustra wrote: » CEIST is specifically catholic ethos. Originally the big girls school religious orders I think. Very different from a community school or etb governance wise and ethos wise. Without religious personal on the ground it was a way of maintaining ideological control over the schools.
am_zarathustra wrote: » My understanding was CEIST was set up to centralize issues to do with assets and pensions along with keeping the Catholic ethos in schools that no longer have religious order members in the school.
Treppen wrote: » It's fine to be all welcoming and open on the surface. Dig down deaper and you'll find very subtle forms of discrimination in some schools. The discrimination doesn't come from nowhere either. Example: One school I know had a student prefecture system, where any of the senior boys could apply and get positions of responsibility (open days, mentoring junior students etc.) This was 'altered' to become a more faith based approach... Lead students in prayer, go on faith based retreats, linking with adjacent primary for communions/confirmations etc. All well and good, protecting upholding the ethos and whatnot. Problem was it now excluded about 20% of student who were the aforementioned "all faiths and none". So either consciously or unconsciously places of prominence and opportunity were removed from a previously egalitarian system. But I suppose those students should just go elsewhere.
TheValeyard wrote: » CEIST are now heavily involved in the hiring of teachers in community schools which by their very nature and open and welcoming to all faiths and nine. While a schools may have a Christian ethos, I'm sure CEIST are very aware of the school make up and local communities. I would not be worried. What appears in the formal handbook is not how schools are run on a day to day basis.
Calahonda52 wrote: » OP, that is a really big statement that you have repeated several times in this thread. As it stands, without any evidence, you are undermining and diminishing the role the school plays in education, especially the other teachers and their commitment to education. Therefore it cannot be left unchallenged. This is not China or Hong kong where the teachers are organs of the state or some religious cult. The attached spec lays out the rules of the role
Treppen wrote: » I suspect they already are have the successor vetted and notified months or years in advance. I know some excellent teachers and potential leaders who will never have a shot at management because the don't have the halo. I remember one such teacher who was a born leader, did all the courses, organised initiatives to beat the band, like by parents, had connections etc. he couldn't figure out why he was never considered for AP1 , I know he went to CofI school so there was that. He left and got AP1 in new school in one year. Maybe coincidence but I know discrimination goes on based on gender or sexuality. Anyone remember studying the 'hidden ethos' in college.
Parent12345 wrote: » I'd rather the board of management or representives from the Dept of Ed, anyone else really get to appoint. For the few thousand euro they give to school every year, they shouldn't get to make such an important appointment. Having been to one of their conferences and from what I know about them, they have one agenda and one only: to promote the Catholic faith. Education is a very distant second. We'll be getting the person they deem the most adept at applying that agenda and not the best person to run a school.
am_zarathustra wrote: » I will say I left a school and a permanent job when they were very thin on the ground because I was told by numerous staff, including the deputy, that if the BOM or principal found out that I was in a same sex relationship it would be difficult for me and I'd definitely never be promoted. I was lucky to be in an urban area and had a lot of options but it's not the same for everyone. There was a recent survey where 80% of primary teachers aren't out. I'd imagine the number is much lower in secondary but still gives food for thought. The other side of course is that the patron may insist on those two pages being included and it may not be really focused on in the interview.
Parent12345 wrote: » I'd rather the board of management or representives from the Dept of Ed, anyone else really get to appoint..
Parent12345 wrote: » I understand what you're saying and this school's ethos is very inclusive but very general and not too different to any other school's ethos. However my fear is that this advertisement will preclude some very good candidates from applying and restrict it to those who meet the strict religious criteria. I can think of one very good candidate who people would love to see running a school who would likely be precluded because of their sexual orientation and the fact that they're not deeply religious. The advertisement specifics that they must be able to lead all assemblies in prayer. Again, I don't think it's right that they're not looking for the best person to lead a school in terms of teaching and learning but rather their commitment to promoting Catholicism and faith in the school. They won't be paying their salary, they contribute a small amount to the school's running costs and yet they get to install a principal to suit their very conservative and religious ideals. Its not right
Parent12345 wrote: » Having been to one of their conferences and from what I know about them, they have one agenda and one only: to promote the Catholic faith. Education is a very distant second. We'll be getting the person they deem the most adept at applying that agenda and not the best person to run a school.
tuisginideach wrote: » Surely if CEIST is the patron, of course they get to appoint the principal??????
Parent12345 wrote: » . I also don't understand how CEIST get to appoint the principal, they are very clear that faith is their no1 priority, not education.
shesty wrote: » I am slightly struggling here to understamd something - the school has a particular ethos (not necessarily overly religious), yet is somehow under the patronage of CEIST (Who I know nothing about) and your child is in the school and you would prefer the Ceist/religious aspect not to be so strong - I don't really get this.How is it under Ceist if it doesn't fall in with their values, or is this patronage a recent thing, and why is your child there if you are not happy with the potential religious aspect,which would possibly come with the Ceist patronage at some point? Genuine questions, I am a bit confused as to how this situation occurred.
Parent12345 wrote: » I can think of one very good candidate who people would love to see running a school who would likely be precluded because of their sexual orientation and the fact that they're not deeply religious. The advertisement specifics that they must be able to lead all assemblies in prayer.
