Question on Religion and Expulsion

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 13-05-2010 6:57pm

spurious wrote: »

Catholic schools are NOT public schools - they are privately owned. VECs are public schools.

If you don't want the old time religion and all the nonsense that goes with it, go to a VEC run school. The sooner the Church is taken out of every part of Irish education the better.

Remember this in a few years if you have kids and start playing the nationwide 'I have to get them baptised so I can get them into a school', regardless of whether you actually believe any of it.

I know for a FACT it is a public school.

implausible · 13-05-2010 8:43pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

I know for a FACT it is a public school.

If it is a school under the patronage of the Catholic Church, it's technically not a public school.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 13-05-2010 9:01pm

deemark wrote: »

If it is a school under the patronage of the Catholic Church, it's technically not a public school.

I don't think the church are actually giving the school money. However I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is that the state is their primary source of funding.

theowen · 13-05-2010 9:04pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

I don't think the church are actually giving the school money. However I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is that the state is their primary source of funding.

They own the buildings sure.

spurious · 13-05-2010 9:04pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

What I am sure of is that the state is their primary source of funding.

Yes, but it is still a privately-owned school, NOT a public school, regardless of who pays for it.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 13-05-2010 9:25pm

spurious wrote: »

Yes, but it is still a privately-owned school, NOT a public school, regardless of who pays for it.

Hang on a second. You're telling me that even though all the staff are civil servants, the board of directors are all elected parents of students of the school, and the school is funded (more than likely entirely) by the state, there are absolutely no fees for attending the school, and the state pay for all equipment/building works etc. it's still a privately owned school?

Because that seems absolutely ridiculous to me.

EDIT: Also, I have never heard a word about the "owner" of the school. We would surely have heard it some way or other.

EDIT2: Additionally, it is on the list of VECs.

implausible · 13-05-2010 9:35pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

I don't think the church are actually giving the school money. However I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is that the state is their primary source of funding.

It's not about who pays. The Govt pays the wages of the vast vast majorit of teachers in the country, even teachers in fee-paying 'private' schools.

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

Hang on a second. You're telling me that even though all the staff are civil servants, the board of directors are all elected parents of students of the school, and the school is funded (more than likely entirely) by the state, there are absolutely no fees for attending the school, and the state pay for all equipment/building works etc. it's still a privately owned school?

Neither is it about ownership, technically, it's about patronage. The Catholic Church owns the building (probably) and runs the school for the Dept of Education. It's like an historical contract with the Irish state. Without the church, there would be very few schools in the country.

If you look, you should find that there is a clergy person or a Bishop's representative on the board of management.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 13-05-2010 9:37pm

See edit2 of my last post - it's a VEC. There are only parents of students on the board, they are elected each year.

EDIT:

Deemark wrote:

It's not about who pays. The Govt pays the wages of the vast vast majorit of teachers in the country, even teachers in fee-paying 'private' schools.

if that were true, why is it that when the teachers were striking last year my friends and girlfriend, who go to private schools, were not affected? I'm talking about more than one school here.

randylonghorn · 13-05-2010 10:08pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

Hang on a second. You're telling me that even though all the staff are civil servants ...

Firstly, teachers aren't civil servants, they're public servants. It may seem like just a word, but it actually makes a pretty substantial difference in many ways.

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

the board of directors are all elected parents of students of the school, and the school is funded (more than likely entirely) by the state, there are absolutely no fees for attending the school, and the state pay for all equipment/building works etc. it's still a privately owned school?

Quoted from Wikipedia for handiness (not certain about the percentages, but they don't seem far off certainly:

Voluntary secondary schools, or just "secondary schools", are owned and managed by religious communities or private organizations. The state funds 90% of teachers' salaries and 95% of other costs. Such schools cater for 57% of secondary pupils.

Vocational schools are owned and managed by Vocational Education Committees, with 93% of their costs met by the state. These schools educate 28% of secondary pupils.

Comprehensive schools or community schools were established in the 1960s, often by amalgamating voluntary secondary and vocational schools. They are fully funded by the state, and run by local boards of management. Nearly 15% of secondary pupils attend such schools

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

EDIT: Also, I have never heard a word about the "owner" of the school. We would surely have heard it some way or other.

It tends to be something which is so much part of our history nationally and indeed locally that it is pretty much taken for granted unless you are involved at some level.

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

if that were true, why is it that when the teachers were striking last year my friends and girlfriend, who go to private schools, were not affected? I'm talking about more than one school here.

I'm not sure, tbh, but possibly because the teachers in such schools don't tend to be unionised / have different contractual arrangements with the schools themselves?

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 13-05-2010 10:16pm

randylonghorn wrote: »

Firstly, teachers aren't civil servants, they're public servants. It may seem like just a word, but it actually makes a pretty substantial difference in many ways.

Ok, wasn't sure of that, cheers for the info!

However, as for the rest, I have established that my school is definitely a state school. I am absolutely 100% sure of this, so there's no point in anyone telling me it's not.

implausible · 13-05-2010 10:32pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

See edit2 of my last post - it's a VEC. There are only parents of students on the board, they are elected each year.

if that were true, why is it that when the teachers were striking last year my friends and girlfriend, who go to private schools, were not affected? I'm talking about more than one school here.

Just because they didn't strike, doesn't mean they aren't public servants which they are (unless you're talking about a grind school, which is run as a business). It just means they aren't in a union.

It is impossible that there are only parents on the board of a VEC school. The board of management must consist of staff representatives, parent representatives and political representatives.

If you were in a VEC school, surely you would have noticed before now

Flaregon · 13-05-2010 10:36pm

just dont enter the class and say your a member of a religion not teached.
I'm quite sure they don't preach about Xenu in school ROFL .

spurious · 13-05-2010 10:37pm

If it's a VEC school, then it is usually inter-denominational and you can't be 'made' go to Catholic faith based classes.

Unless the school formed as an amalgamation between a Catholic school and a VEC school?

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 13-05-2010 10:52pm

deemark wrote: »

Just because they didn't strike, doesn't mean they aren't public servants which they are (unless you're talking about a grind school, which is run as a business). It just means they aren't in a union.

It is impossible that there are only parents on the board of a VEC school. The board of management must consist of staff representatives, parent representatives and political representatives.

If you were in a VEC school, surely you would have noticed before now

VEC is not in the title of the school, however I managed to find out by looking at some school documents. I can't give too much information here, it would be too easy to find out my exact school if I did. However, it is a state school, fact.

implausible · 13-05-2010 11:06pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

VEC is not in the title of the school, however I managed to find out by looking at some school documents. I can't give too much information here, it would be too easy to find out my exact school if I did. However, it is a state school, fact.

It wouldn't be in the title of the school; the school would be called X College or Y Community College. County or City of Z VEC would be on the letterheads and website etc. Does your school take part in VEC sports days; are most of the teachers TUI members (as opposed to being in the ASTI); and is your school on the county or city VEC's website?

If so, it should be a lot easier to opt out of religion classes and I'm surprised that this teacher's attitude and teaching is tolerated.

randylonghorn · 13-05-2010 11:09pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

VEC is not in the title of the school, however I managed to find out by looking at some school documents. I can't give too much information here, it would be too easy to find out my exact school if I did. However, it is a state school, fact.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like it may be a community school (see my post above) which are usually handled administratively by the VECs ... in which case this may well apply ...

spurious wrote: »

Unless the school formed as an amalgamation between a Catholic school and a VEC school?

... and something may have been written into the agreement to amalgamate to 'safeguard the teaching of the faith' in the new school.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 13-05-2010 11:43pm

No VEC days.
Don't know what union any of the teachers are in.
The school is on the VEC site of my county.

As I have now said a number of times, I am certain it's a public school.

randylonghorn · 14-05-2010 1:05am

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

As I have now said a number of times, I am certain it's a public school.

No one is doubting you! ... especially as all non-private schools in Ireland are 'public schools' in a broad sense. The phrase doesn't mean much in Ireland really. In England if you speak of a 'public school' you mean (paradoxically) a private or independent school, like Rugby for example.

In the US, there has been a long history of debate and indeed court cases about the issue of prayer in the classroom in 'public schools' and similar issues. The US Constitution's First Amendment has been interpreted as implying that public school teachers, principals, and boards be religiously neutral:

- They may not promote a particular religion as being superior to any other.
- They may not promote religion in general as superior to a secular approach to life.
- Conversely, they may not promote secularism in general as superior to a religious approach to life, nor may they may be antagonistic to religion in general or a particular religious belief in particular, nor, indeed, may they be antagonistic to secularism.
- In short, they must neither advance nor inhibit religion; they are required to remain neutral.

That however is the US Constitution.

The fact that a school is a public school here implies none of those things.

But anyway, I honestly think that's all a red herring.

While I sympathise with you if you're being subjected to a doctrinaire extremist a couple of hours a week, nevertheless given that you have a mere week or two to go, my advice to you would still be to let it slide off your back and put your mental energy into your studies rather than into issues of constitutional law. If you do go on to study law next year, you will discover that the words "simple" and "straightforward" have been banished by lawyers centuries ago as likely to lead to a reduction in their fees!

In this case there are a number of clauses in the constitution re religion, the freedom to express it and the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds which have to be balanced one against the other, to the lawyers' delight. There is a body of case law and precedent. There is the whole complicated history of the evolution of the Irish educational system, and the different types of schools, and how all of that interacts with the above. By the sounds of it, there are local factors, and personalities, and people who like or don't like other people, all muddying the waters.

If I were you, I would tune out of the whole damn thing and focus on your LC (and please don't tell me that's what you're trying to do by fighting for these extra study classes, because whatever about earlier in the year, at this stage the potential gain is much less than the potential expenditure of time and mental energy!

)

Maybe you can work up the whole question for a college project if you do get into law, and get some good out of the experience that way?

LutherBlissett · 14-05-2010 7:25pm

If you get into Law, you'll soon discover that the Constitution is not some sort of trump card, to be played when you get fed up with the status quo.

The mark of a good lawyer is one who will stay and debate issues, not one who leaves when they think they might get bored or have a moral objection. Law is fundamentally underpinned by a necessity to engage with issues, not sweep them under the carpet and ignore them.

There's also a hierarchy of sources. In terms of a school, unless you are willing to pay the thousands of euros associated with a constitutional battle, school rules outrank the Constitution.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 14-05-2010 10:58pm

LutherBlissett wrote: »

If you get into Law, you'll soon discover that the Constitution is not some sort of trump card, to be played when you get fed up with the status quo.

The mark of a good lawyer is one who will stay and debate issues, not one who leaves when they think they might get bored or have a moral objection. Law is fundamentally underpinned by a necessity to engage with issues, not sweep them under the carpet and ignore them.

There's also a hierarchy of sources. In terms of a school, unless you are willing to pay the thousands of euros associated with a constitutional battle, school rules outrank the Constitution.

If you'd actually read all of my posts you would have seen that this is my last resort. I have tried again and again to sort this out. I have gone to everyone who can actually do something about it and would listen, and nothing has happened. I have told the teacher along with the rest of my class that she is extremely biased when she's teaching us and she had none of it. There is no point trying to talk to this woman and expecting to be treated like anything more than a 9 year old.
I have stayed and debated, I've been doing it for the last 8 months. Now the class is essentially a joke, and a complete waste of time. If you want to continue attempting this poor attempt at a psychological trick (that is, trying to tell me I won't be a good lawyer if I don't shut up and swallow it) be my guest. You're not much better than the religion teacher talking down to me like that.

Also, the part in bold is completely against the principles of justice. No one should have to have the money to go to court for their rights to be granted to them, that's absolutely ridiculous. That's like saying the constitution doesn't apply to poor people, because they can't afford to take anyone to court. In fact, it's not like saying that, that's exactly what you're saying. The school rules do not outrank the constitution because I don't have the money for a big legal battle. The only reason I was unsure of the legality of the situation was because I had signed a document agreeing to follow the school rules. I have now been informed that you can't sign away your rights; they can only be balanced against the rights of others.

LutherBlissett · 15-05-2010 11:59am

Trust me, the principles of justice are very, very different in practicality.

Firstly, it is completely true that unless you can afford the exhorbitant price of taking a test case (or find a lawyer willing to do it for free), the Constitution is very much inaccessible to you. You would be talking about appearing in front of the Supreme Court, against some of the most competent lawyers available to the other party to the case. Don't be naive in this regard. Think of recent test cases - Zappone Gilligan, Sinnott, Norris (possibly not so recent). What do they have in common? They are wealthy, influential individuals. I'm not going to speculate on your status obviously, but that's the pre-requisite.

Provided that you aren't signing away certain rights (like life, because it's the ultimate enabling right) or acceding to unreasonable contractual clauses (restraint of trade), you can of course sign away rights. How do you think you could ever convey property otherwise (sign away your right to the land) or sign most contracts? What about covenants not to sue? Again, don't be naive in this regard.

If I were you, I would do myself a massive favour and concentrate on my Leaving Cert - your prospective college only cares about your CAO, not a one person crusade against the school authorities.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 15-05-2010 1:07pm

LutherBlissett wrote: »

Trust me, the principles of justice are very, very different in practicality.

Firstly, it is completely true that unless you can afford the exhorbitant price of taking a test case (or find a lawyer willing to do it for free), the Constitution is very much inaccessible to you. You would be talking about appearing in front of the Supreme Court, against some of the most competent lawyers available to the other party to the case. Don't be naive in this regard. Think of recent test cases - Zappone Gilligan, Sinnott, Norris (possibly not so recent). What do they have in common? They are wealthy, influential individuals. I'm not going to speculate on your status obviously, but that's the pre-requisite.

Provided that you aren't signing away certain rights (like life, because it's the ultimate enabling right) or acceding to unreasonable contractual clauses (restraint of trade), you can of course sign away rights. How do you think you could ever convey property otherwise (sign away your right to the land) or sign most contracts? What about covenants not to sue? Again, don't be naive in this regard.

If I were you, I would do myself a massive favour and concentrate on my Leaving Cert - your prospective college only cares about your CAO, not a one person crusade against the school authorities.

That's not what you said the first time. You said the school rules outrank the constitution. Which is completely untrue. There's no point trying to twist your words on a forum, because I can go back and read what you said earlier.

You're only balancing or mitigating your rights against the rights of others. You not signing away your rights to own land. You're signing away the deeds of ownership. You still have the right to own land. Are you a practicing solicitor? I doubt it, seeing as you're in a leaving cert forum. I have been told this by a solicitor in my family. EDIT: and also by a few legal professionals on boards.

ULgirl2010 · 15-05-2010 3:05pm

ok no offence but your taking it a bit seriously if im honest... i went to a catholic school and we had to do religion (granted we had a nicer teacher who let us "meditate" .. basically sleep

or study during the religion periods in 6th year) but be realistic, you've put all this time and effort into researching this, and getting on the wrong side of your teachers all for what 3 x 40 mins of study in a week! and ive done my leaving cert, and was quite a high achiever.. we had the option of studyin in those classes and not one person did... by the time you get settled and everythin, the class is over! so just chill out over the whole thing honestly, id stop wasting my time and energy if i were you, just stay going to the class and daydream or switch off if you want... trust me letting your mind rest on a non-leaving cert subject 3 times a week will be a lot more beneficial to you, than all your time wasting looking this stuff up, and maybe an extra hour of study a week (which by the way you could make up for by not wasting your time on this whole topic..!)

just my opinion..!

implausible · 15-05-2010 4:59pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

I have stayed and debated, I've been doing it for the last 8 months. Now the class is essentially a joke, and a complete waste of time.

8 MONTHS:eek:

You've spent eight months debating this and fighting with the school in your Leaving Cert year and you're spending more time again posting on here about the school and this class wasting your time. Can you not see the problem?

As I've already reminded you, at some stage in the future you will require a reference from your school. Unless you want it to read "pain in the a**e", I'd advise you to get the head down and study and see those three classes a week as a break from reality.

ldxo15wus6fpgm · 15-05-2010 6:14pm

deemark wrote: »

8 MONTHS:eek:

You've spent eight months debating this and fighting with the school in your Leaving Cert year and you're spending more time again posting on here about the school and this class wasting your time. Can you not see the problem?

As I've already reminded you, at some stage in the future you will require a reference from your school. Unless you want it to read "pain in the a**e", I'd advise you to get the head down and study and see those three classes a week as a break from reality.

Yes, I have been trying to get out of this class for the whole of 6th year. It would be more beneficial if I got just a months worth of r.e. classes to study than absolutely none and be brainwashed be yer wan.

I'll be getting my references from the old headmaster who left last year, I got along very well with him and so did my parents.

As I have already said, having to listen to her spouting crap and treating it as fact, and by doing so making the more gullible elements of my class think so too really winds me up and makes it hard to take the class as a break. She has practically called me out because of my beliefs, and then when I tried to accost her for it (for lack of a better word) she denied everything, and even though the whole class has vouched for me about it, nothing has changed.

MavisDavis · 15-05-2010 6:21pm

Vicente Nutty Sulfur wrote: »

Yes, I have been trying to get out of this class for the whole of 6th year. It would be more beneficial if I got just a months worth of r.e. classes to study than absolutely none and be brainwashed be yer wan.

I'll be getting my references from the old headmaster who left last year, I got along very well with him and so did my parents.

As I have already said, having to listen to her spouting crap and treating it as fact, and by doing so making the more gullible elements of my class think so too really winds me up and makes it hard to take the class as a break. She has practically called me out because of my beliefs, and then when I tried to accost her for it (for lack of a better word) she denied everything, and even though the whole class has vouched for me about it, nothing has changed.

The way I see it: there are two weeks or so left, you've been trying for eight months with no luck; nothing is going to change at this stage.

Sit there and stare at the wall or something going through things in your head. You're going to have to just block her out. Definitions, poetry quotes, essay plans, whatever. It's better than nothing, right?

Just ignore the woman and if she questions your beliefs again, tell her you have the right to believe in what you like and the right to keep those beliefs private. Politely decline to comment on anything she says. Don't wind her up, it's probably what she wants.

I know exactly what it's like to be made go to a class like that, where you hate the teacher and get nothing done. Fighting it at this stage will only cause you stress, though and you're going to be under enough pressure in the coming weeks. To be blunt: drop it for your own sake.

Question on Religion and Expulsion

Comments