School patronage

recedite wrote: »

So if you have a few hundred grand in your back pocket, all you have to do is get yourself a good barrister, and take the state to court

It's been tried before, and failed.

This might be an interesting case to follow though -

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/secular-body-challenges-decision-on-patron-for-new-cork-school-1.2291538

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's specifically allowed by the so-called 'Equal Status Act'. Arguably unconstitutional though However our constitution (like the bible) has all sorts of contradictory and vague statements. 44.2.2 above is arguably violated in 96% of primary schools, state funded but including religion in the school day is endowing (funding) a religion. Some claim that 44.2.5 permits religious discrimination in schools but I don't buy that a state-funded religious patronage school is a case of a 'religious denomination managing its own affairs' as the state already regulates every other aspect of the schools' operation except for religious instruction, and denominations do not directly run or manage schools anyway.
The so-called 'Equal Status Act' is almost certainly in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Good luck with challenging it on constitutional or ECHR grounds though, unless you have tons of money and are prepared to wait more than two decades to reach a decision in your favour and to have it actually implemented. Not much benefit to your child then, is it?

Is that the new cop-out so? It's unConstitutional but no one has the means to prove it? It's not as if no one has tried to prove it; in Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v the Minister for Education [1998] the Supreme Court already found that State funding of denominational education isn't an endowment; the State may fund denominational education provided that the funding is made available on a non-discriminatory basis.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's been tried before, and failed.
This might be an interesting case to follow though -
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/secular-body-challenges-decision-on-patron-for-new-cork-school-1.2291538

Pretty sure they lost already; they simply failed to make a proper application in the first place. It's on one of the threads somewhere.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So in fact you're quite happy for discrimination on the grounds of religion to take place.

Did I not just say that I wasn't happy with it?

Children have a right to an education and invariably do find a school place, somewhere, eventually, but in practice this means if they're from a non-religious family they are much more likely to have to go to a school further away and/or of lower perceived or actual quality compared to catholics.

No, there's no 'invariably' about it. Children have a right to receive a minimum standard of education. They do not have a right to a school place.

Sometimes all schools in an area will refuse a child and the Department of Education has to intervene to force one of them to create an extra place in their school for that child. How do you think that makes that child's family feel about being welcome in the school and the community despite not being catholics?

It makes them feel like they are excluded from the community, which is why I do not, repeat - DO NOT support any, repeat - ANY discriminatory criteria in school enrolment polices. I believe that schools are places where ALL people should feel welcome, and THAT should be the fundamental underpinning of religious schools in particular - that they show leadership in being welcoming of ALL people, regardless of their faith, colour, nationality, language, etc, because IMO we are all part of a wider community.

It's disgusting to do this to four and five year olds on the basis of professed religious beliefs, the vast majority of cultural catholics going along with the flawed system and paying no more than lip service to the religious aspect is the only thing that's allowing this sham to continue.

Let's be absolutely honest - it's disgusting to do it to anyone, be they an adult or a child, and I personally don't particularly care whether someone is a 'cultural catholic' or non-religious, or Hindu, Muslim, Jew, FSM, atheist, humanist, pagan, whatever, I don't care for the colour of their skin, their gender or sexual orientation, ability or disability, whatever! All I care about is that they're willing to contribute to the community and refrain from being a complete and utter arsehole to other people.

That's really not too much to ask. That's the only criteria on which I base my judgement of other people.

When it comes to enrollment policies, my child's school is oversubscribed at the moment and myself, the Principal, and the priest have fought tooth and nail with the other members of the Board of Management to have those extra children included, but the other members were having none of it, insisting that numbers and class sizes had to be limited. The amount of times I've thought to fcuk people out of it for their sheer being a complete and utter arsehole I can't even begin to tell you tbh.

I am just as frustrated, if not moreso, about the situation in Irish schools as you are!

How anyone can defend this state of affairs beats me.

Perhaps you're mistaken then as to what I'm actually defending - I am defending the right of the patron bodies to maintain the ethos of their schools. Admissions criteria should never be used (IMO), and can never be justified (IMO) as a defence for maintaining the ethos of the school, particularly when the ethos of the school suggests that it is welcoming to everyone in the wider community. Admissions criteria fly in the face of that ethos.

Absolam wrote: »

Is that the new cop-out so? It's unConstitutional but no one has the means to prove it? It's not as if no one has tried to prove it; in Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v the Minister for Education [1998] the Supreme Court already found that State funding of denominational education isn't an endowment; the State may fund denominational education provided that the funding is made available on a non-discriminatory basis.

^^ That's the case I was thinking of, just couldn't remember the name of it!

Liamario,
It's straightforward. The Irish Constitution represents the theocratic state of the 1930s. I mean, it contains this gem:

1° [...] the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Schools have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. But there's also the contradiction about equality. So the thinking goes that as long as a child gets a seat at some school someplace there is no discrimination and no contradiction. It's what is known as ISIP (Irish Solution to Irish Problem).

The Randy Riverbeast

Liamario wrote: »

So, who can I contact about this? Because I seriously question it's legality.

Unfortunately it is perfectly legal. You'll be given 3 options. Build a school for your own kind, find a god a pray to get into a non catholic school (maybe move to one if none nearby) or just stop being awkward and baptise the child.

The part of the ethos that requires keeping non believers away from mixing with Catholics is very important to them.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

1. €€€€€€
2. People outgrow the problem. They get their kid into a school the next town over. By the time the lawsuit came to fruition the child would be sitting the junior cert.
3. At best, the right to discriminate and the right to equality in the constitution would be interpreted as an unpleasant "tension"; it's more likely that the Catholic judiciary would uphold the right to discrimination.
4. European Courts lawsuit complicate #1 and #2.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Did I not just say that I wasn't happy with it?

You said "it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

That is supporting discrimination in the delivery of state services on the grounds of religion.

No, there's no 'invariably' about it. Children have a right to receive a minimum standard of education. They do not have a right to a school place.

Are we back to the worthless "you can always homeschool or build your own school" argument?

Surely you can do better than that. Surely our children deserve better than that.

It makes them feel like they are excluded from the community, which is why I do not, repeat - DO NOT support any, repeat - ANY discriminatory criteria in school enrolment polices.

But you do.

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

I believe that schools are places where ALL people should feel welcome, and THAT should be the fundamental underpinning of religious schools in particular - that they show leadership in being welcoming of ALL people, regardless of their faith, colour, nationality, language, etc, because IMO we are all part of a wider community.

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

Let's be absolutely honest - it's disgusting to do it to anyone, be they an adult or a child, and I personally don't particularly care whether someone is a 'cultural catholic' or non-religious, or Hindu, Muslim, Jew, FSM, atheist, humanist, pagan, whatever, I don't care for the colour of their skin, their gender or sexual orientation, ability or disability, whatever! All I care about is that they're willing to contribute to the community and refrain from being a complete and utter arsehole to other people.

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

When it comes to enrollment policies, my child's school is oversubscribed at the moment and myself, the Principal, and the priest have fought tooth and nail with the other members of the Board of Management to have those extra children included

They are only "extra" because your school's enrolment policy was written by religious bigots.

Perhaps you're mistaken then as to what I'm actually defending - I am defending the right of the patron bodies to maintain the ethos of their schools. Admissions criteria should never be used (IMO), and can never be justified (IMO) as a defence for maintaining the ethos of the school, particularly when the ethos of the school suggests that it is welcoming to everyone in the wider community. Admissions criteria fly in the face of that ethos.

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You said "it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

That is supporting discrimination in the delivery of state services on the grounds of religion.

Well if that's how you interpreted what I said, there's not much point in me contradicting you as it's not going to make any difference to your already held prejudices.

Are we back to the worthless "you can always homeschool or build your own school" argument?

Surely you can do better than that. Surely our children deserve better than that.

Nope, we're not back to the homeschool argument. I'm just stating the facts as they are now, not what they should be or anything else.

But you do.

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

It's a statement of fact, and still nowhere have I stated that I'm happy with it. That would be the same as me suggesting that parents who are non-religious must be happy to enrol their children in religious ethos schools if they're enrolling their children in religious ethos schools. They have to be happy with it sure in spite of the fact that they say they're not, right?

No, because that would be stupid.

They are only "extra" because your school's enrolment policy was written by religious bigots.

Well don't ask what the enrolment criteria are anyway! I suppose it makes sense to assume that the religious criteria would be front and centre of the enrolment policy in a religious ethos school... except the religious criteria appears nowhere on the enrolment policy. There's bigotry and prejudice involved alright, but it isn't motivated by religion.

"it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school."

Well like I said, it does make sense. Why do you think it wouldn't make sense? If the school were only to enrol the children of non-religious parents, it's not unreasonable to assume that they would have no interest in getting involved in the school community which is a religious ethos, and the school makes every effort to involve the parents in their children's education.

catbear

ah fook, it's the same people in here all the time. better get to know the neighbours I suppose.

MrPudding

This is for the UK, but interesting none the less. I posted and older study into this previously, but this one if bang up to date. Allowing discrimination on religious grounds appears to give an advantage to school in keeping out other undesirables, you know, like the poor.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

This is for the UK, but interesting none the less. I posted and older study into this previously, but this one if bang up to date. Allowing discrimination on religious grounds appears to give an advantage to school in keeping out other undesirables, you know, like the poor.

MrP

Nothing new there MrP:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Basically, the way I see it, the whole "maintaining ethos" nonsense argument is based more upon maintaining socioeconomic snobbery than having any basis in any religious ethos. It would be fulfilling the religious ethos of the school if they were to allow all children into the school, with no set criteria or any of the rest of it.

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nothing new there MrP:

Perhaps, but something that is loudly denied. I posted the previous study in another thread, I think on the other forum, in response to several of the more, how shall I put this... more un-empathic catholic posters. Denied, of course.

MrP

mac.in

In India where I'm basically from there is a reservation of certain percentage for religious minorities in schools, universities, public service postings, political posts (local councillors, ministers, etc), etc. This is in the context of establishing social justice. The religious minorities in India are Muslims, Christians, Jains, Budhists, Parsis, etc. The major religion in India is Hinduism. Myself being not belonging to any of these minorities, I was not eligible for those said posts reserved for the minorities, how much ever I'm merited for the said posts.

Here, my child would not be equally eligible as other children for the school seat because we are not Catholic. I haven't got any such experience of my child not getting a seat in the school by the virtue of our religion, as we are currently staying in a place where the demand for the school seat is not that high. I don't know about the future though.

Many of my Indian (now Irish) Catholic friends who enjoyed the minority reservation in India for being religious minorities would enjoy the religious preference over me in getting a seat for their children, here in Ireland.

With this situation, just keeping my fingers crossed for the future.

Apologies if my post is out of the subject of this thread.

MrPudding

mac.in wrote: »

In India where I'm basically from there is a reservation of certain percentage for religious minorities in schools, universities, public service postings, political posts (local councillors, ministers, etc), etc. This is in the context of establishing social justice. The religious minorities in India are Muslims, Christians, Jains, Budhists, Parsis, etc. The major religion in India is Hinduism. Myself being not belonging to any of these minorities, I was not eligible for those said posts reserved for the minorities, how much ever I'm merited for the said posts.

Here, my child would not be equally eligible as other children for the school seat because we are not Catholic. I haven't got any such experience of my child not getting a seat in the school by the virtue of our religion, as we are currently staying in a place where the demand for the school seat is not that high. I don't know about the future though.

Many of my Indian (now Irish) Catholic friends who enjoyed the minority reservation in India for being religious minorities would enjoy the religious preference over me in getting a seat for their children, here in Ireland.

With this situation, just keeping my fingers crossed for the future.

Apologies if my post is out of the subject of this thread.

Your post is both on subject and interesting. I had no idea there was such a system in India.

MrP

mac.in

MrPudding wrote: »

Your post is both on subject and interesting. I had no idea there was such a system in India.

MrP

In addition to what I have said above, there is also a feature where if a minority-religion starts an educational institution, 50% of the seats are reserved for the students of that particular religion that started the institution. The government also provide grants for establishing such institutions. Further details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India

recedite

We have the same thing here, except you don't have to be a minority religion, and it can be up to 100% of places reserved.

expectationlost

somebody made an FOI request about how many of each type of leases there are for schools, the gov said it dosen't have these records

FOI/2016/40 at https://www.education.ie/en/The-Department/FOI/FOI-Disclosure-Log/2016/January-2016/Non-Personal-Requests-January-2016.html and also says it a voluminous request, because they are 3,000 schools, well thats what you call a national education system, I wouldn't call it voluminous, they seem to be asking for a more detailed version of the schools list thats on the website, not too much to ask i would have thought.

they did give them a sample of the lease and deeds, you can see listed in the schedule, not sure why they refer to them as blank

expectationlost wrote: »

somebody made an FOI request about how many of each type of leases there are for schools, the gov said it doen't have these records FOI/2016/40 at https://www.education.ie/en/The-Department/FOI/FOI-Disclosure-Log/2016/January-2016/Non-Personal-Requests-January-2016.html and also says it a voluminous request, because they are 3,000 schools, well that what you call a national education system, I wouldn't call it voluminous

they did give them a sample of the lease and deeds, you can see listed in the schedule, not sure why they refer to them as blank

Yes, I've heard this issue talked about by various people. The system is, in fact, so half-assed that there aren't leases for hundreds and hundreds of schools.

I think the term 'voluminous' might be in regard to the scope of the request rather than the national education system; I think if the DoE already held a single record detailing the numbers of schools vested in all the various bodies, it wouldn't be unreasonable to request it, but asking the DoE to assemble the records detailing the vestment of all the schools in order to produce such a record would be (or is, apparently) too voluminous a request. Considering that they (that is to say John Hughes) thinks that a large proportion of schools are privately owned, they're aren't necessarily going to be leases for them anyway.

Hotblack Desiato

The LC Arabic syllabus has the Koran as a mandatory text and assumes students have knowledge of it

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/ask-brian-why-does-leaving-cert-arabic-assume-students-will-have-knowledge-of-the-koran-1.2610905

Does it not assume that the student should have knowledge of it because it is a mandatory text? As in, students of Irish used to have to have knowledge of Peig because it was required reading for the syllabus?
I'm just wondering is the Koran present in the exam for its linguistic value alone, which would make sense; it says the questions are based on the extracts presented, but since the questions are in Arabic, and I don't read Arabic, it's difficult to say that there's any reason to think a student would need to be Muslim in order to answer the question.
I get the idea that a Christian might not like studying the text of another religion (or vice versa), but the Quran is a fairly significant piece of literature, with a recognised unique form in Arabic terms, surely?

Not that the story has anything to do with school patronage but anyways...

Absolam wrote: »

I get the idea that a Christian might not like studying the text of another religion (or vice versa),

Why?

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Why?

Because they might consider the text heretical, or that is some sort of assault on their faith. Is the why something that you think makes the subject more or less relevant to school patronage?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Because they might consider the text heretical, or that is some sort of assault on their faith.

Explains why life Of Brian was banned in Ireland for many years, don't want anything to go against your religion....you can't have that.
:rolleyes:

Cabaal wrote: »

Explains why life Of Brian was banned in Ireland for many years, don't want anything to go against your religion....you can't have that.
:rolleyes:

Constitution blah blah blah constitution