We're racist, as we never knew they were coming?

Sleepy

HollyB wrote: »

If parents don't want their child in a denominational school, push for the founding of an Educate Together school or similar. Have both state schools and denominational schools, fund both and allow parents to exercise their constitutional right to direct the education of their children and choose which school they will send them to.

If people truly feel that denominational schools will not meet their child's need, they will enrol them in the state schools. The numbers in the denominational schools will drop, until eventually those schools are in the minority.

However, perhaps it will turn out that there are significant numbers who favour denominational schools for their children and who will exercise their right to opt for those schools, in which case, the two systems will have to co-exist.

Why should parents have to 'push' for non-denominational education for their children? They have a constitutional right to this as allowing the Catholic Church to run the majority of the State's education system is placing it in the 'special position' which has been removed from it.

HollyB

Sleepy wrote: »

Why should parents have to 'push' for non-denominational education for their children? They have a constitutional right to this as allowing the Catholic Church to run the majority of the State's education system is placing it in the 'special position' which has been removed from it.

The State can only get away with allowing the Catholic Church and other religious bodies to act as patrons of the majority of schools as long as the voting public allows them to do so. If parents don't want to send their child to a denominational school, they need to make their feelings known. They need to demand non-denominational schools if that's what they want.

Ideally, the government should be ensuring adequate provision of non-denominational state schools, particularly in areas where there are higher percentages of non-Catholic children, but the sad fact of the matter is that they often don't do this unless they are pushed or unless a situation like the one in Balbriggan arises and they are forced to act.

If someone is either not a Catholic, or a Catholic who would rather send their child to a non-denominational school, would you say that they are more likely to get a place for their child in the nearest Catholic school or to campaign for a non-denominational school?

HollyB

Sleepy wrote: »

Why should denominational schools be allowed at all?

Short answer - because parents are entitled to send their children to denominational schools if they so choose, and they should be just as entitled as any other parent for their child to receive a free primary education, regardless of whether they opt for denominational or non-denominational schools.

Sleepy wrote: »

If a school has a given religion's ethos and uses any of the school day to provide religious instruction, they are failing their students. A school is a place of education, not indoctrination. The time spent on this indoctrination is time the students are missing out on. If parents want their children to be indoctrinated into their faith (which personally I'd disagree with), it should be on their time, not that of their child's education.

Perhaps there are parents who see religion as a part of their child's education.

As a matter of curiousity, are there any primary schools where religion is not taught? Perhaps, with the standardized tests, the question over whether the teaching of religion in school is compromising children's education could be settled by comparing scores.

If children do much better in the non-denominational schools, then parents will want to send their child there. If children in denominational schools do as well or better, then perhaps religion classes aren't compromising their education as much as you may fear.

Sleepy wrote: »

The state seriously failed the children of Ireland by passing up the chance to take the land the schools are built on in exchange for settling the bill for the Catholic Church's abuse scandals.

Yes, that really was a crappy deal that was hammered out - whose bright idea was it to set a cap on the Church's contribution? Unfortunately, unless that deal can be renegotiated, there's nothing to be done.

Short of buying the schools and their land back under the compulsory purchase scheme - market price + 25% or something like that, I think - the State can't take the schools back from the Church.

Hotblack Desiato

HollyB wrote: »

Mostly because it has been convenient for the State to allow the Catholic church to continue to administer the schools, rather than building and running state schools.

Yes it has been convenient. It also used to be convenient for the State to consign orphaned or troubled kids into religious run industrial schools, rather than have to actually deal with social problems. Doing something because it is the most convenient option is just not good enough.

The Catholic church is providing schools for Catholic children, and going above and beyond by taking in non-Catholics when they have sufficient resources to do so.

Whoopee-doo. They're using taxpayers' money to fund this 'generosity' :rolleyes: it's the bloody least they can do. They are still permitted to prioritise Catholic kids, and to hire and fire teachers according to how their private life fits into the local bishop's idea of what is 'appropriate'.

It is for the State to provide state schools where those schools are needed and given that they have access to Census records, they should have a pretty fair idea how many non-Catholic children will be needing infant class places every year, where those children are and if there is sufficient class places in either schools of the child's denomination, or in multi-denominational or non-denominational schools nearby.

They should be doing this for everyone, including those who are nominally Catholic on the census. Secular should be the default model. To provide one type of state-funded education for certain religions only is discriminatory.

Constitutionally, parents are fully entitled to send their child to a Catholic school if they so choose. The State is obliged to give reasonable aid to those schools.

I agree that that is the case, nonetheless I would favour a constitutional amendment to remove all state funding from religious-run schools (and hospitals.) We should have full separation of church and state.

If State funding was removed from those schools and all Catholic schools became private and fee-paying, then a very strong case could be made that parents were being obliged to send their children to State schools "in violation of their conscience and lawful preference".

See above.

Now there's an idea! Back to the days of paid education. He who pays the piper calls the tune, so they can have whatever kind of school they like.

It wasn't my suggestion and I don't agree with it.

A bit unfair on the kids whose parents can't afford to pay for their education, of course - but then again, it's also unfair to expect some parents to fund an educational system that their child will not be allowed to benefit from if they exercise their right to choose a denominational school.

Yet it's fair to prevent almost all parents from having a real choice over whether they can send their kids to a religious-run primary school or not?

Hold on a sec - aren't people still enrolling their children in denominational schools? Are you suggesting that every parent who enrols their child in a denominational school feels that they are sending their child into an outdated educational system that is inappropriate to today's needs? Why are they doing this if that is the case?

They are doing it because they don't have a choice and don't have the time or resources to set up a school (and it is ridiculous for the State to suggest, yet again, that a private group should pick up and run with the baton so that the State can continue to neglect its responsibilities.)

They are not devoid of options. If they feel strongly enough about it, they are constitutionally entitled to educate their children at home if they so choose. They also have the option to push for the founding of non-denominational schools and/or multi-denominational schools in their area.

In reality, most parents ARE devoid of options. Few can afford to home-school even if they agreed with it (many people don't.)

If parents don't want their child in a denominational school, push for the founding of an Educate Together school or similar.

ET is not non-denominational, it is multi-denominational.

Have both state schools and denominational schools, fund both and allow parents to exercise their constitutional right to direct the education of their children and choose which school they will send them to.

That would be nice. We are very very far away from that ideal, indeed.

If people truly feel that denominational schools will not meet their child's need, they will enrol them in the state schools. The numbers in the denominational schools will drop, until eventually those schools are in the minority.

But until those options exist, parents cannot choose them, therefore the government and churches can keep on pretending that the status quo is what everyone wants :rolleyes:

AckwelFoley

WE NEED TO EDUCATE THESE PEOPLE.


iF WE DONT WE'LL HAVE GHETTOS OF YOUNG UNEDUCATED BLACK KIDS THAT WILL FIND SOMTHING TO DO OUTSIDE BEING USEFUL TO OUR ECONOMY.

tHEY ARE HERE, SO WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IT..

sorry about the caps lock.. i wasnt looking at the screen as i was typing

HollyB

ninja900 wrote: »

Yes it has been convenient. It also used to be convenient for the State to consign orphaned or troubled kids into religious run industrial schools, rather than have to actually deal with social problems. Doing something because it is the most convenient option is just not good enough.

Unfortunately, the State is going to take the most convenient route as long as voters are prepared to allow them to.

ninja900 wrote: »

Whoopee-doo. They're using taxpayers' money to fund this 'generosity' :rolleyes: it's the bloody least they can do. They are still permitted to prioritise Catholic kids, and to hire and fire teachers according to how their private life fits into the local bishop's idea of what is 'appropriate'.

Catholics pay taxes. If their preference is to send their children to a Catholic school, those schools should get the same funding as any other school. If they would rather not send them to Catholic schools, then they need to make their feelings known by not sending them to the Catholic schools, and by joining their like-minded neighbours in lobbying the State to fulfil its responsibilities and found a non-denominational state school in their area.

ninja900 wrote: »

They should be doing this for everyone, including those who are nominally Catholic on the census. Secular should be the default model. To provide one type of state-funded education for certain religions only is discriminatory.

Maybe when children are born their parents should be asked what their preference is for a school, denominational or state, to give the State a clear picture of what they will need to be providing four or five years down the line.

ninja900 wrote: »

I agree that that is the case, nonetheless I would favour a constitutional amendment to remove all state funding from religious-run schools (and hospitals.) We should have full separation of church and state.

I think that you might find that particular amendment a difficult one to pass if it came to a referendum. I may not be a Catholic, Protestant, or member of any organized religion, but I would certainly oppose an amendment that was going to affect the rights of parents to send their children to denominational schools if they so choose.

ninja900 wrote: »

They are doing it because they don't have a choice and don't have the time or resources to set up a school (and it is ridiculous for the State to suggest, yet again, that a private group should pick up and run with the baton so that the State can continue to neglect its responsibilities.)

They should be lobbying the State to provide a State-funded, State-run school, and refusing to enrol their children in denominational schools if they object to them. The State isn't going to commit to providing its own schools if they can get away with not doing it.

If they accept the denominational schools, then of course the State isn't going to acknowledge a need for state schools. They'll be happy to leave private and religious organizations carrying the burden for them.

ninja900 wrote: »

In reality, most parents ARE devoid of options. Few can afford to home-school even if they agreed with it (many people don't.)

Isn't the Department of Education obliged to provide home tuition to children when there is no place available for them in an appropriate school within a certain distance - I could be wrong about this, in which case I apologize. One could make the case that this would apply to non-<Religion> children in an area where the only schools available were <Religion> ones.

Perhaps if enough people dig in their heels and insist on state schools or home tuition, the State would realize that they're better off just founding the school.

HollyB

snyper wrote: »

WE NEED TO EDUCATE THESE PEOPLE.

I was under the impression that these children were being educated.

Didn't discussion on this topic begin when a school was founded for the purpose of educating these children, after it emerged that there had not been enough places in existing schools to accomodate them?

Has that school since been shut down?

If not, then while it would have been better for the State to have acted sooner so that the school could be open in time, these children are being provided with an education.

djpbarry

snyper wrote: »

iF WE DONT WE'LL HAVE GHETTOS OF YOUNG UNEDUCATED BLACK KIDS THAT WILL FIND SOMTHING TO DO OUTSIDE BEING USEFUL TO OUR ECONOMY.

What a wonderfully enlightened statement :rolleyes:.

Jack Sheehan

Sleepy wrote: »

Why should denominational schools be allowed at all?

Seriously.

If a school has a given religion's ethos and uses any of the school day to provide religious instruction, they are failing their students. A school is a place of education, not indoctrination. The time spent on this indoctrination is time the students are missing out on. If parents want their children to be indoctrinated into their faith (which personally I'd disagree with), it should be on their time, not that of their child's education.

The state seriously failed the children of Ireland by passing up the chance to take the land the schools are built on in exchange for settling the bill for the Catholic Church's abuse scandals.

I really really don't like the argument that Religious Schools engage in 'indoctrination'. My school is a Christian Brothers School (Oatlands College) and not once in my years there have I encountered one teacher telling me about Catholic beliefs. My Religious Education is about quote 'the search for meaning and values', mythology, world religions, the whole issue of faith and philosophy including camus,marx etc.

So no I don't accept that no schools should be denominational.

wildsaffy

Here we go again Snyper - are you a closet racist or something? When I trip over someone on the Ha'penny bridge it is not a black person begging ......go figure.

I remember years ago (about 1999/2000) some statement made in the EC that Ireland was best placed to learn from the experiences and examples of other countries in dealing with immigrants.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

So if there are not enough places in schools - wise up - why is this? Irish parents were feeling the squeeze already.

And it goes without saying - other things - road policies, health policies etc.

Its all back down to short term policy mentality and winning votes. If the EC commented on this in 1999 and I was a policy maker ..... then ....why the mess?



But to be fair - it is not the fault of the educators, Catholic or not, in Ireland. The Irish education system remains one of the best in the world. with real dedicated educators and professionals.