School patronage

robindch · 01-09-2020 11:06pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Did nobody else have bamboo canes?

In the early 1980's, the boys-only secondary school I went to had one bamboo cane which was held in the headmaster's office and which was taken out and whipped five times across the backsides of the sufficiently naughty - a process known in the school as "flogging".

Memory, possibly faulty since I was never flogged myself and had to rely instead on possibly-unreliable reports from suitably injured friends and colleagues, suggests that the previous headmaster, who'd thrown in the towel at the end of the 1970's, used to flog students bareback, while our later and more enlightened headmaster preserved the modesty of students by allowing them to keep aloft their trousers and underpants.

Hotblack Desiato · 02-09-2020 2:51am

Odhinn wrote: »

Every now and again the corpo bin truck would come in to collect the bins and a few lads would take a scute on the truck on its way out. One day a lad hopped on, not knowing that principal had decided this was the greatest threat facing western civilisation. He caught yer man on the truck, and removed him by dint of whipping the legs off the young fella (who was wearing shorts) so as to make him fall off. The sight of the lad on the ground seemed to trigger him to an even greater rage, and he whipped the legs off him, leaving deep marks and breaking the skin. At this stage the victim was blubbering and begging the principle to stop. Phase two saw the victim being hauled up by the ear and pushed forward ahead of the principle, who used the two to three paces space to give almighty whips to the backs of his legs. He fell again, was beaten and hauled up and dragged/pushed towards the principles office.

Vicious. But not that uncommon for the time I'd wager :mad:

Odhinn · 02-09-2020 3:07pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Vicious. But not that uncommon for the time I'd wager :mad:

Not uncommon no. That one sticks with me though, as the victim was pleading for mercy and that seemed to spur the poxy priest on.

robindch · 02-09-2020 10:49pm

Odhinn wrote: »

That one sticks with me though, as the victim was pleading for mercy and that seemed to spur the poxy priest on.

It's an awful image - one could only imagine what was going through the mind of the victim and priest at the time - unspeakable behaviour which I'd like to think would result in a straightforward and successful criminal prosecution today.

A guy I know who went to Synge Street Christian Brothers in central Dublin told me about the time the headmaster there caned, leathered, boxed or whatever the son of some local dude who showed up the following morning inside the school buildings, roaring at the top of his voice demanding that the headmaster show himself, and when the headmaster did show up at the top of some stairs, he explained in short, blunt terms that if the headmaster ever touched his son again, he'd return to the school and beat seven kinds of sh*te out of him.

In my own school, back in the 1950's, the then-headmaster famously decided, for whatever reasons now long lost in time, to cane every boy in the school which amounted I think to around 120 boys at the time. The students were all duly lined up and the headmaster started off, strongly at first, five of the best on each boy's bended arse, but as time wore on, the work became tougher, and the queue, which he couldn't see from his closed office, failed to shorten by much, especially after the majority of students simply returned to the end of the queue to see how long the headmaster would last. The students, of course, won and neither he, nor any subsequent headmaster, ever tried that particular trick again.

Hotblack Desiato · 14-09-2020 11:39pm

Catholic schools say they are powerless in bid to end ‘sibling-first’ admissions

Catholic primary schools say they are powerless to resist orders issued by the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin to drop admission rules that give priority to places for siblings of existing pupils.

The Archdiocese of Dublin – the patron body for about 400 schools in Dublin, Wicklow and parts of Kildare, Carlow, Laois and Wexford – has asked all primary schools to update admissions policies over the coming weeks.

Schools who operate “sibling-first” enrolment policies say they have been instructed by the archdiocese to grant parity to all children in the local catchment area, rather than giving preference to siblings of pupils.

In a letter to parents, the board of management of Our Lady’s Grove Primary School in Dublin 14 said it had wanted to continue to offer priority admission, but the archdiocese would not approve this.

The letter states that the board of management consulted other schools in the locality who were “ experiencing a similar difficulty in relation to the changes to admissions policy insisted upon by the patron.

“However, it is now clear that the patron insists that Our Lady’s Grove and, indeed, other schools in the Archdiocese, adopt a standard admission policy, which does not permit a school to prioritise siblings of current students only in its first category.”

The letter adds: “As the patron is insisting on this point, the board of management must by law, and in accordance with the Education Act, accept the patron’s decision on this point as it cannot by law adopt an admission policy which has not been approved by the patron.”

Saying it was “ extremely disappointed”, Our Lady’s Grove said it is “fully aware of the implications and effect the new admission policy may have on some of our families and staff members in future years”.

The revised admissions policy for schools in the archdiocese are due to come into effect this month. They will apply to children seeking school places for the 2021/22 school year.

Denying that a change is being made to rule, a spokeswoman for the Archdiocese of Dublin said the policy is considered to be “the fairest” and would only affect over-subscribed schools.

Dublin-based Fine Gael TD Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, called on the Archdiocese to provide data on the proportion of places occupied in each class by such enrolments before pressing ahead with any changes.

“Juggling work and dropping children to school is difficult as it currently is for many parents, in particular for single parents.,” she said.

“Arranging drop-offs and collections at different times in different schools would make the planning and practicalities of their week even more difficult for parents.

“Now more than ever, with the rapidly evolving working landscape, we should be trying to work together and consider the whole family unit when making decisions about enrolment policies.”

This is unacceptable. This man can, on a whim and with no accountability whatsoever, change the admission policy of hundreds of the schools we as taxpayers fund.

But what would he know or care about the practicalities of being a parent? Of having children needlessly going to different schools because of an arbitrary policy?

expectationlost · 15-09-2020 12:07am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Catholic schools say they are powerless in bid to end ‘sibling-first’ admissions

This is unacceptable. This man can, on a whim and with no accountability whatsoever, change the admission policy of hundreds of the schools we as taxpayers fund.

But what would he know or care about the practicalities of being a parent? Of having children needlessly going to different schools because of an arbitrary policy?

strangely RTE later reported "Dublin archdiocese keeping 'sibling first' school policy"
https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2020/0914/1165096-dublin-archdiocese-policy/

The Archdiocese of Dublin has said its policies have not changed regarding 'sibling first' enrolment policies.

It follows reports that Catholic schools in Dublin have been advised to end the practice.

However, a spokesperson for the Archdiocese of Dublin told RTÉ News that equal weight will continue to be given to children of the school area and the siblings of current pupils.

which is getting rid of the siblings rule and is the exact opposite of the headline

''This is considered to be the fairest policy,'' according to the Archdiocese.

The Archdiocese of Dublin is the patron body for some 400 schools in the greater Dublin area.

Primary schools across the country have been asked to update their admission policies for the 2021/2022 school year.

The Archdiocese of Dublin said that there will be no major changes for the vast majority of schools but difficulties may arise at a handful of schools that are oversubscribed.

you can see in the IT article that the equal weight rule was already in place but wasn't being enforced so thats why they say they are keeping it

Hotblack Desiato · 15-09-2020 1:13am

Clear as mud. Seems RTE don't have a clue, anyway...

bobbyy gee · 15-09-2020 1:53am

I went to bad school
I thought brothers were christian for taking in the poor little did I know the government paid them 3600 pounds in the 70s-80s

Peregrinus · 15-09-2020 2:03am

expectationlost wrote: »

. . . Which is getting rid of the siblings rule and is the exact opposite of the headline

Is it?

The report says that, according to the archdiocese, "equal weight will continue to be given to children of the school area and the siblings of current pupils", which suggests that there is no change of policy; the policy in place already requires equal weight for siblings and children from area.

One of these reports is wrong. And since the reports come from two different sources, the likely explanation is that one (or both?) of the sources is giving a partial, slanted or misleading view of the situation. Hotblack reckons it's the RTE report that is wrong but, to be honest, I don't see why. The IT report seems to be me to be at least inconsistent; at one point is suggests that all along the diocesan policy has been to give parity to siblings and children from area, but further down it talks about the "revised admission policy" being "due to come into effect this month".

Not great journalism, lads. Lift yer game.

expectationlost · 03-10-2020 11:45am

so another article on this and its a bit clearer to me that they want to remove the sibling first rule for parents who live outside the parish https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/parents-voice-fears-over-end-to-sibling-first-school-admissions-1.4370667 which generally is fine except for people who enrolled their child and then were forced to move, it'll be harder for them. ( and teachers)

Hotblack Desiato · 06-10-2020 1:25am

It's insane to force siblings into different schools, whether through gender or a ridiculous admissions policy.

Totally anti-parent and anti-family but what do the men in dresses care?

lazygal · 06-10-2020 6:07pm

It shows up the insane patronage system for what it is.
Completely dysfunctional and designed to ensure the state pays for everything yet controls virtually nothing.

Yet the majority of these parents continue to support the church that they're supposed to agree with in a patchwork way. They're not supposed to be challenging their religious leaders yet they usually give out when these religious policies don't suit them.

Peregrinus · 07-10-2020 1:42am

To be fair, in an over-subscribed school the tension between prioritising siblings over catchment-area applicants, or vice versa, arises regardless of whether the patron/management of the school is religious or secular. Plenty of people on this very board have criticised church-run schools for not prioritising catchment-area applicants in previous threads.

As a matter of interest, doesn anybody know what position ET schools tend to take on this? (Do ET schools have catchment areas?) Genuine question. I realise that each ET national school adopts its own admissions policy, so there may not be a one-size-fits-all answer to the question.

Treppen · 07-10-2020 7:12am

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be fair, in an over-subscribed school the tension between prioritising siblings over catchment-area applicants, or vice versa, arises regardless of whether the patron/management of the school is religious or secular. Plenty of people on this very board have criticised church-run schools for not prioritising catchment-area applicants in previous threads.

As a matter of interest, doesn anybody know what position ET schools tend to take on this? (Do ET schools have catchment areas?) Genuine question. I realise that each ET national school adopts its own admissions policy, so there may not be a one-size-fits-all answer to the question.

Just a picked a random one... Harold's Cross ET secondary

1. Applicants who have siblings already enrolled in HAROLD’S CROSS
ETSS.
2. Applicants living in the HAROLD’S CROSS ETSS catchment area, as
defined in the attached Department of Education and Skills map
(Appendix 1).
3. Applicants living outside the catchment area of HAROLD’S CROSS
ETSS.

I think people on this thread were criticising not prioritising catchment was because of the tension between catchment and religion of child , not the tension between catchment and sibling.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of people would say that once you've a sibling in the school then their other sibling should get in, irrespective of religion or catchment.

lazygal · 07-10-2020 11:27am

There was an issue raised with ET when it opened a series of new schools with catchment areas imposed on them by the Dept of Ed when religious schools were still free to suit themselves. There's also a secondary school that promised not to discriminate on religious grounds but as soon as it was open and up and running it introduced a policy favouring Protestant children.

I don't think ET schools should have a catchment area. They are few and far between and I don't see why parents like us should have to take the dregs of being 'tolerated' in religious schools over having a school that actually respects our children.

Peregrinus · 07-10-2020 11:35am

lazygal wrote: »

There was an issue raised with ET when it opened a series of new schools with catchment areas imposed on them by the Dept of Ed when religious schools were still free to suit themselves. There's also a secondary school that promised not to discriminate on religious grounds but as soon as it was open and up and running it introduced a policy favouring Protestant children.

I don't think ET schools should have a catchment area. They are few and far between and I don't see why parents like us should have to take the dregs of being 'tolerated' in religious schools over having a school that actually respects our children.

Theres' gotta be some criterion, though, for selecting pupils in the event that the school is oversubscribed. After you've admitted all the siblings, if there are still more applicants than places, how do you pick the successful ones? By lottery?

lazygal · 07-10-2020 11:41am

Our ET school prioritises siblings, children who are older, and then a lottery.

Peregrinus · 07-10-2020 11:46am

lazygal wrote: »

Our ET school prioritises siblings, children who are older, and then a lottery.

Just to clarify, are you saying that (after admitting siblings) they admit children whose birthdays fall earlier in the school year before those whose birthdays are later in the school year? Or kids who seek admission to the more senior classes over those seeking admission to the more junior?

lazygal · 07-10-2020 11:55am

For junior infants admission it's older children ie those who are 4 before 1 March for entry the following September. Not sure about other years' admissions tbh as it would be fairly rare.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-10-2020 1:45am

Catholic symbols in State schools to be phased out

State secondary schools are to phase out a range of Catholic influences such as mandatory graduation masses, the display of Catholic symbols only and visits from diocesan inspectors.

The new rules will apply to more than 200 secondary schools run by the State’s Education and Training Boards (ETBs) – formerly vocational schools – which are officially categorised as multidenominational.

However, an unpublished document on the core values of these schools has raised concern within the sector that Catholic practices are normalised in many State schools.

The “framework for the recognition of religious belief/identities of all students in ETB schools” outlines steps schools should follow to bring them into line with a multidenominational ethos. They include that any religious symbols on display must echo the beliefs of the wider school community rather than one particular religion. It also means schools that symbolically represent religious celebrations should ensure balance, such as a school displaying a crib at Christmas but also Islamic symbols for Eid.

The framework states that ETB schools will not offer religious instruction or faith formation for a particular religion during the school day. Instead schools will offer the State curriculum on religious education in which students learn about a range of different religions and beliefs.

Religion teachers may only receive training from groups that are fully compatible with the multidenominational spirit of an ETB school. The document also states that the only authority that should be allowed to inspect the teaching of religion should be the Department of Education’s inspectorate, rather the diocesan inspectors. Schools events that mark a specific religious event or celebration must be on an opt-in basis rather than requiring students to opt out, it states.

It is understood that the rules will not necessarily apply to a separate category of 70 ETB schools that have legally binding agreements with the Catholic Church that guarantee certain provisions for Catholic children.

Paddy Lavelle, general secretary of Education and Training Boards Ireland, confirmed that the unpublished document formed part of a wider framework addressing the “multidenominational aspect of our schools specifically and the importance of catering for children of all religious and non-religious worldviews equally”.

Seems to be a small step in the right direction, but the State still doesn't have the cojones to take full control of all the schools it fully owns but will continue to pander to the RCC.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-11-2020 1:23am

Female students at Carlow school told not to wear 'distracting' tight clothing

Over 5,000 people have signed a petition criticising a secondary school in Co Carlow for telling female students not to wear tight clothing, as it can be a distraction for teachers.

Dozens of parents of students attending Presentation College Carlow have expressed their anger on social media.

One parent told RTÉ News that her daughter was told not to wear leggings or tight tracksuit bottoms "as they show too much of the female anatomy".

Wishing to remain anonymous, she said the students were also told not to take their jumpers off while in PE.

Parents say the message was given at a number of assemblies last Friday.

The petition on Change.org says female students were told that they "shouldn't show off their female anatomy as it is distracting to the female and male staff of the school".

It urges fellow students to sign the petition against "sexism against female students".

Presentation College Carlow has said the rules concerning the correct wearing of school uniforms have not changed since previous years, other than the introduction of a half-zip top for first year students.

A statement on the school's website this evening said students are regularly reminded of school rules and regulations at assembly.

It said: "The school continues to look after the pastoral care needs of all students through its excellent Pastoral Care / Student Support systems in the school.

"Any queries in relation to the above from parents of students will be dealt with in the normal way through the usual school channels."

...

Singling girls out for what they wear is "inappropriate" and amounts to "body shaming" a Parents' Group has warned.

Mai Fanning, President of the National Parents Council Post Primary, said that at a time when society is "moving on in attitudes to how women are treated", their clothes should not form part of attitudes towards them.

Speaking on RTÉ's Prime Time she said: "My problem would not be that there would be a dress code. My problem would be the rationale behind the decision that was taken. If the rationale behind that was that girls should dress in a particular way, so that they do not distract males from whatever they are suppose to be doing the, that is a big issue.

"If men are distracted as easily, they should not be in a situation where there are young girls," she said.

What do they want, f**king burkas? :rolleyes:

Also they've basically implied that all of their male staff are creeps / pervs too unprofessional to concentrate on their jobs.

The absolute bone-headed decisions that some school principals continue to come out with never cease to amaze me, these are supposedly educated people.

Just the other week, the new principal in my daughter's school decided to hold a full school assembly basically to stroke his own ego. Social distancing was not possible.

This is an iPad school, it could have been all done over VC. At the very least, it could have been done in year groups.

He also unilaterally decided to do away with the first name policy in the school, because it's not what he was "used to" and because he could. This policy has been in place at the school since its inception and was agreed between the patron, previous principal and the parents' council. So now his own staff, the parents and the pupils all think he's a dick and he's barely a month in the job. Smart move.

Peregrinus · 25-11-2020 8:45am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What do they want, f**king burkas? :rolleyes:

Also they've basically implied that all of their male staff are creeps / pervs too unprofessional to concentrate on their jobs.

And not just the male staff; from the report you quote, students have been told that it is distracting the female staff as well.

And perhaps it’s not just the staff who are being denigrated here. When statements of this kind are made, there’s often a subtext implying that the young women who are dressing in this fashion are not innocents, unaware of the effect they are having; but that they are very aware of the effect they produce, they enjoy it and they dress this way precisely to, um, distract people, the shameless hussies. Effectively, the message is that if someone finds them physically attractive, (a) that’s bad, and (b) it’s their fault. This is not a message that young women should be taught.

In defence of the staff - male and female - of this school, none of the reports that I have seen suggest that any of the staff have ever reported that they find themselves distracted by female students doing PE in leggings, still less that they have found this an impediment to proper professional interactions and relations with students. My suspicion is that the supposed distraction is largely imaginary, an excuse for inculcating shame in the young women concerned.

AndrewJRenko · 25-11-2020 10:44am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He also unilaterally decided to do away with the first name policy in the school, because it's not what he was "used to" and because he could. This policy has been in place at the school since its inception and was agreed between the patron, previous principal and the parents' council. So now his own staff, the parents and the pupils all think he's a dick and he's barely a month in the job. Smart move.

If this is an ET school, this might be a good time to escalate to the Board of Management, who may well have a stronger view about the ET ethos.

smacl · 25-11-2020 11:45am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If this is an ET school, this might be a good time to escalate to the Board of Management, who may well have a stronger view about the ET ethos.

My experience from the ET secondary my youngest attends has been that pressure for more conservative dress codes tends to come from the PTA rather than the staff, including in one case the PTA rep on the board of management. That said, it is pretty lax with no uniforms and tends to draw the line at no hot pants or belly tops which is fair enough in my opinion. (My daughter might disagree there :pac: ) Worth remembering you get quite a mix of folks in many ET schools, including Muslims and Hindus, some of which are quite conservative,

AndrewJRenko · 25-11-2020 1:36pm

smacl wrote: »

My experience from the ET secondary my youngest attends has been that pressure for more conservative dress codes tends to come from the PTA rather than the staff, including in one case the PTA rep on the board of management. That said, it is pretty lax with no uniforms and tends to draw the line at no hot pants or belly tops which is fair enough in my opinion. (My daughter might disagree there :pac: ) Worth remembering you get quite a mix of folks in many ET schools, including Muslims and Hindus, some of which are quite conservative,

That's true, though ET as a movement has some core principles, including the 'no uniform' status. There was a motion at one of the recent AGMs to enshrine this.

I'd guess that they may well have a view and/or a principle relating to the first name policy.

Hotblack Desiato · 25-11-2020 6:19pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If this is an ET school, this might be a good time to escalate to the Board of Management, who may well have a stronger view about the ET ethos.

It's a joint patronage school with ETB and another (non-religious) patron, no ET involvement. It has a uniform

BTW there is a joint patronage ET/ETB secondary just outside my area which we couldn't get into, despite ET's involvement it is a uniform school as well.

smacl · 25-11-2020 7:49pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'd guess that they may well have a view and/or a principle relating to the first name policy.

It has always been using first names for both pupils and teachers in the one my daughter attends. Seems to work well, not sure if this is the case for all ET secondaries. In the ET primary my kids went to the teachers were called by their second names.

robindch · 25-11-2020 8:13pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

And not just the male staff; from the report you quote, students have been told that it is distracting the female staff as well.

The plot has thickened somewhat. The school is now saying that the issue wasn't with teachers finding girls running around in tight clothes distracting, but that since the sports' changing rooms are closed due to covid and students must therefore come to school wearing their sports gear, some kids, the majority of whom are girls, had turned it into a minor "fashion show". The original RTE report above is consistent with this explanation, as is the suspicion that the "one parent" consulted by RTE might well have acquired a less-than-complete understanding of events at the school from his/her offspring, presumably a daughter.

Having a teenage daughter myself, I can confirm that these explanations seem entirely plausible, if not almost inevitable too.

https://www.thejournal.ie/presentation-college-carlow-ray-murray-gym-gear-5278098-Nov2020/

Hotblack Desiato · 26-11-2020 10:41am

So, it's possible that 8000 virtual pitchfork-wielders may have jumped the gun or got it a bit wrong? :eek:

Although The Journal says it's 8000 thousand people :pac:

Any other time a school had a problem with pupil(s) not following the uniform standards, they were warned privately and/or sent home and that was the end of it. Why didn't they do that?

robindch · 26-11-2020 10:59am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Any other time a school had a problem with pupil(s) not following the uniform standards, they were warned privately and/or sent home and that was the end of it. Why didn't they do that?

From thejournal article:

TheJournal wrote:

Female students from each year were called to individual assemblies, without any male students present. The principal said this was because it was “primarily the girls” who were not adhering to the rules in relation to PE uniforms.

There could have been so many offenders that it was unfeasible to take them in one by one, and in any case, it would have required the school to select which students were offending and which weren't and by doing that, inevitably, somebody would have felt that their leggings weren't violating school standards - in my kid's school, tops are school-branded, while leggings aren't, so there is flexibility here to start with. Uneven application of rules would obviously cause the same sense of victimhood to arise which seems to have arisen by the school trying to avoid victimizing anybody, by calling all the girls in together and giving them all the same bollocking.

Now in retrospect, they should have called the boys together and issued them exactly the same warning, but - going out on a limb here - I suspect that the number of teenage boys showing up to a country school in skintight leggings with their underpants visible through their leggings was precisely zero, so the lecture would have been pointless and may well have detracted from the authority of the same lecture being delivered to the girls. Lecturing the boys and girls together would, imho, have had the boys snort-sniggering and been completely counter-productive.

On the basis of thejournal's article, I'm really not seeing a problem here other than a social media campaign which took one report from an anonymous source (on the RTE site anyway), constructed an effective victimhood narrative which then went viral with few if any people first making an effort to find out what actually happened.

School patronage

Comments