Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Views on new Templecarrig admission policy

Options
24567…16

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    FirstIn
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭FirstIn


    Remember the state pay nearly 100% of the costs of all faith based schools. Most are RC and discriminate in favour of their own.

    So I don't see your point.

    This is the way faith based schools work. You can't complain abouy this school while all the other faith based schools behave the same.


  • Options
    #33
    potpourri
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭potpourri


    FirstIn wrote: »
    Remember the state pay nearly 100% of the costs of all faith based schools. Most are RC and discriminate in favour of their own.

    So I don't see your point.

    This is the way faith based schools work. You can't complain abouy this school while all the other faith based schools behave the same.

    I think that it is the way in which patronage for the school was obtained is what is at issue for many.
    Why was support from parents in the seven feeder schools obtained on the basis that religion would not be a factor?

    The 2014 admission policy did not refer to the religion of applicants.

    It is now apparent that VEC or Educate Together was the way to go....


  • Options
    #34
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    FirstIn wrote: »
    You can't complain abouy this school while all the other faith based schools behave the same.
    They are privately owned. East Glendalough is owned by the COI. St.Davids is owned by the Le Cheile Trust. Both have their own agenda.
    Templecarrig is owned and built by the State.


  • Options
    #35
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    potpourri wrote: »
    Why was support from parents in the seven feeder schools obtained on the basis that religion would not be a factor?..
    If they got the patronage under false pretences, then then maybe the patronage should be withdrawn. But IMO they "allowed" people to think there would be no religious discrimination without actually commenting on the matter, which is slightly different.
    They did say repeatedly that kids enrolled in the named local primary schools would all have equal highest priority. Cat 1 was supposed to be the highest priority.
    They have reneged on this by giving a higher priority to 12 handpicked places from Cat 2 (protestants living outside the area) bumping them up ahead of Cat 1 (local schools).
    Also by introducing a new Cat 0 (staff and clergy) at an even higher priority to Cat 1.


    Also there is the possibility that a sectarian admissions policy in a state owned school may well be illegal under the Constitution.
    Basically, to resolve these anomalies, either the new admissions policy should be withdrawn or the patronage revoked.


  • Options
    #36
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    recedite wrote: »
    Its more than that to me.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this is the first time in the history of the State that any state-owned school, or a publicly owned entity of any kind, has blatantly peddled an openly discriminatory and sectarian policy. Its a new low.

    Happens all over the place here - every faith based primary school in Greystones works on this principle. You have to have baptismal certs to get in otherwise you are way down the categories. Under our constitution schools and hospitals are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.
    FirstIn wrote: »
    Remember the state pay nearly 100% of the costs of all faith based schools. Most are RC and discriminate in favour of their own.

    So I don't see your point.

    This is the way faith based schools work. You can't complain abouy this school while all the other faith based schools behave the same.

    St. David's doesn't - its policy is for children who live in greystones and attend schools here - no mention of religion. Their category one is children of staff, category 2 is siblings and category 3 is:

    Criterion 3.

    Applicants, whose parents/guardians live in the Holy Rosary Parish and who attend a primary school within that parish as detailed below : -


    1. St Kevin’s N. S., Greystones
    2. St, Laurence’s N.S., Greystones
    3. St. Brigid’s N.S., Greystones
    4. St. Patrick’s N. S., Greystones
    5. Gaelscoil na gCloch Liath
    6. Greystones Educate Together

    Places will be offered, in order of receipt of completed application form, administration fee and all other documents requested. These must be received by the closing date specified for receipt of applications.

    You must live in the catchment area, but it doesn't matter what religion you are - in fact when my friend asked about it there the Principal told her that she isn't interested in knowing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    FirstIn
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭FirstIn


    It doesn't matter because, as mentioned earlier, they are running at below capacity. Don't kid yourself here. If St David's was over subscribed the answer would be very different.


  • Options
    #38
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    FirstIn wrote: »
    It doesn't matter because, as mentioned earlier, they are running at below capacity. Don't kid yourself here. If St David's was over subscribed the answer would be very different.

    Possibly - but at the moment that is their policy. And TC said they would welcome all children equally, which they're not.


  • Options
    #39
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    zanador wrote: »
    Happens all over the place here - every faith based primary school in Greystones works on this principle.
    Privately owned, not State owned.


  • Options
    #40
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    Yes, I understand your point now.

    However, as a voluntary secondary it has pretty much got autonomy on it's admissions policy, afaik, will go check it out!


  • Options
    #41
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    Ok, I think it is voluntary secondary on DES owned land and therefore is still privately owned by its patron.

    Yes, I'm right, as a voluntary secondary (as opposed to vocational, community, or comprehensive) it comes under the remit of its patron and is not subject to the broad constitution but rather the bits of it pertaining to education and is answerable to the JMB rather than the DES


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    AFAIK the patron has not paid a cent for the school and is not the owner.
    Ownership of (other) COI properties is vested in the RCB.
    JMB is a just an umbrella group to represent the interests of privately owned secondary schools.
    Everyone is entitled to rights and subject to laws in the Constitution, whether they are explicit or implied.


  • Options
    #43
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    Under the Irish system the money paid is irrelevant, it is whomever is named as patron. So, if the state runs a community school that's one thing (hence the multi-d VECs) but if they sanction a patron then it is the right of the patron to run that school as they see fit.

    It meant that the State paid for teachers etc but the churches (and specifically the Catholic one) still got to instill their ethos in their schools. Then CoI came on board and then over the last 35 years you got Educate Together. VECs used to be purely vocational and were a bit different.

    Constitutionally schools are managed under the ethos of their patron and the schools can be run in the manner in which the patron sees fit. If you try and appeal refusal of entry (Section 29) based on religious grounds you will lose.

    This is why the new national (primary) schools (mainly ET ones at the moment) can have their first come first served policy with no provision for locality. Or can ask for baptismal certs if they are Catholic. Even though all the buildings are now owned by the state. (The schools sign leases and are tenants)

    It's archaic, really, but on the face of it provides 'choice' - whether or not that choice is just another way of segregating education is another argument


  • Options
    #44
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Historically the State gave grants (to schools who owned their own buildings) for building work and extensions etc. and they still do. The new building extensions were then privately owned because the grant money was given with no strings attached, for free. Those schools were exempt from equality legislation and still are.
    VEC schools were in public ownership and were 100% free of discrimination in their admissions policies.
    ET is a private patron, but does not breach any equality laws by its own choice.
    Now we are into new territory; a publicly owned school, currently with a private patron who wishes to use religious discrimination.


  • Options
    #45
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    Yes, exactly, it's an interesting time.


  • Options
    #46
    FirstIn
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭FirstIn


    "Now we are into new territory; a publicly owned school, currently with a private patron who wishes to use religious discrimination."

    Whether you like it or not religious discrimination is the norm for faith based school admissions. The norm is for COI kids to be discriminated against. Here we have a small number from the minority that will benefit from what is a common approach.

    How people are struggling with this is beyond me. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And I tell you the goose is almost always the benefactor! Remember less than 5% of the population are COI.


  • Options
    #47
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    recedite wrote: »
    Historically the State gave grants (to schools who owned their own buildings) for building work and extensions etc. and they still do. The new building extensions were then privately owned because the grant money was given with no strings attached, for free. Those schools were exempt from equality legislation and still are.
    VEC schools were in public ownership and were 100% free of discrimination in their admissions policies.
    ET is a private patron, but does not breach any equality laws by its own choice.
    Now we are into new territory; a publicly owned school, currently with a private patron who wishes to use religious discrimination.

    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.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #48
    Langerland
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭Langerland


    Oh my days.....

    Is there anything to be said for saying another mass?!?!


  • Options
    #49
    Wicklow Will
    Registered Users Posts: 138 ✭✭Wicklow Will


    FirstIn wrote: »
    "Now we are into new territory; a publicly owned school, currently with a private patron who wishes to use religious discrimination."

    Whether you like it or not religious discrimination is the norm for faith based school admissions. The norm is for COI kids to be discriminated against. Here we have a small number from the minority that will benefit from what is a common approach.

    How people are struggling with this is beyond me. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And I tell you the goose is almost always the benefactor! Remember less than 5% of the population are COI.

    Quite right "First In" ... I think you encapsulate the situation in a very tidy nutshell. I'm perfectly happy to rely on the sense of fair play for which the CoI are known to address the situation. And to be honest I don't know why people are getting in such a tizzy it's not like the CoI community are suddenly reproducing in extraordinary numbers so that their enrolments will preclude those of other religions and none. Total "storm in a teacup" as far as I'm concerned!


  • Options
    #50
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,790 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Langerland wrote: »
    Oh my days.....

    Is there anything to be said for saying another mass?!?!

    that would be an ecumenical matter.


  • Options
    #51
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    FirstIn wrote: »
    "

    How people are struggling with this is beyond me. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And I tell you the goose is almost always the benefactor! Remember less than 5% of the population are COI.

    The issue for me is that they lied during the campaign in order to get patronage. I don't think that that is acceptable, nor fair to the people who put their faith (:D) in them.

    I can understand why they want to positively discriminate, although I don't agree with it myself in this circumstance.

    As for the part I bolded above, I don't agree that just because someone else does something then it justifies my own actions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    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.


  • Options
    #53
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #54
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    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.


  • Options
    #55
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


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

    All I am seeing is opinion - not fact

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #56
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    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,


  • Options
    #57
    zanador
    Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭zanador


    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


  • Options
    #58
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    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.


  • Options
    #59
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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,

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #60
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,880 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    patrickpc
    Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭patrickpc


    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 ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement