Views on new Templecarrig admission policy

zanador · 13-12-2013 1:52pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Sorry what?
I am not aware of any equality legislation exemption given to schools specifically because they are private schools. I don't think what you are saying is correct. Schools are exempt from equality legislation in terms of admission and giving preferential treatment to a religious denomination but I don't think this exemption is specific to private schools as you seem to suggest.

They mean that schools are normally in church (or other) owned buildings, on church owned land (and therefore private land), although funded by the state, rather than 'private' schools.

Now there are schools being built on public land in buildings owned by the state and that is where the question of the exemptions come in. Should the state pay and own land and buildings where discrimination takes place? That is the question recedite is posing.

Annasopra · 13-12-2013 2:28pm

zanador wrote: »

They mean that schools are normally in church (or other) owned buildings, on church owned land (and therefore private land), although funded by the state, rather than 'private' schools.

Now there are schools being built on public land in buildings owned by the state and that is where the question of the exemptions come in. Should the state pay and own land and buildings where discrimination takes place? That is the question recedite is posing.

Equality legislation doesn't differentiate!

There is no equality exemption difference between public versus private.

The question of the exemption is not a public versus private question.

recedite · 13-12-2013 2:33pm

Yes, I am questioning whether it is legal for the State to grant the patronage of a publicly owned school to a patron which operates a discriminatory policy. And in the event that the patron initiates the policy after the patronage has been granted, whether the State can withdraw recognition from the patron after giving the three months notice as per the 1988 Education Act.

Suppose I was a racist bigot, and a black jewish lesbian arrived at a party in my house, I am fully entitled to tell her to leave, just because its my private property and I don't like the look of her. Similarly a privately owned school is entitled to take advantage of certain exemptions to the Equal Status Act concerning the preservation of their "ethos".

However, every citizen has a constitutional right to receive equal treatment at the hands of the State. Any facility owned by the state has a higher bar to achieve, whether it is a school or anything else.

Annasopra · 13-12-2013 2:35pm

Where in the equal status status acts is there a differentiation made between public and private?

All I am seeing is opinion - not fact

zanador · 13-12-2013 2:40pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Equality legislation doesn't differentiate!

I agree, a parent would be on very shaky ground with that argument, especially as a landlord cab't really interfere with a tenant. Would be interesting to see someone try and change that in this area, though

In the Irish equality legislation one of the nine things you can't discriminate against is religion. Here are the areas covered by the equality act:

'...outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services. Specifically, goods and services include professional or trade services; health services; access to accommodation and education; facilities for banking, transport and cultural activities.'

And yet, school can discriminate on the basis of religion due to the exception here:

7 (c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

zanador · 13-12-2013 2:59pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I am questioning whether it is legal for the State to grant the patronage of a publicly owned school to a patron which operates a discriminatory policy. And in the event that the patron initiates the policy after the patronage has been granted, whether the State can withdraw recognition from the patron after giving the three months notice as per the 1988 Education Act.

Discrimination in this case will mean race, gender (in a mixed school), etc.. religion is a valid reason to discriminate in schools, see my above post

recedite · 13-12-2013 3:33pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Where in the equal status status acts is there a differentiation made between public and private?

I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that as a school they can claim the exemption, but as a state-owned facility they cannot. And they are both of these.
And not only that, but legislation has to be overturned when it is deemed to be repugnant to a citizens constitutional rights, as we saw recently with the historical abortion legislation.

Annasopra · 13-12-2013 3:36pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I am questioning whether it is legal for the State to grant the patronage of a publicly owned school to a patron which operates a discriminatory policy.

The answer to your question is - yes it is legal under the Equal Status Acts

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/EN_ACT_2000_0008.PDF

(3) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that—
....
(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

Annasopra · 13-12-2013 3:38pm

recedite wrote: »

I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that as a school they can claim the exemption, but as a state-owned facility they cannot. And they are both of these.
And not only that, but legislation has to be overturned when it is deemed to be repugnant to a citizens constitutional rights, as we saw recently with the historical abortion legislation.

Under what law does it say as a state owned facility that they cannot operate such an admissions policy?

I really don't see where your opinions matches the facts of the law

With regard to the constitutional guarantee of equality - unfortunately the interpretation of that by courts has been very weak

http://humanrights.ie/constitution-of-ireland/shadow-constitutional-convention-15-flynn-on-disability-and-constitutional-equality/

A core problem with the application of the equality guarantee in the context of disability is that it has been overshadowed by other rights, rather than underpinning and influencing the interpretation of other substantive rights guaranteed in the Constitution. A prime example of this in the context of disability is the right to education – where the preponderence of cases have turned solely on Article 42, with very little reference to what Article 40.1 requires in respect of guaranteeing equal access to educational opportunities. Other provisions of the Constitution have built into them a concern for evenhandedness or equality, including Articles 40.6.2, 44.2.3 and 44.2.4 but courts rarely explore the interaction between these and 40.1 – since the equality guarantee is not viewed as a bedrock or grundnorm of the Constitutional order. In fact, the courts tend to qualify equality by other provisions, rather than the other way around. This is clearly something which it would be important to address in any Constitutional amendment to the equality guarantee.

http://www.esatclear.ie/~dejames/CRGEquality.htm

Limits of the existing guarantee of equality

The narrow wording of the guarantee and its interpretation by the courts have been widely observed and criticised by both academic and political commentators and in many of the submissions received by the Review Group. Consequently one of the main concerns of the Review Group has been to identify what, if any, extension of the guarantee may be desirable or necessary. Another has been to eliminate bias which, though it may be historically explicable, it today is socially and morally unacceptable. The Review Group has also considered whether other provisions, in addition to the guarantee of equality before the law, should be inserted in the Constitution in order to further the objective of equality.

http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Law_reports/dpcreport.pdf

[3.13] The courts have interpreted this provision primarily as a guarantee of fair process in the enactment of laws. It is well established in case law that the guarantee of equality, contained in article 40.1, does not require absolute equal treatment. Broadly speaking, differential treatment can be justified either on the basis that it reflects a real difference between the persons differentiated or on the basis that it serves another value or legitimate objective

patrickpc · 13-12-2013 4:04pm

zanador wrote: »

I agree, a parent would be on very shaky ground with that argument, especially as a landlord cab't really interfere with a tenant. Would be interesting to see someone try and change that in this area, though

In the Irish equality legislation one of the nine things you can't discriminate against is religion. Here are the areas covered by the equality act:

'...outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and services. Specifically, goods and services include professional or trade services; health services; access to accommodation and education; facilities for banking, transport and cultural activities.'

And yet, school can discriminate on the basis of religion due to the exception here:

7 (c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

The part in bold above is the bit I would question as it is deliberately vague. What criterion is used to decide that (for example) letting one additional student of a different denomination into a school would cause the school to lose it's ethos ? Is some formula or a percentage figure used (for loss of ethos) and if so what is it? I think that it would be better for school's to publish the tipping point where the school's ethos becomes eroded/lost for transparency's sake.

Any thoughts ?

zanador · 13-12-2013 4:09pm

The argument would be made that by letting in a child of different 'ethos' ahead a child of 'ethos' then by definition this is eroding the ethos of the school.

That's why it is in the case of over subscription, as opposed to when this number/percentage is reached.

If the school wasn't full then they would have to take every child that came looking for a place, or have a REALLY good case as to why not. It is decided on a case by case basis, too.

recedite · 13-12-2013 4:12pm

As I said, every citizen has a constitutional right to receive equal treatment at the hands of the State. If a state owned facility wishes to exploit some loophole in the law which was put there for the benefit of religiously owned facilities, then that loophole can be challenged and would have to be amended, just as the abortion legislation was.
Constitutional law trumps legislation law, this is a basic legal principle.

You have made some good points above mango salsa, but in relation to access to education for disabilities, we are talking about second generation rights, eg the right to have wheelchair ramps installed, and these are not given the same priority as the right to be free from an overt act of discrimination.
In relation to "some legitimate objective", yes the State can override the lesser rights of the citizen in pursuit of some legitimate objective.
But can it really be said that getting people down to the church on a Sunday morning as properly active members of the COI is a legitimate objective of the State?

zanador · 13-12-2013 4:14pm

recedite wrote: »

As I said, every citizen has a constitutional right to receive equal treatment at the hands of the State. If a state owned facility wishes to exploit some loophole in the law which was put there for the benefit of religiously owned facilities, t

Is it a state owned facility, though? The building is, and the land, but the school is the roll number under a patron - and they lease the buildings.

recedite · 13-12-2013 4:16pm

patrickpc wrote: »

The part in bold above is the bit I would question as it is deliberately vague. What criterion is used to decide that (for example) letting one additional student of a different denomination into a school would cause the school to lose it's ethos ? Is some formula or a percentage figure used (for loss of ethos) and if so what is it? I think that it would be better for school's to publish the tipping point where the school's ethos becomes eroded/lost for transparency's sake.

Any thoughts ?

Yes, it strikes me that a patron could use this to restrict the numbers in the school. Lets say the facility was large enough to take 1000 pupils, they might decide to restrict it to 700 on the basis that any more would dilute the "ethos" desired by the school patron.

recedite · 13-12-2013 4:21pm

zanador wrote: »

Is it a state owned facility, though? The building is, and the land, but the school is the roll number under a patron - and they lease the buildings.

The owner is the entity giving the lease, and a lease is invalid if it is obtained under false pretenses.

zanador · 13-12-2013 4:27pm

recedite wrote: »

The owner is the entity giving the lease, and a lease is invalid if it is obtained under false pretenses.

Ok, that's a specific circumstance though, and not the same as what you were saying before about state facilities and discrimination.

Sorry to be pedantic

zanador · 13-12-2013 4:34pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes, it strikes me that a patron could use this to restrict the numbers in the school. Lets say the facility was large enough to take 1000 pupils, they might decide to restrict it to 700 on the basis that any more would dilute the "ethos" desired by the school patron.

Theoretically they could, I suppose, but I doubt they would as most of the schools here are fairly liberal until they are full. Also, they get more money for more pupils and it's easier to hit teacher quotas.

patrickpc · 13-12-2013 4:38pm

zanador wrote: »

The argument would be made that by letting in a child of different 'ethos' ahead a child of 'ethos' then by definition this is eroding the ethos of the school.

That's why it is in the case of over subscription, as opposed to when this number/percentage is reached.

If the school wasn't full then they would have to take every child that came looking for a place, or have a REALLY good case as to why not. It is decided on a case by case basis, too.

So then - the exception says that when a school is oversubscribed any child applying for a place, who is of a different ethos, is deemed an instrument of erosion to the school's ethos and hence is not on equal standing to another child of the school's ethos ??

zanador · 13-12-2013 4:41pm

patrickpc wrote: »

So then - the exception says that when a school is oversubscribed any child applying for a place, who is of a different ethos, is deemed an instrument of erosion to the school's ethos and hence is not on equal standing to another child of the school's ethos ??

Case by case, I don't know what the reasons would be exactly, but I guess that's about the size of it.

As long as it is stated in the admissions policy though - that's the legally binding contract

patrickpc · 13-12-2013 4:54pm

zanador wrote: »

Case by case, I don't know what the reasons would be exactly, but I guess that's about the size of it.

As long as it is stated in the admissions policy though - that's the legally binding contract

Did anyone read the recent article where the Children's Ombudsman, Emily Logan says ..

'..the general right currently enjoyed by denominational schools to give preferential access to children of their faith should end
...
Ms Logan notes this has been criticised by international human rights bodies including the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

She says in circumstances where a denominational school is oversubscribed, children not of its denomination, or of none, are at an unfair disadvantage.

“Children should not have preferential access to publicly funded education on the basis of their religion and that the Equal Status Act should reflect that principle.”

Is there any chance that the law will be changed to disallow ethos as an acceptance criterion?

zanador · 13-12-2013 5:08pm

I believe it will happen, but we're not ready for it. Look at the furor over the recent re-assignments of patronage. And how would you tell a religious school to be inclusive when by nature they are exclusive - although if they are strong in their faith it shouldn't matter.

Ruari Quinn has serious cojones but I reckon even he would balk at taking this on!

patrickpc · 13-12-2013 5:34pm

zanador wrote: »

I believe it will happen, but we're not ready for it. Look at the furor over the recent re-assignments of patronage. And how would you tell a religious school to be inclusive when by nature they are exclusive - although if they are strong in their faith it shouldn't matter.

Ruari Quinn has serious cojones but I reckon even he would balk at taking this on!

So - what is the fairest admissions policy - what would be the least contentious to keep the largest amount of people happy? You'll never keep everyone happy...

Maybe 2 categories.

Category 1.
First preference to siblings of students who are already enrolled and who will attend the school next year.
Category 2.
Children from the locality/feeder schools - with pre-designated boundaries.

In the event of an oversubscription then a lottery for those in Category 2.

I am not sure that giving preference to children of teachers/school administrators is fair (type of nepotism) but I am sure that teachers/school admins would disagree.

So what would be the fairest policy? Anyone?

zanador · 13-12-2013 5:40pm

patrickpc wrote: »

So - what is the fairest admissions policy - what would be the least contentious to keep the largest amount of people happy? You'll never keep everyone happy...

Maybe 2 categories.

Category 1.
First preference to siblings of students who are already enrolled and who will attend the school next year.
Category 2.
Children from the locality/feeder schools - with pre-designated boundaries.

In the event of an oversubscription then a lottery for those in Category 2.

I am not sure that giving preference to children of teachers/school administrators is fair (type of nepotism) but I am sure that teachers/school admins would disagree.

So what would be the fairest policy? Anyone?

In UK and US this is standard - you go to your local school and that's it. It requires secular state led education and any school who want to be different must apply and prove need.

I agree with siblings and children of staff having priority - but not management, or clergy (if we're talking TC).

And agree with the rest of yours, a lottery for the rest of the places within a defined catchment area - if the school has been sanctioned on that premise. The new North Wicklow ET has been sanctioned with no such constraints so that will be interesting too!

Check out Finland for the near perfect system

homer911 · 13-12-2013 5:40pm

Why cant we have a centralised applications process, with parents prioritising schools of their choice, and at the same time providing all information relevant to the school's admission policy. The relevant clergy, if any, could then verify the application

At least then we would not have phantom places being blocked out by children who will ultimately go to another school..

Annasopra · 13-12-2013 11:39pm

recedite wrote: »

As I said, every citizen has a constitutional right to receive equal treatment at the hands of the State. If a state owned facility wishes to exploit some loophole in the law which was put there for the benefit of religiously owned facilities, then that loophole can be challenged and would have to be amended, just as the abortion legislation was.
Constitutional law trumps legislation law, this is a basic legal principle.

You have made some good points above mango salsa, but in relation to access to education for disabilities, we are talking about second generation rights, eg the right to have wheelchair ramps installed, and these are not given the same priority as the right to be free from an overt act of discrimination.
In relation to "some legitimate objective", yes the State can override the lesser rights of the citizen in pursuit of some legitimate objective.
But can it really be said that getting people down to the church on a Sunday morning as properly active members of the COI is a legitimate objective of the State?

I still really don't think legally there is an an issue here at all.

The Equal Status Acts allow schools an exemption for religious based discrimination.

The difference that you keep making between private and public, is not, I don't think an issue either. In your opinion state owned schools should meet higher equality standards but I don't see how your opinion is translated into law. There is no differentiation in the Equal Status Acts between publicly owned and privately owned. I really don't see why you think there is a difference or should be a difference? I mean all hospitals in the country whether state owned or privately run have to comply with the recent abortion legislation. I am sure also when Aer Lingus was state owned that both it and Ryanair had to both comply with the Equal status acts. I fail to see why you think there is a difference in law between the two.

Of course a schools admission policy could be challenged under the constitution but what I was pointing out is that the constitutional guarantee of equality has been interpreted very weakly within the courts upto now.

recedite · 14-12-2013 12:55pm

Private and State owned facilities both have to comply equally with any legislation out there. But the State has extra responsibilities.
Take your example of Ryanair; they have always refused to recognise trade unions. That option is not open to Aer Lingus, even though they are only partially (majority share I think) State owned.
And the "right" to union representation is a very weak right compared to the right not to be subjected to discrimination on religious grounds. The State grants union representation to employees in other State and Semi-State owned enterprises, so it cannot treat Aer Lingus employees any differently.

stilltryingit · 14-12-2013 6:37pm

patrickpc wrote: »

So - what is the fairest admissions policy - what would be the least contentious to keep the largest amount of people happy? You'll never keep everyone happy...

Maybe 2 categories.

Category 1.
First preference to siblings of students who are already enrolled and who will attend the school next year.
Category 2.
Children from the locality/feeder schools - with pre-designated boundaries.

In the event of an oversubscription then a lottery for those in Category 2.

I am not sure that giving preference to children of teachers/school administrators is fair (type of nepotism) but I am sure that teachers/school admins would disagree.

So what would be the fairest policy? Anyone?

What you have described sounds fair and it's in line with what people expected when they signed up for a COI school. I think the problem is that the school is going to be over subscribed very quickly as population expands and it will have attractive facilities too. I think the school board would not want to refuse a COI child who might lose out through the random lottery. Maybe they just need to say that they are sorry not to be able to honour the original terms?I think it would be difficult not to accept an apology.

FirstIn · 14-12-2013 7:55pm

Apology. WHAT!
People are showing themselves to be very naive. It's a faith based school, this is the way these schools operate.

Then again perhaps they should apologise, round about the same time the RC faith based schools all over the rest of the country apologise for discriminating against kids from minority religions in their areas.

Consider this. In other faith based schools (nearly all RC) that are oversubscribed how many non RC kids are admitted? NONE, or bl**dy damn close. (They might have had a quiet year and let one COI kid in and now his sister wants in)

If TC is oversubscribed how many RC kids will be admitted? Many. TC will always be majority RC. As it stands the first year are over 80% non COI.

stilltryingit · 14-12-2013 8:06pm

FirstIn wrote: »

Apology. WHAT!
People are showing themselves to be very naive. It's a faith based school, this is the way these schools operate.

Then again perhaps they should apologise, round about the same time the RC faith based schools all over the rest of the country apologise for discriminating against kids from minority religions in their areas.

Consider this. In other faith based schools (nearly all RC) that are oversubscribed how many non RC kids are admitted? NONE, or bl**dy damn close. (They might have had a quiet year and let one COI kid in and now his sister wants in)

If TC is oversubscribed how many RC kids will be admitted? Many. TC will always be majority RC. As it stands the first year are over 80% non COI.

The apology would just be because they are not in a position to honour the commitment they gave to those who supported them i.e. equal access regardless of religion. A lot of people feel they were misled and would have supported another bid had they known. I imagine RC will always be the biggest group in the school but that is not what this is about. Indeed I hope the children who go there will not be aware of "who is what". An explanation and an apology would go a long way towards solving these and it is the season of goodwill.
The key difference is that other faith based schools (not just RC!) never gave a commitment to their supporters that they would keep religion out of it. Its about honour and trust and it would be great if TC could regain the trust of anyone who feels that they were misled. I am sure it's what the school board would want too.

FirstIn · 14-12-2013 9:00pm

I don't believe that there was ever a commitment given of equal access regardless of religion in the event of over subscription.

To be honest most knew that this is part and parcel of how admission to faith based schools works and is of no surprise.

stilltryingit · 14-12-2013 9:25pm

FirstIn wrote: »

I don't believe that there was ever a commitment given of equal access regardless of religion in the event of over subscription.

To be honest most knew that this is part and parcel of how admission to faith based schools works and is of no surprise.

That commitment was given at the open meetings but I think COI felt that they were giving it safe in the thought that they would not need it. I think they are taking in 132 this year, quite a few more than originally planned and I think that is so that they can take all from category 1 as well as the 12 COI children from outside Delgany/Greystones. However there is a population bulge headed to 2nd level and that means that they will now have to use religion to decide if they want to guarantee all COI applicants a place.
What is happening re Presbyterians and other minority religions? Do we know?
Would be great if the air was cleared on this before Christmas.

Annasopra · 15-12-2013 12:08am

stilltryingit wrote: »

The apology would just be because they are not in a position to honour the commitment they gave to those who supported them i.e. equal access regardless of religion. A lot of people feel they were misled and would have supported another bid had they known. I imagine RC will always be the biggest group in the school but that is not what this is about. Indeed I hope the children who go there will not be aware of "who is what". An explanation and an apology would go a long way towards solving these and it is the season of goodwill.
The key difference is that other faith based schools (not just RC!) never gave a commitment to their supporters that they would keep religion out of it. Its about honour and trust and it would be great if TC could regain the trust of anyone who feels that they were misled. I am sure it's what the school board would want too.

Honestly I don't understand this. If people felt that they wanted religion kept out of it, why wouldn't tgey have backed the VEC or Educate Together? I mean there are some people complaining but surely who backed COI knew what they were getting.

There may be a few who are angry and upset but is there really "a lot"? And if they felt so strongly about this why would they have backed COI over vec or educate together?

Annasopra · 15-12-2013 12:11am

recedite wrote: »

Private and State owned facilities both have to comply equally with any legislation out there. But the State has extra responsibilities.
Take your example of Ryanair; they have always refused to recognise trade unions. That option is not open to Aer Lingus, even though they are only partially (majority share I think) State owned.
And the "right" to union representation is a very weak right compared to the right not to be subjected to discrimination on religious grounds. The State grants union representation to employees in other State and Semi-State owned enterprises, so it cannot treat Aer Lingus employees any differently.

Where in the law is it stated that the state has extra responsibilities?

Sorry but I still think your argument has no basis in legislation at all.

There may be a constitutional issue but as I have already explained the constitutional protections for equality have been weakly defined.

zanador · 15-12-2013 12:26am

mango salsa wrote: »

Honestly I don't understand this. If people felt that they wanted religion kept out of it, why wouldn't tgey have backed the VEC or Educate Together? I mean there are some people complaining but surely who backed COI knew what they were getting.

There may be a few who are angry and upset but is there really "a lot"? And if they felt so strongly about this why would they have backed COI over vec or educate together?

I am surprised that people are surprised too! Surely this was always going to happen? I was surprised people believed them during the campaign, this is what religious ethos schools do.

People are angry because they DID believe them and now feel lied to. And there are 'a lot' as the amount of catholic and children of no faith is large.

During the campaign the CoI said that Et would favour ET children (not true) and that they would be the only ones who were fair. People signed up on that basis and now feel tricked. Also, they have experience running secondary schools whereas ET are the new kids on the block in that area. VEC were never really in the race here.

Estman · 15-12-2013 11:15am

I saw this article in the Irish Times during the week:
Denominational schools should no longer have the right to discriminate in favour of enrolling children on the basis of their religion, the Ombudsman for Children has said.

You can read the full article here:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/call-for-end-to-religious-discrimination-by-schools-1.1624947

d2ww · 15-12-2013 1:19pm

There is a danger that people will fall into the typical Irish response to seeing a queue/waiting list, namely expending all their energy trying to sneak their way to the front, rather than asking why is there a queue in the first place!
The solution remains, build more classrooms to meet demand.

recedite · 15-12-2013 2:32pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Where in the law is it stated that the state has extra responsibilities?

In The Constitution of the state, under FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS/Personal Rights;

Article 4 BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
2. 1° Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State.
2° No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government.
3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

France and the USA are comparable Republics with similar constitutions, and it would be absolutely unthinkable in those countries for religious discrimination to be allowed in a publicly owned school. Even in the UK, where there is no official separation between church and state it would be unthinkable.

zanador wrote: »

I am surprised that people are surprised too! Surely this was always going to happen?

No, because this is a new situation. Its the first time the State has built a new school and handed it to a religious group for management, with said religious group retrospectively trying to introduce the discrimination.
The school got its funding because of the expanding local population, not because the State wanted to further the aims of the COI.
People were entitled to believe that because the school is wholly owned by the State, that it would operate differently to existing faith schools which are privately owned by the various religious organisations and trusts.

Up until recently the only schools in public ownership were the VEC schools, and they were strictly egalitarian.

What happens next will set a precedent. If people want to accept the situation, then that is the way State education will go into the future, and discrimination will be built into the new State-owned school system.
If they refuse to tolerate the discrimination, the policy will be overturned and will never be attempted by the patron of a publicly owned school again.

I'm not directly affected because I don't have kids in primary school. But if someone who is affected starts a campaign to defend the worthy egalitarian principles enshrined in the Constitution of this Republic, I'm happy to contribute €100 towards any legal costs.

William of Ockham · 15-12-2013 3:13pm

This was the basis on which we supported COI patronage for Templecarrig.
It would appear the promises of inclusivity will not be kept, and this is very disappointing. (bold emphasis mine)

Taken from 2011
http://www.churchnewsireland.org/news/irish-uk-news/parents-sign-up-now-for-new-c-of-i-school-in-greystones/

'Revd Stanley says the school would not just cater for students with Protestant links. “People of all denominations and none are invited to state a parental preference for their child to have a place in a Church of Ireland run school. We have always run an open and inclusive school system and this school will be no different. The fact that this school will have an annual intake of 120 pupils each year will facilitate inclusion. '

Taken from Archbishop Jackson, 2012:
http://ireland.anglican.org/news/4272

The other great joy is, of course, the grant by the Minister for Education of a new Secondary School in Greystones, to be called Temple Carrig School. This is once again a tremendous tribute to the people of the area of Bray and Greystones and to the clergy who have proved themselves to be true community leaders. The school is to be under the patronage of the archbishop of Dublin and will in fact draw its membership from pupils who come from at least four school sectors: a Gaelscoil, an Educate Together School, Roman Catholic National Schools and Church of Ireland National Schools. This is an exciting development because it draws pupils from a very diverse range of schools into a completely new type of school. My thanks and congratulations go to the people of the community in Bray and Greystones who have done such a successful job in making this successful bid.

The new admissions policy now states:
"In the event of an oversubscription of applicants within Category 1, priority will be afforded to applicants with an active parish affiliation (as defined below in Appendix 1) with the Church of Ireland parishes of Greystones and Delgany."

Its clear that the original assertions and promises of a non biased admission policy which were made when the patronage was being sought are not being semantically violated, but its equally clear that the spirit (excuse the pun) is definitely not being honored now.

FirstIn · 15-12-2013 4:30pm

And if some COI kids didn't get in, say if it was run as a lottery. Where could they go locally to be educated in their own ethos?

The RC kids have St David's. The COI kids have a long bus or rail journey.

Does the above mention what would happen in the event of over subscription. I bet you it does not.

recedite · 15-12-2013 5:00pm

What about all the Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics and all the people who have no "active affiliation" to either the RC or COI churches?
This is a State school, don't forget.

FirstIn · 15-12-2013 5:44pm

All of the above are normally disadvantaged by the fact that schooling in this state (and paid for by tbe state) is predominantly done by the RC church.

The COI are normally in that list of disadvantaged/discriminated against

It's smashing to see them not disadvantaged here.

recedite · 15-12-2013 5:58pm

None of the above have ever been disadvantaged in a state-owned school, including the protestants.

recedite · 15-12-2013 6:20pm

Suppose you had a school or a museum in state ownership, and they gave the café/canteen to an outside contractor to manage. And the manager introduced a policy that people of a certain religion or colour would only get a seat whenever there were empty seats not required by certain other people. There is no question that the State is obliged to say to the manager either the policy goes or you go. There is no point in the manager trying to argue that the problem is due to the cafe being too small, and the problem only arises because there aren't enough seats.

Annasopra · 15-12-2013 6:38pm

recedite wrote: »

Suppose you had a school or a museum in state ownership, and they gave the café/canteen to an outside contractor to manage. And the manager introduced a policy that people of a certain religion or colour would only get a seat whenever there were empty seats not required by certain other people. There is no question that the State is obliged to say to the manager either the policy goes or you go. There is no point in the manager trying to argue that the problem is due to the cafe being too small, and the problem only arises because there aren't enough seats.

Firstly the contractor is a private entity and would almost certainly be legally obliged completely regardless of what the state say as owners to remove such a policy under the equal status act.

On the other hand if there was a legal basis on which the contractor was allowed to do what they are doing then the contractor regardless of the facility being state owned or not can continue their practice.

I really fail to see anywhere where it is stated in law that there are extra responsibilities assigned to state owned facilities.

I understand your opinion that you think a state owned facility should be held upto higher standards but I don't believe your opinion has any legal basis.

liamf · 15-12-2013 7:40pm

Does anyone have a copy of the admissions policy which applied for the 2014 intake? This has been removed from the school website.

I would like to do a comparison.

But in general I agree with what several people on this thread state: while people may be somewhat upset about the specifics of the admissions policy as published now, it is not in violation of any statute and (very probably) close inspection will show that it is not in violation of anything which was actually put in writing during the run up to the award of the patronage.

potpourri · 15-12-2013 8:15pm

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
''Link to this: Individually | In context199. ''To ask the Minister for Education and Skills if schools can amend admissions policies to prioritise children of a particular faith in instances where their applications for patronage stated they will embrace children of all faiths and none; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52923/13]''

Ruairi Quinn (Minister, Department of Education and Skills; Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context''It is the responsibility of the managerial authorities of schools to implement an enrolment policy in accordance with the Education Act, 1998. In this regard a board of management may find it necessary to restrict enrolment to children from a particular area or a particular age group or, occasionally, on the basis of some other criterion. This selection process and the enrolment policy on which it is based must be non-discriminatory and must be applied fairly in respect of all applicants. New schools are expected to formulate enrolment policies consistent with the criteria that applied with the award of patronage.
Where a school is awarded patronage it is expected to prioritise children from the area where the school is located on this basis. I would not expect to see any prioritisation for a particular faith group in the enrolment policy of such a school.''

Just came across the above on kildarestreet.com

Link provided below:

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-12-10a.369&s=section%3Awrans+speaker%3A359#g370.q

Cheeky Chops · 15-12-2013 9:34pm

Is segregation not unconstitutional? Rosa Parks sitting at the back of the bus is utterly unacceptable in this day and age yet religious segregation is acceptable in a STATE SPONSORED school - albeit of COI patronage. Seriously? Unbelievable that a child could be refused a place at a school because of religion.

If this went to the EU it would be met with derision and serious consequences.

Annasopra · 15-12-2013 10:01pm

Cheeky Chops wrote: »

Is segregation not unconstitutional? Rosa Parks sitting at the back of the bus is utterly unacceptable in this day and age yet religious segregation is acceptable in a STATE SPONSORED school - albeit of COI patronage. Seriously? Unbelievable that a child could be refused a place at a school because of religion.

If this went to the EU it would be met with derision and serious consequences.

How is this segregation? The school has not said it is only open to COI pupils.

I can't see any serious EU consequences myself. Education policy is mostly set by the member states and not by the EU. Perhaps it could goto the European Court of Human Rights if all Irish legal avenues were exhausted but the EU and ECHR are entirely separate.

There is an interesting discussion paper here on it

www.ihrc.ie/publications/list/professor-gerry-whyte-paper-on-religion-and-educat/

Wineman · 16-12-2013 12:36am

Statement from the board of management on the issue

http://www.templecarrigschool.ie/Board%20of%20Management%20response%20to%20concerns%20raised%20around%20the%202015%20Admissions%20Policy.pdf

recedite · 16-12-2013 12:50pm

potpourri wrote: »

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent)
''Link to this: Individually | In context199. ''To ask the Minister for Education and Skills if schools can amend admissions policies to prioritise children of a particular faith in instances where their applications for patronage stated they will embrace children of all faiths and none; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52923/13]''

Ruairi Quinn (Minister, Department of Education and Skills; Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context''It is the responsibility of the managerial authorities of schools to implement an enrolment policy in accordance with the Education Act, 1998. In this regard a board of management may find it necessary to restrict enrolment to children from a particular area or a particular age group or, occasionally, on the basis of some other criterion. This selection process and the enrolment policy on which it is based must be non-discriminatory and must be applied fairly in respect of all applicants. New schools are expected to formulate enrolment policies consistent with the criteria that applied with the award of patronage.
Where a school is awarded patronage it is expected to prioritise children from the area where the school is located on this basis. I would not expect to see any prioritisation for a particular faith group in the enrolment policy of such a school.''

Well done to Stephen Donnelly for being "on the ball".
The Minister for Education has given a very straight answer to the question.

Views on new Templecarrig admission policy

Comments