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

How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

looksee

We have at least two threads discussing whether schools should be secular or have a religious ethos.

Since this is A&A can we discuss how equality in education (ie secular schooling) can be achieved, without going off on the side track of whether it should happen?

One obvious line to follow is to bring it up at the door in the upcoming election. Even if only a few do it, the subject will be brought to some sort of forefront in the political debate. And I think this is a very good time to do it.

I don't particularly want to identify with Atheist Ireland - this is not an entirely atheist argument; are there any other groups that have a rational, reasonable approach to this whole issue?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Geuze

When I see the VEC / ETB schools, I see that as "public education", and I would not want to send my children there.

I taught some VEC students, very briefly, and they were a contrast to the Mercy secondary students that I also briefly taught.

Based on my lifetime experience, and that very limited interaction of actually teaching VEC students, I would not want my children anywhere near a State-run school.

So if you are proposing State-run education, you need to massively change it, to make it attractive to most parents, who are naturally ambitious for their children.

I would like my children to be taught in a Jesuit school, but none nearby.

The demand for the Jesuit school in Galway is massive - that speaks volumes.

recedite

Geuze wrote: »

I taught some VEC students, very briefly, and they were a contrast to the Mercy secondary students that I also briefly taught.

And that is social segregation in action.

But this thread has been derailed by people questioning the need for secular schools. I'd suggest that all such posts be deleted, or else the thread closed.

If the thread is to serve any purpose, it has to be focused on "how to achieve..."
Otherwise it becomes just another school patronage thread.

RainyDay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To answer the OP - there's no point in arguing for the removal of religion from religious ethos schools. Article 44 won't allow for it.

There's no point in arguing that parents should be forced to send their children to the nearest local school à la the Finnish model - Article 42 won't allow for it.

So then we need to change Articles 42 and 44. I know this won't happen overnight, but it really has to happen. We have to start building a policy consensus around this.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That only leaves one viable option really, and the Government knows it - they need to build more schools, and they need to build them fast.

Unfortunately, due to the bureaucratic nature of Ireland's public service pen-pushers where "efficiency" is a dirty word, and everything needs a "Committee" before they draft a report which states the obvious, it's going to take another 20 years at least, and numerous broken election promises, before successive Governments take their heads out of their collective asses, and figures out that maybe they really, really, need to build more schools to accommodate an increasingly diverse population.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The Dept Ed have a Generic Repeatable Design (GRD) - a set of school plans that they can pop down on any site and start building. Delays in building new schools aren't down to 'bureaucracy'. They are down to difficulties in finding sites of appropriate size at non-extortionate prices in built up areas. They are down to planning processes, which allow people to have reasonable inputs into what happens in their area. They are down to infrastructural issues, like building roads and public transport connections. They are down to funding, which is probably the largest single delaying factor.

Geuze wrote: »

When I see the VEC / ETB schools, I see that as "public education", and I would not want to send my children there.

I taught some VEC students, very briefly, and they were a contrast to the Mercy secondary students that I also briefly taught.

Based on my lifetime experience, and that very limited interaction of actually teaching VEC students, I would not want my children anywhere near a State-run school.

This is down to the ghettoisation of state schools as a result of our current way of doing things. If we change the model so that everyone goes to their local school, this will change dramatically.

flutered wrote: »

what about the majority who prefer things as they are

They'll get to vote in a referendum - and we'll see if the majority is really a majority.

JRant

RainyDay wrote: »

So then we need to change Articles 42 and 44. I know this won't happen overnight, but it really has to happen. We have to start building a policy consensus around this.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The Dept Ed have a Generic Repeatable Design (GRD) - a set of school plans that they can pop down on any site and start building. Delays in building new schools aren't down to 'bureaucracy'. They are down to difficulties in finding sites of appropriate size at non-extortionate prices in built up areas. They are down to planning processes, which allow people to have reasonable inputs into what happens in their area. They are down to infrastructural issues, like building roads and public transport connections. They are down to funding, which is probably the largest single delaying factor.

This is down to the ghettoisation of state schools as a result of our current way of doing things. If we change the model so that everyone goes to their local school, this will change dramatically.

They'll get to vote in a referendum - and we'll see if the majority is really a majority.

There may be no need for a referendum if, as Martin Nugent rightly points out, Section 7.3(c) of the Equal Status Act is removed.

Take away their ability to discriminate and I feel the rest will flow suit rather quickly.

The main reason people today baptise their children is to gain access to local schools. If this barrier is removed there would be a huge drop off in baptismal rates and schools would have to evolve to suit the students needs rather than the students having to comply with schools dogma.

This should be a priority for anyone interested in putting an wnd to this madness and I have already been on to my local td's about it. It will need a critical mass of people to voice their concerns before TD's will move on this. Unfortunately if they feel there are not enough votes to be had for bringing this matter up than they will not lift a finger to help.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

So then we need to change Articles 42 and 44. I know this won't happen overnight, but it really has to happen. We have to start building a policy consensus around this.

Article 42 is the only one we would need to vote on - to limit parents decisions with regard to their own children's education.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The Dept Ed have a Generic Repeatable Design (GRD) - a set of school plans that they can pop down on any site and start building. Delays in building new schools aren't down to 'bureaucracy'. They are down to difficulties in finding sites of appropriate size at non-extortionate prices in built up areas. They are down to planning processes, which allow people to have reasonable inputs into what happens in their area. They are down to infrastructural issues, like building roads and public transport connections. They are down to funding, which is probably the largest single delaying factor.

Sooo... bureaucracy then.

This is down to the ghettoisation of state schools as a result of our current way of doing things. If we change the model so that everyone goes to their local school, this will change dramatically.

It's not down to ghettoisation at all, it's down to reputation. 80% of school-going children already attend their nearest local school, so there won't be any dramatic changes - people will still have their own factors for deciding upon a school for their children.

They'll get to vote in a referendum - and we'll see if the majority is really a majority.

"Turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind. How would you even word that so that it wouldn't look like you were trying to limit people's choices for their own children's education?

JRant

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Article 42 is the only one we would need to vote on - to limit parents decisions with regard to their own children's education.

Sooo... bureaucracy then.

It's not down to ghettoisation at all, it's down to reputation. 80% of school-going children already attend their nearest local school, so there won't be any dramatic changes - people will still have their own factors for deciding upon a school for their children.

"Turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind. How would you even word that so that it wouldn't look like you were trying to limit people's choices for their own children's education?

Why not go for the low hanging fruit first? Remove Section 7.3(c) of the Equal Status Act and stop schools from discriminating on religious grounds.

Mary63

Jrant,you have absolutely no idea why parents baptise their children and to say it is to get a school place only is way off the truth,how do you know this to be so certain you are stating it as fact.Have you popped up at every christening in your locality to ask parents why they are bringing their baby and their entire family to the church.

The vast majority of people in this country want their child baptised into the catholic church,a minority are COI and they want their children baptised into their faith,an even smaller minority but one that will grow is the Muslim minority and they want their children baptised into the muslim faith.For most of these people entrance into the local school isn't what drives them to the church,its only a very small number of schools that are over subscribed,in very many parts of the country the population is falling so its becoming difficult to keep schools open,in each and everyone of these areas you can be sure nine out of ten children or an even higher figure will be baptised into their parents faith.

Most people aren't even thinking about schools when their child is born,they intend to have the child baptised regardless and most parents don't even link it with the local school,as I said most parents don't live in areas where there is high demand on school places.Parents who want private schools for their children will put their childs name down from birth,or if they want a school with a good academic record in the public secondary school sector they will put their childs name down as soon as possible.The best of the secondary schools are Catholic in ethos,i.e. the Loreto,the Mercy,the Dominican orders and the Christian Brothers,the Holy Ghost and the Jesuit in the case of boys,all of these schools feed from the catholic primary schools in the local area and parents are happy with this because it means it keeps undesirables from further away out.Parents don't care how selfish this makes them,they choose the primary school that didn't feed into the local State Community school because they know what the academic standards there are like and their children wouldn't relate to the intake there.If I wouldn't want to go for a cup of coffee with a certain type of parent why on earth would I want my child to spend their schooldays growing to maturity in the company of these parents offspring.

One eyed Jack

^^ Jesus Mary (and Joseph) :pac:

You're spot on though, blunt and all as it was

JRant wrote: »

Why not go for the low hanging fruit first? Remove Section 7.3(c) of the Equal Status Act and stop schools from discriminating on religious grounds.

Because that wouldn't be a secular education system. It would be State interference in Church affairs (See Article 44).

looksee

recedite wrote: »

And that is social segregation in action.

But this thread has been derailed by people questioning the need for secular schools. I'd suggest that all such posts be deleted, or else the thread closed.

If the thread is to serve any purpose, it has to be focused on "how to achieve..."
Otherwise it becomes just another school patronage thread.

Agreed. It will slow down discussion, but if the people who wish to argue for the status quo could take that argument to one of the other threads it would leave this thread for its original purpose.

Creating change:

Bring up the subject in election doorstop conversations.

Support such groups as Schools Equality PACT, or at least take an interest.

Help with the groundswell of opinion that suggests people should not baptise their children just to get them into school. This will be harder to achieve as people's pragmatic concern for their children's education is likely to supercede concern about a bit of ritual.

Is there any way that new schools could be separated from the patronage system? I have asked several times why a patron is necessary but have not had an answer.

The following is from the ET document about patronage:

The DES reserves to itself the right to recognise a person or company as an appropriate patron for a nationalschool.
Recent criteria drawn up for the recognition of new patrons by the Department of Education and Science includes a requirement that patrons have a clear understanding of the financial and legal implications of being
a patron, particularly in the area of employment legislation.
The roles and responsibilities of a patron of a national school includes the following:
• In the case of new schools to:
o Seek the permission of the DES to establish a school
o Establish an interim management structure for a new school
o Approve the appointment of the principal and other teaching staff
o Ensure the timely establishment of the Board of Management
o Organise the accommodation for the new school and enter into any agreements, licences or leases for this purpose.
• Where schools are established to:
o Approve the appointment of all teaching staff
o Appoint independent assessors to selection boards
o Appoint Patron Nominees to Board of Management
o Appoint the Chairperson of the Board of Management
o Appoint the Board of Management when properly constituted
o Remove Board Members or dissolve the Board of Management when required and with the permission of the Minister
o To give prior approval for any debts (e.g. temporary overdraft) incurred by the Board of Management
o Approve the publication of the enrolment policy of the school
o Act to preserve the ‘characteristic spirit’ or ethos of the school
o Provide or approve the premises for the school and enter into any agreements, licences or leases for this purpose
o Set out, monitor and support a curriculum of ethical education that comprises 2.5hrs of teaching contact time for all pupils per school week
o Be aware of the needs of the school, seek regular reports and be in a position to act to support, advise and if necessary intervene in the interests of the school, its children, parents and staff
o Seek the closure of the school or its amalgamation with other schools if and when this is necessary in the common good.

This still does not explain why a Patron is needed - National schools that have 'inherited' a religious patron could be under the patronage of the DES with a local, elected, Board of Management to supervise the immediate running of the school. Schools that were actually originally founded by religious could remain with the church that founded them. How do ET or Irish schools fit into this pattern?

There was a survey done by the DES (now closed) but the questions are interesting, and the one headed

What happens if other parents in my school want to change patron but I don't or if I want to change patron and other parents in the school don't want change?

has a rather confusing answer which, unlike the question, refers specifically to the 'Catholic Patrons' - and apparently they get the last word.

Is Patronage the central issue here?

How can the ethos of the school be anything other than Catholic if there is a Catholic patron (or indeed any other religious group).

Would the system be better off with, say, ET potentially running the country's schools?

Who/what is ET?

If patronage were removed would ET have any role, would they retain the schools that they have already sponsored?

How could ET or Irish school patronage be continued, given that funding has come from government, if Religious patronage of similar schools is removed?

No doubt there are many other questions that could be asked, but can we stick in this thread to the practicalities of how, rather than whether.

JRant

Mary63 wrote: »

Jrant,you have absolutely no idea why parents baptise their children and to say it is to get a school place only is way off the truth,how do you know this to be so certain you are stating it as fact.Have you popped up at every christening in your locality to ask parents why they are bringing their baby and their entire family to the church.

The vast majority of people in this country want their child baptised into the catholic church,a minority are COI and they want their children baptised into their faith,an even smaller minority but one that will grow is the Muslim minority and they want their children baptised into the muslim faith.For most of these people entrance into the local school isn't what drives them to the church,its only a very small number of schools that are over subscribed,in very many parts of the country the population is falling so its becoming difficult to keep schools open,in each and everyone of these areas you can be sure nine out of ten children or an even higher figure will be baptised into their parents faith.

Most people aren't even thinking about schools when their child is born,they intend to have the child baptised regardless and most parents don't even link it with the local school,as I said most parents don't live in areas where there is high demand on school places.Parents who want private schools for their children will put their childs name down from birth,or if they want a school with a good academic record in the public secondary school sector they will put their childs name down as soon as possible.The best of the secondary schools are Catholic in ethos,i.e. the Loreto,the Mercy,the Dominican orders and the Christian Brothers,the Holy Ghost and the Jesuit in the case of boys,all of these schools feed from the catholic primary schools in the local area and parents are happy with this because it means it keeps undesirables from further away out.Parents don't care how selfish this makes them,they choose the primary school that didn't feed into the local State Community school because they know what the academic standards there are like and their children wouldn't relate to the intake there.If I wouldn't want to go for a cup of coffee with a certain type of parent why on earth would I want my child to spend their schooldays growing to maturity in the company of these parents offspring.

Well Mary, for someone giving out about generalising your fairly adapt at it yourself. I probably should have added IMO at the end but I presumed it was implied.

In high density areas, it is the "safe" option to join the club for access to schools IMO.

So how do you know why the majority of people baptise their children? Did the holy ghost have a word with you during 12 o'clock mass or is that just your opinion?

Anyway, this thread is about removing religious barriers in schools and how this can be rectified. Any suggestions as to how we might achieve this?

JRant

One eyed Jack wrote: »

^^ Jesus Mary (and Joseph) :pac:

You're spot on though, blunt and all as it was

Because that wouldn't be a secular education system. It would be State interference in Church affairs (See Article 44).

Yeah she's a real charmer alright and no she's no right. I'm sure they're queuing up to have a cup of coffee with her.

How would removing legisaltion passed by the State be interfering with Church affairs exactly?

One eyed Jack

JRant wrote: »

Yeah she's a real charmer alright and no she's no right. I'm sure they're queuing up to have a cup of coffee with her.

How would removing legisaltion passed by the State be interfering with Church affairs exactly?

Because the schools are under the patronage of the RCC, they are effectively schools run by that organisation, for the benefit of that organisation. Government cannot remove legislation which would mean interference in the religious organisations affairs (by interfering in their ethos and school enrollment policies).

RainyDay

JRant wrote: »

Why not go for the low hanging fruit first? Remove Section 7.3(c) of the Equal Status Act and stop schools from discriminating on religious grounds.

JRant wrote: »

There may be no need for a referendum if, as Martin Nugent rightly points out, Section 7.3(c) of the Equal Status Act is removed.

Didn't Jan O'Sullivan say recently that she has legal advice from the AG that this can't be removed without a constitutional amendment?

JRant wrote: »

This should be a priority for anyone interested in putting an wnd to this madness and I have already been on to my local td's about it. It will need a critical mass of people to voice their concerns before TD's will move on this. Unfortunately if they feel there are not enough votes to be had for bringing this matter up than they will not lift a finger to help.

Hassling TDs is a start, but it's not enough. We need to target the policy development process of the political parties. We need to produce research and evidence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sooo... bureaucracy then.

Eh no, not bureaucracy - just compliance with the law. What's your alternative - are the new schools to be exempt from planning law?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"Turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind. How would you even word that so that it wouldn't look like you were trying to limit people's choices for their own children's education?

I'm not sure why the 'turkeys' comment would arise. For most people, choosing a religious education is more down to tradition than faith.

Referendum wordings are tricky all right, but there must be a way.

lazygal

The argument was that this, that or the other was unconstitutional. However this term has been quietly dropped recently.

One eyed Jack

RainyDay wrote: »

Hassling TDs is a start, but it's not enough. We need to target the policy development process of the political parties. We need to produce research and evidence.

Who I think we actually need to target are the general public. The research and evidence is already there that shows the demand for alternatives is there, but not at the expense of interfering with already established schools with a religious ethos.

Eh no, not bureaucracy - just compliance with the law. What's your alternative - are the new schools to be exempt from planning law?

No, of course not, but planning laws are only one obstacle that needs to be overcome, and it could be if the political and public will was there. I was including that under the heading of bureaucracy though is all.

I'm not sure why the 'turkeys' comment would arise. For most people, choosing a religious education is more down to tradition than faith.

I'll bet you have some research and evidence for that assertion?

The reason I said it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas is because the referendum would be limiting parents choices for their children's education.

Referendum wordings are tricky all right, but there must be a way.

There is a way, without referendums or anything else - put pressure on Government to commit to building new schools in their area to give parents more choices, not use referendums to take choices away from people.

I think even if a referendum were called, it wouldn't gather much interest from the general public. I think we'd see pretty much the same turnout there was for the Children's Referendum. I just couldn't see it passing tbh.

Mary63

You speak so much sense one eyed Jack.

There is no earthly reason why the majority of parents in denominational schools should have their right to their children learning their faith rail roaded by a minority.This is why Ms O Sullivan is backing down,she knows it isn't fair to impose a minorities beliefs on the majority,why should religion for example be moved to the end of the school day,it suits nine out of ten parents to leave things exactly as they are.If a quota of places is reserved for atheists etc then they are the ones who must remove their children from religion class and either provide them with headphones to block out the religious teaching or else set up a rota where parents can supervise their own children on the school premises while religion class is taking place.The last thing we want is SNAS being diverted to supervise atheists children during religion time and principals will take this option if they get enough hassle from Sebastiens parents.

Nobody would turn out for a referendum,nobody cares believe it or not except maybe two thousand atheist parents and they have no political clout and no funding.No politician is going to risk alienating the majority by interfering with the running of primary schools and which catholic parent is going to stand aside willingly while their childs place goes to an atheist child whose parent is then going to hassle the teacher day and night over what is taught in the ALIVE o schoolbook.

The Randy Riverbeast

Mary63 wrote: »

Jrant,you have absolutely no idea why parents baptise their children and to say it is to get a school place only is way off the truth,how do you know this to be so certain you are stating it as fact.Have you popped up at every christening in your locality to ask parents why they are bringing their baby and their entire family to the church.

The vast majority of people in this country want their child baptised into the catholic church,a minority are COI and they want their children baptised into their faith,an even smaller minority but one that will grow is the Muslim minority and they want their children baptised into the muslim faith.For most of these people entrance into the local school isn't what drives them to the church,its only a very small number of schools that are over subscribed,in very many parts of the country the population is falling so its becoming difficult to keep schools open,in each and everyone of these areas you can be sure nine out of ten children or an even higher figure will be baptised into their parents faith.

Most people aren't even thinking about schools when their child is born,they intend to have the child baptised regardless and most parents don't even link it with the local school,as I said most parents don't live in areas where there is high demand on school places.Parents who want private schools for their children will put their childs name down from birth,or if they want a school with a good academic record in the public secondary school sector they will put their childs name down as soon as possible.The best of the secondary schools are Catholic in ethos,i.e. the Loreto,the Mercy,the Dominican orders and the Christian Brothers,the Holy Ghost and the Jesuit in the case of boys,all of these schools feed from the catholic primary schools in the local area and parents are happy with this because it means it keeps undesirables from further away out.Parents don't care how selfish this makes them,they choose the primary school that didn't feed into the local State Community school because they know what the academic standards there are like and their children wouldn't relate to the intake there.If I wouldn't want to go for a cup of coffee with a certain type of parent why on earth would I want my child to spend their schooldays growing to maturity in the company of these parents offspring.

Wheren't you the person saying getting baptised is just part of ticking the boxes to get your children into the schools you want?

At least try to be consistent. Glad to see the idea of illegitimate children hasn't completely gone away.

Mary63

I said I would tick any boxes and i spoke for myself.

jrant is belittling every parent whose religion is central to their lives and who attach great importance to baptising their child into the faith they believe in.Just because jrant doesn't believe in religious rites he assumes everyone else is traipsing to the church with their infant to get a school place.This is nonsense,to many parents their childs baptism is one of the most sacred of all family events and for this reason the entire family comes to witness the child being baptised.

What is the reference to illegitimate children supposed to mean.

Its statements like jrant made speaking derogatively about other parents actions that will get these parents backs up.You need to grow your numbers to get anywhere and you need to win more to your way of thinking.You need to concentrate on what you want to achieve and lay off judgmental comments about other peoples decisions to baptise their children or to present them for sacraments,none of this is any of your business,we are all adults and we are free to make any decisions we want and we don't have to justify them to anyone else.

RainyDay

lazygal wrote: »

The argument was that this, that or the other was unconstitutional. However this term has been quietly dropped recently.

Not quite - the Minister's recent statement states that she has legal advice to indicate that they could insist that up to 49% of students in religious schools can be non-religious.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/minister-calls-for-new-laws-for-unbaptised-pupils-1.2478028

It's not a huge leap to assume that she has legal advice to indicate that anything over 49% would be unconstitutional.

Mary63 wrote: »

You speak so much sense one eyed Jack.

There is no earthly reason why the majority of parents in denominational schools should have their right to their children learning their faith rail roaded by a minority.This is why Ms O Sullivan is backing down,she knows it isn't fair to impose a minorities beliefs on the majority,why should religion for example be moved to the end of the school day,it suits nine out of ten parents to leave things exactly as they are.If a quota of places is reserved for atheists etc then they are the ones who must remove their children from religion class and either provide them with headphones to block out the religious teaching or else set up a rota where parents can supervise their own children on the school premises while religion class is taking place.The last thing we want is SNAS being diverted to supervise atheists children during religion time and principals will take this option if they get enough hassle from Sebastiens parents.

Nobody would turn out for a referendum,nobody cares believe it or not except maybe two thousand atheist parents and they have no political clout and no funding.No politician is going to risk alienating the majority by interfering with the running of primary schools and which catholic parent is going to stand aside willingly while their childs place goes to an atheist child whose parent is then going to hassle the teacher day and night over what is taught in the ALIVE o schoolbook.

I'm still trying to work out whether you are genuinely posting opinions, or cleverly trolling or just a Waterford Whispers type parody.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who I think we actually need to target are the general public. The research and evidence is already there that shows the demand for alternatives is there, but not at the expense of interfering with already established schools with a religious ethos.

Certainly, the general public is part of it, but not the full picture. There is currently no political party that has a clear policy of a secular education system. If we want to change, we need policy first.

Evidence of demand is not enough. We need evidence that the alternative models are sound and workable and have succeeded elsewhere.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, of course not, but planning laws are only one obstacle that needs to be overcome, and it could be if the political and public will was there. I was including that under the heading of bureaucracy though is all.

No, there was more than just bureaucracy. You suggested that we could be building plenty of schools if civil servants would just take their heads out of their arses. This is nonsense.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll bet you have some research and evidence for that assertion?

No research or evidence - but lots of experience of seeing those parents who rush for Communion and Confirmation and don't see the inside of the church between the two - a pretty typical experience.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason I said it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas is because the referendum would be limiting parents choices for their children's education.

Quite the reverse - for many parents, it will give them choices for secular education that are not there today. For others, it will give them options for greater choice and control over religious education, though they may have to get more directly involved in arranging or paying for it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is a way, without referendums or anything else - put pressure on Government to commit to building new schools in their area to give parents more choices, not use referendums to take choices away from people.

I think even if a referendum were called, it wouldn't gather much interest from the general public. I think we'd see pretty much the same turnout there was for the Children's Referendum. I just couldn't see it passing tbh.

It's not an either/or choice. Building of new schools is important, and is the best hope in the short term. In the long term, we need constitutional change.

I fundamentally disagree on the level of interest. Look at the numbers who signed the petition recently. Look at the number of articles in the media. Look at the number of discussions here. It's a hot topic on both sides.

[Deleted User]

Samaris wrote: »

Hurrah, I'm no longer a Stalinist! Although you were the only one implying that those disagreeing with you were. So...we're all good thing. If probably still a bit confused.

You started out by saying the state should take over schools. You backtracked, and now you're saying there can be a role for patron bodies like Educate Together. If you'd said that in the first place there wouldn't have been any confusion.

looksee wrote: »

If you check through my posts you will see that I havent cited anyone in the UK or Europe (or anywhere else).

You still have not explained about the value of Patrons.

If you read back through the thread you'll find that I wasn't the only person to cite the way things are done abroad as a potentially positive influence on the way they are done here. However, you were selective in which citation you chose to criticise.

So, if you think it's pointless for me to cite the UK, then you must also agree that it is pointless for supporters of secular education to cite other countries as a model for Ireland. But logically you can't agree that, because it doesn't make any sense to agree that, which means that in fact you do recognise the value in my citing the UK as being somewhat more than pointless.

In any case, my reason for citing the UK was not because of secularism, but because of school independence. Parents and school communities in the UK are moving more and more in favour of schools that are stand-alone bodies without bureaucratic and political interference by government. Parents in Ireland are unlikely to welcome a move in the opposite direction - so if you want to build support for secularism, don't make the mistake of coupling secularism with statism.

But finally - the only reason why state control got an outing on this thread was because someone else suggested it as a way of introducing secularism. That person has since dropped that view and said that patron bodies (e.g. Educate Together) can do the job as well. So statism was in fact a red herring - and it wasn't even my red herring.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You were the one claiming you could smell Stalinism on this thread. I haven't seen anything that extreme, could you please back up your statement?

I was responding to the state control idea suggested by someone else. That person no longer supports that idea. As I said just above, it turns out that statism was a red herring, and not even mine.

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That only leaves one viable option really, and the Government knows it - they need to build more schools, and they need to build them fast.

That's simply too slow an option.

Over the last 7 years (while there's been a financial crisis, admittedly), something like 35 new Educate Together schools have opened. Even if you were to double that rate of building for 10 years, ET (or ET-type) schools would only make up about 4-5% of the total number of schools - and a whole generation of kids would have passed through primary education.

And that doesn't take secondary education into account. Right now only 3 or maybe 4 schools in the country come anywhere close to meeting the definition of a non-religious or secular school. That's not even scratching the surface.

Something more than building new schools is needed. The trouble is working out what that should be.

[Deleted User]

JRant wrote: »

The main reason people today baptise their children is to gain access to local schools.

How do your Catholic or Protestant friends with kids respond when you say that to them?

Most of my friends, neighbours and workmates are Catholic. None of them have baptised their kids for any reason other than that they want them to be Catholic as well. And however little you may like it, that's their choice.

[Deleted User]

looksee wrote: »

Is Patronage the central issue here?

Independence and local accountability are the central issues, but patronage can help with that. Ironically, it may well be the case that the people who appreciate that most are parents who sent their children to ET schools, because of their democratic structures. What the system should be encouraging is accountability of schools to the local school community, not to politicians or civil servants.

What patron bodies can do is support local people in setting up schools and running school boards of management in a competent and effective way. Of course, that isn't necessarily what the religious patron bodies do, but it is what Educate Together do (and, according to my friends involved in Gaelscoileanna, what their patron body does). There's no reason at all why secular schools can't be run by local boards of management with the support of national or regional umbrella patron bodies. Educate Together have already shown they can perform that role, and if ET aren't to your liking then there's no reason why other bodies can't be established.

looksee wrote: »

How could ET or Irish school patronage be continued, given that funding has come from government, if Religious patronage of similar schools is removed?

The Irish language is just another thing. It's worth bearing in mind that nearly all Gaelscoileanna in the system at the moment are also Catholic ethos schools. Even so, there's no reason why a Gaelscoil can't simply be a non-religious school with a particular philosophy as regards language.

Although who knows, maybe someone here wants to have a pop at the Irish language as well?

looksee

Ulysses you have some good points to make and some useful information, but you persist in wrapping it in abrasive language. Why was the last sentence of your post 84 necessary? No-one has disputed the Irish language schools, and the point I was trying to make was that IF removal of patronage was the way to go how would it be possible to remove religious patronage and retain ET and Gaelscoil patronage.

I am trying to establish why patronage is the way to go, or if it is; you could do a lot to explain this, as you have here

What patron bodies can do is support local people in setting up schools and running school boards of management in a competent and effective way. Of course, that isn't necessarily what the religious patron bodies do, but it is what Educate Together do (and, according to my friends involved in Gaelscoileanna, what their patron body does). There's no reason at all why secular schools can't be run by local boards of management with the support of national or regional umbrella patron bodies. Educate Together have already shown they can perform that role, and if ET aren't to your liking then there's no reason why other bodies can't be established.

What I am interested to know though is how the ET patron body evolved, what are the criteria for people being on it, how is it democratic? How do we know we are not exchanging a - say - religious patron for some other interest group patron. If suddenly there was a need for other patrons than religious, how do these groups evolve and what happens when you get more than one in an area wanting to take over the patronage?

[Deleted User]

looksee wrote: »

Ulysses you have some good points to make and some useful information.....

Oh, you're so kind.

looksee wrote: »

......but you persist in wrapping it in abrasive language.

Isn't it just as well I didn't do what you did earlier in the thread, and try to make it personal?

looksee wrote: »

No-one has disputed the Irish language schools, and the point I was trying to make was that IF removal of patronage was the way to go how would it be possible to remove religious patronage and retain ET and Gaelscoil patronage.

How would you go about that? Personally, I wouldn't remove local management (and by extension, patron bodies). That way, we can avoid a one size fits all system.

By the way, your comment about Irish schools suggests that the education system operates in a vacuum. It doesn't, as no doubt you are aware. While you might not be hostile to the Irish language and to Gaelscoileanna, other people are - and it would be a pity to give people like that their heads in a rush to a one size fits all model.

looksee wrote: »

What I am interested to know though is how the ET patron body evolved, what are the criteria for people being on it, how is it democratic? How do we know we are not exchanging a - say - religious patron for some other interest group patron. If suddenly there was a need for other patrons than religious, how do these groups evolve and what happens when you get more than one in an area wanting to take over the patronage?

You don't really need me to tell you all that; you can pick most of it up by reading either ET's website, its published documents, or the websites of its schools.

Life is all about vested interests, like the vested interests being discussed here. There is a school of thought that says we should somehow try to eliminate vested interests from our public realm. That's a very naive view indeed. I would say it's much better to view our public realm (among other things) as a space in which competing ideas and values are expressed and the tensions between them resolved.

That's why I think that if the problem is a lack of secularism in schools, then the solution is more secularism - not the elimination of other values and other forms of thought. Others will regard it as a somewhat classical liberal view of things, but I would be inclined to promote increased rather than decreased choice in the system.

Samaris

Quite honestly, I was talking all along about the 92% of religious-based schools, and not entirely surprisingly forgot to include the 8% that Ulysses then picked up on and ..well, gave out a lot about. Since I was thinking in terms of the vast, vast majority of schools supported by the state with religious patronage, I had no idea what you were talking about.

I'm not backtracking, tbh, I believe that the State should take responsibility for teaching its children and not be leaving it to a foreign organisation. Educate Together seems a perfectly reasonable initiative, but to be seriously useful it will need to be a much bigger initiative covering much more of the country. Does the state support ET in the same way as it does religious ethos schools? If not, how is this sector expected to compete with the established schooling system? If so, can the country support both in terms of numbers of students and cachement areas?

Mind you, we could do with rather smaller classroom sizes.

JRant

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because the schools are under the patronage of the RCC, they are effectively schools run by that organisation, for the benefit of that organisation. Government cannot remove legislation which would mean interference in the religious organisations affairs (by interfering in their ethos and school enrollment policies).

That doesn't really make sense though. If they can bring the legislation in surely they can remove it just as easily. It wouldn't be interfering with a religious affairs, merely bringing them into line with any other organisation.

Mary63

ulysses,I think I can take it you have no school going children yet.

Parents for the most part do not want to take on accountability for their local school,they will pay the voluntary donation gladly because it provides extras for their children but to get parents to talk on voluntary roles in relation to their childs school is very difficult.Very few even turn up at the AGM and the few that do don't put themselves forward for roles because its impossible to hand over to someone else when the time comes.Most parents are very busy,both work long hours and after work there is another full time job to be done at home and everyday is the same.

This is the reason parents are quite happy someone else is managing the schools and the reason why they don't want the apple cart upset.They don't want to take over the religious instruction themselves,they are all agreed on that,let teacher do this job,he or she is paid for it whether they like doing it or not.If they have a real problem with it there are thousands of unemployed teachers who will teach black is white to get a permanent and pensionable position.

There will be no interference with the patronage system because both the Catholic and Protestant clergy are united on this one and what they have they hold.The clergy are very popular for the most part in their communities and parishioners are happy that they are involved in the schools,the majority are anyway and there is no real angst about this issue.

Anyone seeking change should put some of their people forward for election and canvass on this issue,this will cost a lot of money though and the successful business people are products of education with a religious ethos and they want the same for their children.The powerful won't support any change because they don't want interference with their private schools which they are bankrolling.If the Government decides all schools are to be patron free this means all schools and it is questionable whether private schools can be allowed to buy their way out of avoiding legal requirements.

The Church of Ireland minority will then shout about religious persecution and denial of their right to freedom to pass on their religion,there are quite a lot of COI people in the Dail and they are not going to take any interference with their schools lying down.The results from the Protestant Secondary schools are outstanding,so much so that they attract a substantial number of catholics to pay fees of up to six thousand a year to attend them.

expectationlost

RainyDay wrote: »

Didn't Jan O'Sullivan say recently that she has legal advice from the AG that this can't be removed without a constitutional amendment?

Hassling TDs is a start, but it's not enough. We need to target the policy development process of the political parties. We need to produce research and evidence.

HAI,AI,EE and EQ are and have all been doing that.

JRant

Mary63 wrote: »

I said I would tick any boxes and i spoke for myself.

jrant is belittling every parent whose religion is central to their lives and who attach great importance to baptising their child into the faith they believe in.Just because jrant doesn't believe in religious rites he assumes everyone else is traipsing to the church with their infant to get a school place.This is nonsense,to many parents their childs baptism is one of the most sacred of all family events and for this reason the entire family comes to witness the child being baptised.

What is the reference to illegitimate children supposed to mean.

Its statements like jrant made speaking derogatively about other parents actions that will get these parents backs up.You need to grow your numbers to get anywhere and you need to win more to your way of thinking.You need to concentrate on what you want to achieve and lay off judgmental comments about other peoples decisions to baptise their children or to present them for sacraments,none of this is any of your business,we are all adults and we are free to make any decisions we want and we don't have to justify them to anyone else.

I never mentioned illegitimate children. I suggest you have aread of what I actually wrote before throwing accusations around.

The irony in your last paragraph is delightful. It is exactly because the religious feel they have the right to dictate terms on entering publicly funded schools that this discussion is taking place.

I couldn't care less what religion a person is. Adults are free to do as they please. Children on the other hand are not and to allow schools to discriminate against them for a choice that they have no capacity to make is wrong.