Religion and Engaging with the Teacher

Sure. And the various other regulatory bodies should pay to have their subjects taught. Let the crown pay for our english lessons for a start. The majority (albeit a shrinking majority) speak english as a first language anyway.

If they’re to teach French, let Alliance Francaise pay for it. If they want to teach physics, let the Institute of Physics pay for it.

Or we could let the education system continue to do the teaching, funded by the taxpayer, and the cranks can accept that just because they don’t want religion taught in schools doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be, and just because they think religion has no place in schools doesn’t mean they’re right.

Another one stating their personal opinion as fact.

I've yet to experience a "free" school that doesn't hit you with fees or "voluntary contributions". So we are paying a contribution. Well 80% of us are.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/sending-child-to-primary-school-costs-1-000-study-finds-1.2719583

I assume the idea would be to get a patron for you want on these various boards and in govt. Make it an election issue.

You wouldn't think the majority were Catholics based on Mass attendance on Sunday mornings.

How am I “comparing applies and oranges”?

Our education system reflects 1950s Ireland. The religious patronage model is not fit for purpose.

And as long as people behave similarly to the opening poster, our education system shall continue to reflect 1950’s Ireland, as opposed to reflecting the education system we had 100 years previously where only wealthy families could afford private education for their children, which prompted the intervention of the State, which led to religious organisations arguing that they should control education as they were providing it already, and that’s what led to the development of the Patronage system as opposed to education being provided primarily by the State or local authorities as it is in other countries.

The current situation isn’t just based upon census figures or mass attendance, it’s based primarily upon parents making decisions for themselves as to how their own children are to be educated. Some parents have more choices than others depending upon their socioeconomic status, and the only way to break the monopoly religious organisations have in this country over the provision of education is to continue to petition Governments to establish more State schools for parents who want that model of education for their children and do away with the rules which prevent the establishment of such schools.

Otherwise the DOE will continue to be able to hide behind the fact that patrons applying for patronage of any newly established schools either didn’t meet the requirements, or there were any number of other reasons why it was decided that patronage would go to one of the already established patron bodies - whether their ethos is religious, secular or something else entirely. That’s notwithstanding the whole parents survey (which ignores the projected population growth in any area, which is why the census figures are handy, not just as a stick to beat cultural Catholics over the head with 😁), the sibling rule, and the reasoning used by the DOE to justify their position that if there are places available in the local schools regardless of the ethos, then there is no need for the establishment of any new schools in the area.

Personally speaking, I’d rather we didn’t go back to a time when only wealthy people could afford to educate their children privately and the State did not interfere or attempt to regulate education in any way, but I also disagree with the idea of defunding religious patron bodies because they are established specifically for the purpose of providing religious education, and they should either stand or fall based upon their popularity - if parents actually wish to enrol their children in religious ethos schools for whatever their reasons (and I’ve heard many different reasons over the years, some more eyebrow raising than others 🤨), then they should also have the same freedom to do so as parents who do not wish to enroll children in schools or institutions which are in violation of their conscience and so on -

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.

Otherwise, arguing that parents have little choice as the reason why parents choose to enrol their children in religious ethos schools is the reason why they do so, while it isn’t an unreasonable assumption as to some peoples motivations, there’s little evidence to support that argument, and far more evidence that parents choose to enrol their children in religious ethos schools because they want to, and the situation as described by the opening poster is a good example of it where they knowingly enrolled their child in a religious ethos school even though they themselves are not religious, and then they sought to rectify the situation afterwards.