How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Y
Certainly however one of the first steps is to address this issue of the "integrated curriculum" that we currently have. And to address the issue somehow of schools being able to discriminate at the level of ethos.

just curious what does integrated curriculum mean, I couldnt pick up what it might mean?

looksee wrote: »

What does this mean, how exactly does a religious spirit inform or vivify the work of the school?

In a manner that is difficult for inspectors to assess I suspect. I imagine a good argument could be made that a religious spirit informs and vivifies the work of a secular school if someone were minded to do so... after all if the teacher inculcates the practice of charity, justice, truth, purity, patience, temperance and obedience to lawful authority, an inspector would be hard put to say that pupils were not well instructed paragons of religious virtues.

looksee wrote: »

As I have said previously, there is already a system of state schools, the National Schools. They were set up by the state, but the government allowed the patronage system to be taken over by the churches so that the tail is wagging the dog. The patronage system does not mean - or should not mean - that the churches own the schools, and they should be reclaimed by the state, for the people - all the people.

That doesn't really address how they could be turned into secular schools though.... it's all very well to say the State should simply take property from the religious orders, but it's hardly legal is it?

looksee wrote: »

Can anyone demonstrate any school currently that has received a direct subvention from a religious body in the past, say, 50 years? To my knowledge the only support towards schools has been from the state, with contributions from parents, which were for their children's education, rather than a donation to a church. Is there an 'Education Fund' operated by any of the churches to which schools can apply for support?

Do you mean other than the cash patronage agreements require the patron to pay (being a portion of the maintenance and running costs of the school; up to 5% or all depending on the model of building, up to 10% of maintenance and all running costs above a certain per head capitation? Or the percentage voluntary secondary schools are required to contribute to salaries? Is there a particular reason we should expect religious orders to contribute more than other patrons? Or that they shouldn't canvas parents as other patrons do to raise that cash?

looksee wrote: »

Ok, I have to concede that in all State references to primary schools, the state says that the patrons own the schools. I cannot see how this ridiculous situation came about but I have no doubt that the Deeds of Trust are watertight in giving the education of the nation's children to the Roman Catholic church. Yes, I know there are a few other churches involved, but at 90-odd percent the RC church is the one that matters.

It came about as a result of the RCC injecting itself into every facet of Irish society and a Government that even then hadn't the hands to wipe their own backside, so they outsourced all State services, including health and education to the religious orders and still do to this day because they haven't a pot to piss in and can't be dealing directly with the administrative headaches if they had to take on and manage State services themselves.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in maybe 15 or 20 years time when all the Irish priests have died out and we find the power of the church and the ethos of the schools being maintained in Ireland by priests shipped in from all over the world!
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/cco_publications/researchanddevelopment/report%20on%20the%20age%20profile%20of%20diocesan%20priests%20currently%20working%20in%20ireland.pdf

My own thoughts on that (certainly solidified by the diocesan seminar I was at the other night) is that the Irish Bishops are going to push the Catholic ethos even harder in Catholic schools than they do now in preparation for when in about 20 years time they're competing for funding from the State with numerous other patronage organisations. I think that's likely the only way there's going to be any diversity in the Irish education system - with what are minority religions in Ireland right now growing in numbers who will want to educate their own religious adherents in their beliefs and cultures. Governments will still be dragging their heels in providing secular schools, but at least they'll be able to tell the UN that there is diversity and equality in the Irish education system - just look at the percentages and statistics, and ignore the reality on the ground.

recedite wrote: »

I agree, the RCC will withdraw into fewer schools, but with a tighter grip on their ethos. From a marketing perspective, they will attempt to make the catholic schools seem more "desirable" and "exclusive". No school with good quality buildings or playing fields will be divested.
But... what do you think yourself, is this a desirable outcome?
More diversity, more social segregation, more travelling for kids whose parents are seeking out "their own" particular niche ethos.
What is so good about having "diversity" in this state service (education).

We are seeing the opposite in the health service. Diverse small hospitals being amalgamated and made to conform to a common national standard.
That's all about common standards and centres of excellence, not diversity. Which is the right approach?

I think education services and health services are too different to draw any real comparisons between them tbh. There are similarities of course in both systems (public and private, etc), but hospitals provide a different service than education. Even in hospitals they have an ethos to maintain that means they aren't required to perform procedures that conflict with that ethos. It's discriminatory against people who require a particular procedure that the hospital is under no legal obligation to perform.

Getting back to education - I don't think diversity is a bad thing. I don't think social segregation is something that can realistically be prevented, because people for the most part will stick to their own, and have no interest in integration. We can see already if we look at other countries in Europe and even across the pond in the US - integration cannot be forced, it just doesn't work - it's an impossible ideology which ignores so many ethnic and cultural factors.

The good thing about facilitating diversity in State services is that all people, in spite of their differences, are accommodated equally in society, and no one group is given special preference over another. The problem with this idea is that from the perspective of each group, they're all going to claim they're being hard done by, and if everyone else would just agree with their vision for society, everyone would all get along.

That kind of thinking ignores the fact that not everyone agrees that one particular groups vision for society is the ideal one, as it would mean them having to compromise their values, and there aren't too many people willing to do that. I don't think we actually can legislate for equality without someone getting the hump. There are just too many self-interested groups involved, all making their own demands on the State, and all thinking their ideology is the way society should be, to suit them, amd their needs, from their perspective - to hell with everyone else and what they want (so to speak, no pun intended).

silverharp wrote: »

just curious what does integrated curriculum mean, I couldnt pick up what it might mean?

Sorry I was off line for the majority of the weekend. Did this get replied to by others to your satisfaction? Perhaps this article here will help also further?

The phrase essentially refers to how religion or religious indoctrination is integrated so heavily throughout the school day that there is no coherent way to "opt out" of religious education during it. You can opt out of the module specifically labels as the religion bit, but the rest of the day you can not.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No idea what your point is here...

Wrong thread, haven't had my morning coffee yet :pac:

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)

The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.

It's true of course that the State pays all of the above, but the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools. That's paid for by the Trustees of the schools.

The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.

It's no stretch of the imagination to assume that those nuns kept all the profits for themselves.

lazygal wrote: »

Could you explain further? Who are the trustees of schools? What costs do you mean?

The Trustees of Catholic schools at least are the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, and the costs I'm talking about are the staff in the Diocesan offices who manage the schools on behalf of the Bishops.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)

Funny... I was just thinking that was the nonsense bit! It's a bit disingenuous to say the Catholic Church injected itself every facet of society; Christianity and later Catholicism has been a part of society for pretty much as long as there has been a society in Ireland; certainly since long before the disparate kingdoms became a single society. Accepting that religion has always been a part of our society and has shaped both it and our moral and ethical viewpoints. The Church hardly injected itself in; it has always pretty much always been a part, and society has never been slow to ask the Church for guidance in all that time (and I'm certainly not saying that has always been a good thing for Ireland, just that most members of society felt it was essential).

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.

But the State didn't build all of the National Schools (or provide all of the land for them), or pay all of the maintenance and running costs. There's no doubt the religious orders have played a significant part in the development of an education system in Ireland. To say otherwise is simply revisionism for revisionisms sake. The Churches' involvement in education and health have saved the State more than a penny.. or even two.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.

Would you be inclined to say that had the State built and maintained these institutions it would have spent less? Personally I think it's unlikely.

The fact is, if the State were to take ownership (by which I mean pay for, rather than steal) all schools, and emplace equivalent management systems and support structures to replace those provided by religious orders now, it would cost no small amount. It would still have to fulfil its constitutional obligations with regards to parental choice and religious education, which I think means it would be prohibited from enforcing the kind of exclusively secular education some posters are wishing for. I'm all for spending as much money as possible on improving our education system (particularly 3rd level access), but I'm nowhere near convinced this would be money well spent.

Personally, I think we can achieve secular education by revising the Rules for Schools to remove any requirements referring to religious elements (as well as all the archaic rubbish such as coal for classrooms etc) and implementing a State curriculum of religious education which conforms to all other curricula. That removes the perception of the possibility of objections to secular patronage, and requires religious patrons to teach an objective (if not necessarily anti-theist) curriculum on religions. None of which would require legislation, let alone a referendum.

Educational equality on the other hand, I think requires a lot more fleshing out in terms of what it actually is before we decide if we want it, need it, or can reasonably achieve it. As a starter for ten, I don't see why parents should be obliged to use co-educational schools if they want and could avail of same sex schools. I don't see why parents of special needs children should be obliged to only give their children equal education, when they require far more elaborate education. I think we need to give some careful thought to what 'equal' really means in practice.

Personally as a parent, if the state won't/can't fix the fact it unconstitutionally endows the Catholic religion within the education system anytime soon, I would be happy enough for now if the religious nonsense ceased to 'infiltrate the school day' and had an allotted time slot where all religious instruction were done, either at the beginning or end of the day, so I could realise my constitutional right to remove my child from religious indoctrination with relative ease.