looksee wrote: » It would be good if you would actually read what I am saying. I am asking for the National schools system to be made secular. All the actual religious schools (the ones that were mostly originally built as fee paying schools for the parents that could afford it) remain religious. The National school system is a different set up and is only 'religious' because the church(es) took them over as patrons, not because the churches ever put any funding into them.
RainyDay wrote: » There is a third option - take religion out of all state funded schools. If you want a religious education, you pay for it.
Mary63 wrote: » What does herding mean,I don't understand this point.
Mary63 wrote: » Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money we throw at DEIS schools,it won't make a whit if difference.You only have to look at the horribly obese four year olds eating crisps on their way to school to know what sort of a home they grow up in..
expectationlost wrote: » Ruiari Quinn was Minister for Education he had polices it didn't work now he thinks the only way to change it is to get rich person to fund a campaign http://www.equateireland.ie/
CelticRambler wrote: » All the examples given are in an Irish context which makes a nonsense of any comparison. That's why you need to look outside Ireland to see what can/might/does happen. Strip out fee-paying "public" schools in the UK, and there are dozens of different establishments to choose from. In my area, without exception, the top performers (judged by any parameter you choose) were the religious schools. The "post-code lottery" is a serious business for parents, who will pay extra for a house in the catchment area of a Catholic or CoI school regardless of whether or not they practice the religion. In France, the religious schools are private, but families can get financial assistance if they make a good-enough case, and the whole notion of "private education" in France is completely different to how it is in Ireland (or the UK) - just as going to boarding school is perfectly normal for huge numbers of country children. So referring back to a post on page one, if those who are pro secular education constantly and repeatedly make this into a "them" and "us" argument, using distorted examples from what they themselves say is a dysfunctional system, they'll get nowhere. You can't argue for secular schools, then base your proposal entirely on being against religion. The case must be made on the grounds of educational value, nothing else. For that, you need to find examples of unambiguous excellence in secular schools in other countries, ones where Irish people have some idea of what (family) life is like.
Mary63 wrote: » And yet again the vast majority of adults in this country are a la carte Catholics and they don't want a secular form of education,there is no way around this obstacle
Mary63 wrote: » And yet again the vast majority of adults in this country are a la carte Catholics and they don't want a secular form of education,there is no way around this obstacle and its laughable to think there are enough people demanding secular education to put any Dail seat in jeopardy. Ruairi Quinn is history,he achieved absolutely nothing for all the time he spent in Government,the Catholic Church ran rings around him.How much redress money did they actually pay or did they lose every last penny to Anglo Irish.How many church buildings have been handed over in compensation,Irish people know all about this scandal and they still baptise their children and still when asked in census forms will say they are members of the Catholic church. Where is Ruairi Quinn going to find any rich person to fund the secular education campaign,the rich want segregated education so they pay vast sums of money for this.All the private schools are run by religious orders either Church of Ireland or by Catholic Orders and all are very successful,they have to be or they wouldn't survive,parents will not pay fees to schools which don't get top results.The private schools are also light years ahead of other schools in terms of results,sports facilities,funding,they aren't hampered by the bureaucrats in Marlborough Street and there is no way on earth parents are going to allow their schools to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. What does herding mean,I don't understand this point.
RainyDay wrote: » Fee-paying schools don't cream off the high-achievers - far from it. Look at the top results in the Leaving Cert and the Young Scientists and you don't see the private schools dominating these. The only thing they dominate are the Rugby competitions.
RainyDay wrote: » It's more than that, actually - it is exactly the kind of attitude that propagates ongoing educational inequality across generations. It makes sure that the kind of inequality that Mary criticises is guaranteed to continue for future generations, as any kids from that environment who have a modicum of talent or ambition will be beaten down with Mary's 'they're all the same' argument. Whatever way you want to phrase it - this is where the policy work needs to be done.
JRant wrote: » That's just a downright nasty post.
expectationlost wrote: » well I should say Labour knows the problem but refuses to say it, in government whic would the sme if SF or when GP were in gov.
silverharp wrote: » in a city like Dublin you are going to have "herding" , if you look below, the top 20 schools in South Dublin shows a high % of fee paying schools if going to college is the definition of "high achievement". The next kind of herding will be into non fee paying schools like Mucross Park which is a school that there would be a lot of competition to get into so they tend to keep their own virtuous circle going As such though no school in Ireland has "secret" teaching methods that gives them the edge. most of the advantage is being surrounded by other kids who are being prepped for college.http://www.schooldays.ie/articles/about-school-league-tables#sd
RainyDay wrote: » So that's where the policy work needs to focus then - get Labour, Green, SF to recognise the problem and build momentum towards a solution.
Deleted User wrote: » I disagree with you, so up with my opinions you'll have to put. The best way to make progress is to improve the situation for everyone, not to improve it just for your own belief system.You wish to make all schools secular. I wish to extend the presence of non-religious schools. They are philosophically quite different standpoints, they lead to different solutions for tackling the problems, and one is as valid as the other.
Mary63 wrote: » Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money we throw at DEIS schools,it won't make a whit if difference.You only have to look at the horribly obese four year olds eating crisps on their way to school to know what sort of a home they grow up in,most wouldn't even know what a book was.They probably don't even go to school most Mondays because no one will get up out of bed to take them. These children because they cant learn then prevent everyone else around them learning and they drive teachers to a nervous breakdown,no point in even calling the parents,they are even worse.Why wouldn't any half decent parent want to make sure their child is in a different school and who wouldn't camp out to make sure their girl didn't get into a lore to school with other ambitious girls like herself,the alternative is pushing a buggy at fifteen years of age. its no wonder parents are so attached to the school with the religious ethos,most would be thrilled if there was some way of weeding out those who don't want to be in any school at all,none of us look at the bigger picture really,we want to focus on our own child and do the best we can for them.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Cheers. I'm not meaning to have a go at you either, so apologies if I'm coming across that way. Best of luck with your choice, whatever it turns out to be, but make sure to get your child(ren) on the list ASAP, because all ET schools operate a first come first served policy. Your point about location is significant. Part of the problem is a lack of non-religious schools, but the bigger part (IMO) is that the availability of non-religious schools very much depends on where you find yourself. That's why my preference is to find ways of increasing choice all around the country, rather than insisting that every school has to go non-religious. Have a look at this link, which lists ET schools (I don't know if the list is 100% up to date). There are a good few around Dublin, but aside from that they are thin on the ground, and there are none at all in several counties. Also, unless you live in certain parts of Dublin, Cebridge or Drogheda, there are no non-religious secondary schools.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educate_Together#List_of_Primary_Schools I would say that in the short term, the emphasis should be on getting non-religious primary schools (whether under ET operation or run by someone else) into those towns and counties that don't have them or that have very few of them. Others may disagree with this view, but primary schools are much more important than secondary schools. If you get a youngster to 12 years old with a solid foundation in atheism, a secondary school won't change that. So that means that (in the short term at least) the important thing for secondary schools is to make sure that they can't discriminate in selection on religious grounds. Having said that, I should point out that none of the kids I've known from the local ET school and from around my estate have ever had any difficulty getting a secondary school place, and that's on the south side of Dublin. Mind you, as the link also shows the number of ET secondary schools is about to increase significantly.
RainyDay wrote: » It's hard to know where to start on this. There are actually nuggets of truth here, but you seem to be very confused on cause and effect - and a few facts.
expectationlost wrote: » policy can only be done after they recognise the problem, Labour doesn't recognise the problem they keep saying that the constituency would be breach if they did major changes they don't recognise that the constitution is currently being breached.
Mary63 wrote: » State schools are definitely inferior or maybe the schools with religious ethos are superior look see. You only have to look at the league tables and the progression onto third level level eight courses to see that. The best and brightest in every primary school go onto schools with a religious ethos where there is a choice,the demand for the loreto schools and the Christian Brothers schools is phenomenal,some parents take to camping out overnight to get their child a place.There definitely wouldn't be the same pool of highly academic children in the community schools unless this is the only choice of school available.Parents will put their thinking caps on and go for the best school available and they won't care what patron is in place,they couldn't care less. Parents will look at the results from the community schools in their area and if faced with losing their school or dumbing down to this level in order to achieve a secular education which they don't want anyway,they will revolt.The politicians know this and that is why every promise made to change the system is diluted.There is no demand whatsoever for secular education in this country,never has been and never will there be.The ET schools will fill places because they are trendy and parents like the idea of getting inside the classroom and calling teachers by their first names.The vast majority of the parents though put their children forward for baptism,communion and confirmation and if the ET school doesn't work out for whatever reason they will happily move to the catholic school down the road.
Mary63 wrote: » I am really tired of that socio economic argument,it doesn't take too much brain power to know that if you have too many children and too little money the outcome for your family won't be ideal. We are spending vast sums of money on DEIS schools,we are even providing breakfast for these children.The social welfare payments in this country are generous and I don't believe anyone can't afford a packet of porridge to cook a healthy breakfast for a primary school aged child. I bet if you went into these so called disadvantaged socio economic households you would see vast quantities of alcohol and cigarettes on display,it would be interesting to see the local shops takings on these products over the last two week period.You can bet too the children have the latest tablets,the latest xboxes and every house has a sky package.
CelticRambler wrote: » There you have the single biggest challenge to any organisation setting up non-denominational schools. First, you have to convince people that they'll be better than the devil they know ; and second, you have to prove it. Unfortunately, the example of our two nearest neighbours tends to indicate that the opposite is the case. My children were/are educated first in the UK and in France. The former has plenty of non-denominational schools, the latter has an aggressive policy of excluding religion from education. What's the outcome? The "religious" schools are invariably over-subscribed and come out top in just about every evaluation of social and academic performance. So you'll still have parents getting their children Christened to be further up the selection ladder, and inevitably, the religious schools will cream off the higher achievers, leaving the non-denominational schools needing to invest in additional resources just to remain "average". The playing field is not in the least bit level, and no amount of lobbying government to introduce "equality" will change what parents will do to make sure their children come out on top. Which then raises the question: why are "religious" schools/parents consistently more productive than their secular counterparts, even when the latter have had over 100 years to close the gap (e.g. in France)?
Shrap wrote: » Jaysus wept, you're lovely. I know who I'd prefer to spend time with, between yourself and the families you describe so charitably and with such deeply nuanced opinion :rolleyes: It would all be so simple if you were in charge, eh Mary?
Deleted User wrote: » I disagree with you, so up with my opinions you'll have to put. The best way to make progress is to improve the situation for everyone, not to improve it just for your own belief system. You wish to make all schools secular. I wish to extend the presence of non-religious schools. They are philosophically quite different standpoints, they lead to different solutions for tackling the problems, and one is as valid as the other.
Mary63 wrote: » Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money ....................
looksee wrote: » While I have no issue with building new ET schools, and it is feasible in urban areas, suggesting that increasing the number of these schools is the solution is just papering over the cracks in the system. The school buildings, teachers and structures are already there scattered evenly, if thinly, throughout the rural areas. These are the areas of real 'no choice' that need to be addressed.
Pherekydes wrote: » Parents, in the main, send their kids where they can afford to send them.
I went to a fairly religious primary school which was the closest, but was also located in a relatively poor area of Dublin (at the time). None of my family went to college from school. It was simply not affordable.
Deleted User wrote: » Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Perhaps because you understand that parents who are well educated also take an interest in their children's education, and send their children to schools where they will receive the education their parents want for them. That's why offering more opportunities is a good thing, as opposed to restricting parent's choices to the local schools which may not be able to provide the education the parents want for their children. Even in the leaflet you provided earlier on in the thread, it said that no one particular policy had better outcomes than another, and that both sides were divided more by their political ideologies, and both sides could produce evidence to support their own views.
Pherekydes wrote: » Wealth=brains=wealth. Why am I not surprised?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/975d229199ef1950ddf5036fc947d0f4.svg)
