nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

School patronage

equivariant

From today's indo

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/parents-get-vote-to-take-schools-out-of-control-of-the-church-3233287.html

This is interesting. It is hard to assess this initiative based on the information in that article. Of course, personally I would prefer a complete removal of religious influence from state funded schools. However I am not sure that I am happy about this proposed survey. I can see many parents voting not to change purely based on "the devil you know" attitude. I wonder also is potentially divisive to make communities nail their colours to the mast publicly? I suppose it will depend on the detail of the survey.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cabaal

expectationlost wrote: »

Catholic pupils to study other religions under radical new plan http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/catholic-pupils-to-study-other-religions-under-radical-new-plan-29973466.html

great will this be anything like the hibernia online course

Laughable change, odds are they already collectively spending this amount of time discussing other faiths or having generation discussions.

The amount of time devoted to other religions will vary depending on the age of the children, with two weeks per year set aside for fifth and sixth class pupils.

The time allocation for third and fourth class pupils will be one week per year, while it will be one-and-a-half hours per year for first and second class pupils.

Prep for communion etc will still be taking place within school time,

This is merely an attempt for them to seem progressive, its a delaying tactic, nothing more

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Laughable change, odds are they already collectively spending this amount of time discussing other faiths or having generation discussions.

Prep for communion etc will still be taking place within school time,

This is merely an attempt for them to seem progressive, its a delaying tactic, nothing more

And the early years get less time on diversity. Indoctrination as much as possible before they catch on to alternatives.

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Laughable change, odds are they already collectively spending this amount of time discussing other faiths or having generation discussions.

Prep for communion etc will still be taking place within school time,

This is merely an attempt for them to seem progressive, its a delaying tactic, nothing more

And the early years get less time on diversity. Indoctrination as much as possible before they catch on to alternatives.

expectationlost

quinn was on rte this morning sean o'rourke asked him his assesment of the lousie o'keefe result, first thing quinn said was that the system of patronage for most part had worked well. obviously not, the court ruled that the system of checks was insuficient

The Black Oil

My take on this is pretty straightforward, I hope. I'm happy for kids to learn about religion in a fairly broad sense - maybe learn about a couple of religions otherwise they risk leaving school a bit ignorant (I'm know it'll be said that religion makes people ignorant, but let's take it easy). Now, if you're talking about orientating kids towards a particular world view, specific religious instruction, then go ahead and go to a school that reflects that. But please, let's not have business as usual in this country with the lack of choice and entrenched resistance to change.

expectationlost

The Black Oil wrote: »

My take on this is pretty straightforward, I hope. I'm happy for kids to learn about religion in a fairly broad sense - maybe learn about a couple of religions otherwise they risk leaving school a bit ignorant (I'm know it'll be said that religion makes people ignorant, but let's take it easy). Now, if you're talking about orientating kids towards a particular world view, specific religious instruction, then go ahead and go to a school that reflects that. But please, let's not have business as usual in this country with the lack of choice and entrenched resistance to change.

read this to remind you the last time catholics thought about other religions in ireland http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056553324 hibrenia college who got away very lightly with this hatred

gaynorvader

The Black Oil wrote: »

My take on this is pretty straightforward, I hope. I'm happy for kids to learn about religion in a fairly broad sense - maybe learn about a couple of religions otherwise they risk leaving school a bit ignorant (I'm know it'll be said that religion makes people ignorant, but let's take it easy). Now, if you're talking about orientating kids towards a particular world view, specific religious instruction, then go ahead and go to a school that reflects that. But please, let's not have business as usual in this country with the lack of choice and entrenched resistance to change.

Should be given about as much time as CSPE is given now imho, maybe integrated as part of that subject.

lazygal

I do not trust the catholic powers that be for one second to allow other faiths to be discussed openly. I do not trust any of their ass covering attempts to maintain the status quo since the Edmund Rice schools trust bait and switch operation.

swampgas

lazygal wrote: »

I do not trust the catholic powers that be for one second to allow other faiths to be discussed openly. I do not trust any of their ass covering attempts to maintain the status quo since the Edmund Rice schools trust bait and switch operation.

It just goes to show how much power the RCC still has in Ireland, as they still seem to be able to do what they like with impunity.

The government should simply legislate to address the issues, instead they are going "pretty please" to the RCC and being strung along like fools.

Delirium

Catholic schools can’t be ‘watery’ about Faith – Archbishop

Catholic schools must be confident in their own identity and not water down their Catholic ethos Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has warned.

“Catholic education is not indoctrination, but neither can it be milky and watery about who Jesus is and what belief in Jesus involves,” the archbishop writes in The Irish Catholic this week.

While insisting that a Catholic school can never be exclusive of non-Catholics, Dr Martin says “it must always be clearly Catholic and thus focussed on leading the student to a personal knowledge and love of Jesus Christ”.

“The Catholic school has to be clear that the term ethos cannot be reduced to vague generalities or undefined ‘Gospel values’,” he says.

sounds contradictory to me.

alaimacerc

SW wrote: »

Catholic schools can’t be ‘watery’ about Faith – Archbishop

sounds contradictory to me.

We're dealing with a religion that baldly makes statements that are logically (much less factually) false, then when this is pointed out to them declares "it's an ineffable mystery!" A small bit of sophistry in the definition of "indoctrination" is the work of moments.

The Black Oil

His Lord Legalship has fresh ink today, must not read.

eyescreamcone

I belice the ECtHR ruling which brings the state forefront in the management of schools will have a big bearing on teacher contracts.

Up to now teacher's contracts were not subject to the state laws on equality.

In other words the school patrons could legally discrimate on the grounds of religion or sexual orientation. And call it "ethos".

The state as an employer will not be able to do this. Certainly not on moral grounds.

Interesting times.

alaimacerc

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Up to now teacher's contracts were not subject to the state laws on equality.

In other words the school patrons could legally discrimate on the grounds of religion or sexual orientation. And call it "ethos".

I don't see how this was ever considered sustainable. Teacher's being paid by the state, the the state should determine the terms of their employment, and hence not discriminate. Or if the money is "resting in the account" of the religious patron, who is thereby the employer... how is that not thereby "endowment of religion"? I'd be fascinated to learn of a reason why this was permissible that didn't amount to "ah, sure now!", or "sheer legal sophistry".

That's even if we stipulate that "private religious institute" itself constitutes "licence to discriminate", which I wouldn't be thrilled about.

But you must surely be correct that the ruling will mean either overt restructuring, changes of policy with regard to the present structure, or a combination of the two.

The Black Oil

Interesting update from the Archbishop, sounds like the TDs need to cop on a bit.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0209/503216-diarmuid-martin/

Martin not happy with speed of schools divestment

Dr Martin, said he was not happy with the progress being made to divest primary schools of Catholic patronage.

He said the progress was "too slow".

And he said that the process had been slowed down by resistance from local TDs, including some from the Labour party.

"Everybody is in favour of diversity of patronage in schools, except when it comes to their own school.

"This is where you meet the resistance. I'm getting regular letters from TDs, even from the same party as the minister, throwing spanners in the works and wanting more consultation and saying this is not going to happen," he said.

Brian Shanahan

Mr. Diarmuid Martin wrote:

And he said that the process had been slowed down by resistance from local TDs, including some from the Labour party..

tl;dr:

The catholic church (as lead in Dublin by Mr. Martin) is holding up the divestment of schools and is now wildly flailing its arms trying to blame everybody else. Must have gotten results back showing how unpopular holding up multi-denominational schools was.

Banbh

Even the Catholic Archbishop is in favour of more divestment.
What's Ruairi Quinn waiting for, an invitation from the Pope?

swampgas

Banbh wrote: »

Even the Catholic Archbishop is in favour of more divestment.
What's Ruairi Quinn waiting for, an invitation from the Pope?

He's probably waiting for a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights.

Banbh

Why? Has there been a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights against him for divesting schools? I don't think so.

expectationlost

The Black Oil wrote: »

Interesting update from the Archbishop, sounds like the TDs need to cop on a bit.

name and shame archie

swampgas

Banbh wrote: »

Why? Has there been a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights against him for divesting schools? I don't think so.

nope, that was meant to be a joke, referring to the way the govt seem to wait for the EU to make than do contentious stuff. A very poor joke I guess!

eyescreamcone

swampgas wrote: »

nope, that was meant to be a joke, referring to the way the govt seem to wait for the EU to make than do contentious stuff. A very poor joke I guess!

I got it!

I Heart Internet

"Everybody is in favour of diversity of patronage in schools, except when it comes to their own school."

- Archbishop Martin

This is the key to it right here and something I predicted a long-time ago. It's all fine and dandy until someone suggests that your own kids' school is to get an overhaul (of whatever kind). Then you get people going to their TDs, etc moaning.

Minister Quinn was on Morning Ireland this AM talking about this. He again reiterated his belief that RCC schools could flourish and express the fullness of their RCC ethos once provision has been made for everyone else. All perfectly reasonable. Pity the interviewer didn't take him to task and ask him, if this was his view of how the future would be, why does he shoot his mouth off about teaching maths instead of religion whenever he gets the opportunity,

If Minister Quinn wants to know why there is foot dragging amongst parents on divesting schools, he should look at his own sabre-rattling. He's worrying the horses and then confused as to why they won't move paddock.

Banbh

I wonder what, if anything, he intends doing. If he won't even stand up to his party colleagues, we have no hope of getting anything changed.

expectationlost

http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20140210,20522006,20522006,flash,232

quinn blames the bishop says the TDs complaints was that parents weren't hearing from the Patron ie the Bishop

actually he's blame parishioners not "the constituents"

this is the problem he still depending on the church to act rather then acting himself

Banbh

So Quinn now wants the Bishop to act as Minister for Education and do his job for him.
Well Archbishop Martin would do a better job.

recedite

The basic problem is this; "no particular school has a majority in favour of a change in patronage" (this according to Quinn, and he should know)

Lets say there were 3 local schools, and each was under RCC control, and each had a two thirds majority who like it that way. That leaves a lot of disgruntled people.

The obvious solution is to divest one school. Pretty soon everyone will gravitate towards their preferred type of school, and then everyone will be happy in their own niche.

For a short time though, you have a two thirds majority in that one school campaigning against the change.
And a few local TD's who are quite happy to be seen in the media "helping out" if they think there might be a few votes in it for themselves.

As people keep saying, there is a real lack of leadership, from both the Minister and the Archbishop..

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The basic problem is this; "no particular school has a majority in favour of a change in patronage" (this according to Quinn, and he should know)

Lets say there were 3 local schools, and each was under RCC control, and each had a two thirds majority who like it that way. That leaves a lot of disgruntled people.

This is exactly the problem. The proportion of schools under Catholic patronage vastly exceeds the proportion of parents who want a Catholic education for their children. Nevertheless a Catholic education is still, far and away, the most popular and most desired model among parents. And this demand for Catholic education is pretty uniformly spread. It’s likely to be the case that, in almost every single school that is under Catholic patronage, Catholic patronage is the preferred model of a majority of the parents.

recedite wrote: »

The obvious solution is to divest one school. Pretty soon everyone will gravitate towards their preferred type of school, and then everyone will be happy in their own niche.

Well, it is the obvious solution, but I think you’re a little bit glib as to how easy it’s going to be. Changing schools is a big deal. There are educational impacts, and there are significant social impact for the kids, their friendship networks, etc. If parents have chosen a school that they like, and the kids are happy there and doing well socially and academically, I can see that they would be seriously, seriously pissed off at being told “this is turning into a school that most of you won’t like. If you don’t like this you need to take your kids out and send them to one of these other schools”.

And you have the converse problem as well: most of the parents who would prefer a secular patronage will actually have their kids in the other schools. Notwithstanding their preference for secular patronage, if the kids are happy and successful where they are those parents may not change them to the newly-secularised school. And I don’t see that they can be forced to. Which could leave the newly-secularised school with not enough pupils for viability, and the other schools with excess demand and parents who want Catholic patronage being turned away.

Serious, serious annoyance - much of it entirely justified - all round. And I think you have some way to go before “everyone will be happy in their own niche”. It certainly won’t be “pretty soon”.

This isn’t an easy problem to solve. Off-hand, the only thing I can think of - and it’s not perfect, by any means - is to flag changes in patronage well in advance. Like, five years in advance.

So if you’re told that this school will transition to secular patronage in five years’ time, and little Sean or little Mary is in second class or higher, you might think they won’t be affected. You might still have to think about taking their younger brothers or sisters to another school, but educationally and socially that’s less of an issue. Or you might have to think about younger brothers and sisters who are not yet in school; will you send them to a different school when the time comes, which can be a pain? Or will you transfer Sean and Mary anyway? Still some difficult choices, but the difficulties are considerably less acute. And such moves as do occur will be spread over a period, making it easier to manage resource allocation, increasing or reducing staff numbers or constructing new classrooms in response to changing student numbers in the schools.

Of course, this is a bit of a kick in the teeth if you want secular education for Sean or Mary; they’ll be finished the primary cycle before it’s available. So not a perfect solution by any means. Perhaps there are better solutions.

The thing is, this problem was entirely foreseeable. Inevitable, even. It beggars belief that the Department embarked on its consultation process, and thought about threshhold levels of interest which would justify switching a school to non-Catholic patronage, and decided on numbers of schools to change patronage, without giving some thought to the question of how many parents would actually want current patronage to change, and how to manage the effect of the change. And yet one gets the impression that Quinn is surprised by the blowback he’s getting from parents. How could he not have expected it, and prepared for it?

recedite wrote: »

As people keep saying, there is a real lack of leadership, from both the Minister and the Archbishop..

To be honest, I’m more inclined to be critical of the Minister here. It’s not the Archbishop’s job to meet the demand for non-Catholic schools; it’s the Minister’s job. The Archbishop has signalled his willingness, even eagerness, to co-operate, standing down as patron of a significant number of schools so that non-Catholic patrons can be brought in instead. And he’s been quite voluble about this, helping to set the expectation that this will indeed happen.

I don’t see that there’s much more he can be asked to do. He hasn’t the authority to decide which schools will switch patronage; the patrons of all schools are appointed (and removed) by the Minister. Nor is it his job (or, i suspect, within his power) to deliver compliant parents who will meekly accept the Minister’s decision. If we think, as democrats and as secularists, that the Minister is accountable to the people for how he exercises his power to appoint school patrons, then it’s ludicrous to suggest that the church somehow has the responsiblity (or even the ability) to protect him from the consequences of what may, in the short term, be unpopular decisions.

swampgas

Given the difficulties described in transitioning an entire school away from one model to the other, would it be workable to have a mix of secular and non-secular in the same school? Say a primary school has 3 first year classes, couldn't one (say) be designated as secular, i.e. no indoctrination, no prep for sacraments, no Alive-O ? Obviously it would involve some sort of shared patronage model, but something like it would allow kids to go to the nearest school and still get the model the parents might want.

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

Given the difficulties described in transitioning an entire school away from one model to the other, would it be workable to have a mix of secular and non-secular in the same school? Say a primary school has 3 first year classes, couldn't one (say) be designated as secular, i.e. no indoctrination, no prep for sacraments, no Alive-O ? Obviously it would involve some sort of shared patronage model, but something like it would allow kids to go to the nearest school and still get the model the parents might want.

Something like this may be necessary on a transitional basis. It will satisfy neither side, obviously, but perhaps the hallmark of any compromise that might actually work is that it will satisfy neither side.

It also raises some tough questions about how shared patronage works outside the classroom. Who appoints the staff, and what ethos is reflected in staff appointments? Who appoints the principal? What about the whole-of-school ethos? And how does this work in schools which aren't large enough to have three classes in each year-group? (Which, I'm guessing, is most schools.)

I don;t want to sound negative. I'm sure these problems can be solved. Perhaps a variation involves the ethos being, in effect, maintained for existing classes as they rise through the school, but not for new entrants, so that by the time the current year 1 gets to year 6, religion is addressed on a secular basis in the classroom throughout the school.