New Patronage-what do you think?

byhookorbycrook

I am following this with interest.I am looking for views from those in the primary sector, not a religious debate-plenty of threads doimg that here already
It will a long process, I'd imagine. I wonder if the schools would only be relinquished where there are many other schools. How would it work in a small village for example? Suppose 80% want to maintain the status quo-what about the other 20%?

E.T.

My big question is what way will the patronage be decided/debated?

The majority of kids in my class don't see the inside of a church except for sacraments, Christmas etc. Will the debate include parents of such children, or will it be confined to the regular mass-going congregation (in which case it won't be a true picture of opinions)? Will the debate include all parents in every school in order to find a truer picture at local level?

Will teachers be asked their opinion and beliefs? What will happen if a teacher in a Catholic school publicly states that they don't want to teach a Catholic scheme, and then the community decides they want this taught? At the moment there is very little choice for teachers outside of cities or very large towns regarding teaching in a Catholic school. There are plenty of teachers who would be happier not teaching religion for many reasons.

byhookorbycrook

Should parents who have preschool children be asked?I'd hope so. If religion is taken from schools it will be interesting to see which parents will actually take a pro-active role in sacrament preparation?

yurmothrintites

I know the church said they will willingly give over patronage of selected schools but I can't see R. Quinn's target of 50% being at all possible. Doesn't the Catholic church own many school buildings and grounds? I can't see them willingly handing over their assets in the context of 50% school buildings and grounds for nothing.

Where the majority of parents of existing and incoming students are in favor of the re-drafting of a particular school's patronage, it is a good idea, but where the opposite's the case, I can't see how it will done.

Orion

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Should parents who have preschool children be asked?I'd hope so. If religion is taken from schools it will be interesting to see which parents will actually take a pro-active role in sacrament preparation?

Many will. In ET schools the parents organise and arrange all sacrament preparation. Even in our school which currently only has 100 pupils there are parents organising first communion. They hold classes in the school and the local pp is involved. This is in Maynooth which has catholic schools. These parents had the choice to go to catholic schools and chose ET instead but still want their children to go through the sacraments. In the small village you mention there is no choice for those who don't want a religious upbringing.

Kathnora

Well, first of all R. Quinn did say that changes in the management of schools etc would be dependent on the state of the country's finances. So, while decisions may be made within a year I wouldn't be holding my breath re the timing of the actual implementation of such changes!. . .
That said I do welcome change and it's long overdue. I do hope though that when/if parents have a real choice as to what school to send their children to that those who willingly send their children to Catholic schools will turn out to be "real" Catholics and not the "a la carte" variety we have at present. I do think too that Catholic schools of the future should be able to expect a more active participation among its pupils and parents with regard to the practice of Religion, especially if the parents have made a free and conscious decision to educate their children in a Catholic school. This would make the teaching of Religion so much easier on the teacher.
It has to be said too that many priests are good school managers and they don't get paid by the Dept of Education for that particular role. Who will fill their shoes in a competent manner? I know E.T. schools have lay managers too but are there enough committed people out there who are willing to give their time to this unpaid job? Will a bigger burden fall on an already busy principal? Or . . will the principal be given the freedom to run the school without the watchful eye of a good manager? Will a new school manager have the necessary knowledge and expertise in education to run a school in a competent manner? I'd like to think that some time and thought will be invested in this area of the forthcoming process.
Personally, if given a choice I would opt to teach in a Catholic school and am committed to teaching Religion (though wouldn't mind if sacrament preparation was done outside school hours as it eats into curricular time in a big way). However, at present I don't find myself teaching the converted!

PcAngel

There are plenty of other priorities for Ruairi Quinn to deal with, this being one example :
The INTO has been in further contact with the DES in relation to the decision to pause the allocation of resource teaching hours with immediate effect.
The DES has confirmed to the INTO that no sanctions have been withdrawn. The INTO advises, therefore, that schools who have received approval for hours for the current school year may continue to fill those hours.
A number of schools have also received confirmation of roll-over allocations for the next school year. However, not all schools had been notified before the pause on allocations was announced.
The full extent of projected provision for next year is now being determined by the NCSE and DES.
The INTO is meeting with the DES next week to discuss the situation and a further update will be posted after the meeting.

This will have a huge effect on schools along with cutbacks to SNA's, ratio increasing, overcrowding, cabins etc.

Kathnora

I agree PCAngel about priorities and the Resource hours issue is a serious one. But, the topic in this thread is the school management issue hence my comments related specifically to R. Quinn's plans concerning school management. I do realise that there are more important issues that need attention.

lazygal

Kathnora wrote: »

I agree PCAngel about priorities and the Resource hours issue is a serious one. But, the topic in this thread is the school management issue hence my comments related specifically to R. Quinn's plans concerning school management. I do realise that there are more important issues that need attention.

As someone who's planning on having children in the next year or so and as an atheist couple, this is a MAJOR priority for us. I have zero choice where I live about where I can send my children to school so I welcome this development. I don't want a Catholic education for my children but right now its like it or lump it in my area.

I can't think of a more important issue than addressing who dictates the education of our children and removing churches from 92% of schools TBH.

Kathnora

I appreciate your concerns lazygal and you do have the courage to stand up for your convictions. R. Quinn did say that in areas where there would be no alternative to the Catholic school that children of atheists etc would be catered for in the Catholic school. While this may please you it does alarm me. If I choose to teach in a Catholic school why should my principal provide teachers and resources to cater for non believers? Teachers and resources are very scarce on the ground. Teachers are obliged to give 30 mins daily instruction in Religion. Our curriculum is hugely overloaded and I rarely get Religion done for 30 mins daily myself. So, how and when are us teachers supposed to cater for non believers too? Does R. Quinn expect us to provide an alternative curriculum for these children? HE certainly won't be paying for extra teachers in these hard times, that's for sure. So . . . . lots of food for thought!

lazygal

As a taxpayer I don't see why parents shouldn't pay for their children to be prepared for sacrements on their own time and leave the religion to the private sector.

Kathnora

Are you suggesting lazygal that there should be no denominational schools at all even if some parents want them provided? Can't agree with you there, I'm afraid. Each to their own etc. . . Just as you are entitled to have a non-denominational school, so too are those who want one are entitled to their choice too..... that's only fair, isn't it? I do agree as I said in an earlier post about preparation for sacraments in particular being done outside of school hours owing to the huge infringement on teaching time and the overloaded curriculum we have in our schools.

lazygal

Kathnora wrote: »

Are you suggesting lazygal that there should be no denominational schools at all even if some parents want them provided? Can't agree with you there, I'm afraid. Each to their own etc. . . Just as you are entitled to have a non-denominational school, so too are those who want one are entitled to their choice too..... that's only fair, isn't it? I do agree as I said in an earlier post about preparation for sacraments in particular being done outside of school hours owing to the huge infringement on teaching time and the overloaded curriculum we have in our schools.

Yes I am. Why should my taxes pay for facilitating other peoples' religious affiliations? It's your choice to be of a faith, so why should those of no faith pay for it? Religion and superstition has no place in a modern school system.

Kathnora

lazygal wrote: »

Yes I am. Why should my taxes pay for facilitating other peoples' religious affiliations? It's your choice to be of a faith, so why should those of no faith pay for it? Religion and superstition has no place in a modern school system.

And it's your choice to be of no faith so I could argue that my taxes shouldn't be used to set up schools that will suit your convictions! There has to be compromise and other countries have managed to balance faith schools with non denominational schools, so we should be able to do that in Ireland too. Extremism at either end of the spectrum doesn't help create a very tolerant society,does it?

crucamim

lazygal wrote: »

Yes I am. Why should my taxes pay for facilitating other peoples' religious affiliations? It's your choice to be of a faith, so why should those of no faith pay for it? Religion and superstition has no place in a modern school system.

Why should any Catholic pay tax to educate your child if you are not paying tax to educate Catholic children?

Why should any Catholic allow his child to share a classroom or playground with the child of a person who regards religion as superstition? You have rights. So have Catholics.

Please leave it to Catholics to decide what should have a place in a modern Catholic school. Please leave it to Protestants to decide what should have a place in a modern Protestant school. Please leave it to Muslims to decide what should have a place in a modern Muslim school. And you secularists have a right to decide what should have a place in a modern secular school.

crucamim

Kathnora wrote: »

I appreciate your concerns lazygal and you do have the courage to stand up for your convictions. R. Quinn did say that in areas where there would be no alternative to the Catholic school that children of atheists etc would be catered for in the Catholic school. While this may please you it does alarm me. If I choose to teach in a Catholic school why should my principal provide teachers and resources to cater for non believers? Teachers and resources are very scarce on the ground. Teachers are obliged to give 30 mins daily instruction in Religion. Our curriculum is hugely overloaded and I rarely get Religion done for 30 mins daily myself. So, how and when are us teachers supposed to cater for non believers too? Does R. Quinn expect us to provide an alternative curriculum for these children? HE certainly won't be paying for extra teachers in these hard times, that's for sure. So . . . . lots of food for thought!

Your worries are justified. I think that, before the RC Church agrees to hand over any of its schools, it should extract a binding agreement from the State that those schools, which continue to be Catholic, will have an unqualified right to admit only the children of practising Catholics.

crucamim

E.T. wrote: »

My big question is what way will the patronage be decided/debated?

The majority of kids in my class don't see the inside of a church except for sacraments, Christmas etc. Will the debate include parents of such children, or will it be confined to the regular mass-going congregation (in which case it won't be a true picture of opinions)? Will the debate include all parents in every school in order to find a truer picture at local level?

Will teachers be asked their opinion and beliefs? What will happen if a teacher in a Catholic school publicly states that they don't want to teach a Catholic scheme, and then the community decides they want this taught? At the moment there is very little choice for teachers outside of cities or very large towns regarding teaching in a Catholic school. There are plenty of teachers who would be happier not teaching religion for many reasons.

The Catholic Church owns Catholic schools so the Catholic Church will decide.

A teacher in a Catholic school who refuses to teach Catholicism would be in breach of contract.

I suspect that, when the government and the church get down to business, there will be little, if any, conflict between Ruari Quinn and the Catholic bishops. There will, however, be many a dogfight between a Catholic bishop, who wants to hand over a school, and a group of Catholic parents, who will agree to every Catholic school being handed over - except their local parochial school.

Kathnora

crucamim wrote: »

Why should any Catholic pay tax to educate your child if you are not paying tax to educate Catholic children?

Why should any Catholic allow his child to share a classroom or playground with the child of a person who regards religion as superstition? You have rights. So have Catholics.

Please leave it to Catholics to decide what should have a place in a modern Catholic school. Please leave it to Protestants to decide what should have a place in a modern Protestant school. Please leave it to Muslims to decide what should have a place in a modern Muslim school. And you secularists have a right to decide what should have a place in a modern secular school.

Well said and a very balanced comment too.

crucamim

Kathnora wrote: »

Well said, crucamim and a very balanced comment too.

Ruari Quinn is an arrogant man and very anti-Catholic but that should not blind us to certain realities.

a) In many areas non-Catholics and dissident Catholics have no alternative to the Catholic school and the State has a duty to such people.

b) The situation as (a) leads to Catholic schools being burdened with the children of non-Catholics. People making no contribution to parish funds are free-loading off Catholics.

c) Non-Catholic and anti-Catholics, who send their children to Catholic schools, often use those children as a spearhead to undermine the Catholicism of the school. And this is likely to increase.

d) In Catholic schools, teachers are often trying to teach Catholicism to the children of anti-Catholics. This is a burden for teachers and dilutes the Catholicism of the school.

e) The Catholic church no longer has the human resources to manage many of its schools. Even in rural areas, the priest rarely has time to visit the parochial school and, when he does, it is usually a fleeting visit. And when the priest does visit a school, it is time which could have been better used eleswhere. Worse that that, the current sad situation is likely to deteriorate further. The age profile of the priests guarantees that. The number of priests is declining far faster than the number of practising Catholics.

f) The desire of Catholic bishops to off-load a large number of Catholic schools might be far greater than Ruari Quinn's desire to get those schools.

E.T.

crucamim wrote: »

Why should any Catholic allow his child to share a classroom or playground with the child of a person who regards religion as superstition? You have rights. So have Catholics.

Please leave it to Catholics to decide what should have a place in a modern Catholic school. Please leave it to Protestants to decide what should have a place in a modern Protestant school. Please leave it to Muslims to decide what should have a place in a modern Muslim school. And you secularists have a right to decide what should have a place in a modern secular school.

I don't like the idea of a system where schools are segregated on ANY religious basis. Why create segregation between children for the sake of religion?

axer

crucamim wrote: »

b) The situation as (a) leads to Catholic schools being burdened with the children of non-Catholics. People making no contribution to parish funds are free-loading off Catholics.

Do catholic parishes contribute to the cost of running schools? I can speak for only one catholic school I know very well and in that school no funds are provided to the school by the parish at all.

E.T.

axer wrote: »

Do catholic parishes contribute to the cost of running schools? I can speak for only one catholic school I know very well and in that school no funds are provided to the school by the parish at all.

Schools actually pay the CPSMA (Catholic Primary Schools Management Association) at this stage!

"CATHOLIC primary schools are furious after being hit with a new €2m-per-year demand for money from the church.

Cash-strapped principals say that, instead of the church subsidising them, they are now being asked to subsidise the church.

The new request for cash has come from the Catholic Primary School Management Association (CPSMA), the Irish Independent has learned."

From this article http://www.independent.ie/national-news/church-demands-euro2m-fees-from-national-schools-2186608.html

crucamim

E.T. wrote: »

Why create segregation between children for the sake of religion?

Many people are anti-Catholic and just cannot keep their anti-Catholic bigotry to themselves.

Many people are anti-religion and just cannot keep their anti-religion attitudes to themselves.

Many people are devout Christains or Muslims and just cannot keep their religion to themselves.

Many people do not want their children to be contaminated with Catholicism. Many other people do want their children to be influenced by Catholicism.

As the American poet,Robert Frost, put it "Good fences make good neighbours".

crucamim

axer wrote: »

Do catholic parishes contribute to the cost of running schools? I can speak for only one catholic school I know very well and in that school no funds are provided to the school by the parish at all.

What a lucky parish.

E.T.

crucamim wrote: »

Many people are anti-Catholic and just cannot keep their anti-Catholic bigotry to themselves.

Many people are anti-religion and just cannot keep their anti-religion attitudes to themselves.

Many people are devout Christains or Muslims and just cannot keep their religion to themselves.

Many people do not want their children to be contaminated with Catholicism. Many other people do want their children to be influenced by Catholicism.

As the American poet,Robert Frost, put it "Good fences make good neighbours".

And this is exactly why religion should be either taught as a world religion class, or else outside of school hours. Children do not naturally have these attitudes, they come from their parents or community.

crucamim

E.T. wrote: »

And this is exactly why religion should be either taught as a world religion class, or else outside of school hours. Children do not naturally have these attitudes, they come from their parents or community.

Most chldren have parents. Most children grow up in a community.

Even if religon were taught outside school hours or not at all, there would be problems. e.g. A mixed gender class of teenagers being taught how to fit condoms on to the appropirate part of plastic models. How many practising Catholics will tolerate that sort of instruction? And many devout Protestants would not be very pleased about that sort of lesson - especially when it leaves their daughters mortified.

People, who want their children taught alongside children of other religions, should send their children to an Educate Together school. Integrated education is a good thing - for those who want it. Unfortunately, there are not enough Educate Together schools and far too few Educate Together secondary schools. Hopefully, over the next few years, that will change.

Unfortunately, the Educate Together schools are multi-denominational, rather than secular so they do not fully meet the needs of Atheist or Agnostic parents.

E.T.

crucamim wrote: »

Even if religon were taught outside school hours or not at all, there would be problems. e.g. A mixed gender class of teenagers being taught how to fit condoms on to the appropirate part of plastic models.

Where did you get this from? This is NOT part of the religion curriculum!!!
Are you mixing up the Religion and RSE (Relationships and Sexuality Education) curricula?

Insect Overlord

E.T. wrote: »

Where did you get this from? This is NOT part of the religion curriculum!!!
Are you mixing up the Religion and RSE (Relationships and Sexuality Education) curricula?

Also, that scenario would never arise in a Primary or Pre-School classroom...

crucamim

E.T. wrote: »

Where did you get this from? This is NOT part of the religion curriculum!!!
Are you mixing up the Religion and RSE (Relationships and Sexuality Education) curricula?

Probably the RSE class. But what does it matter what name is given to the subject?

That sort of sex lesson is common in State schools in England. And also in Northern Ireland.

And this is just one example of the difficulties which can arise from having children of different religions in the same classroom - especially when some of the parents care very much for religon while the parents of other children care very much against religion in general or against one religion in particuar. The classroom becomes a field of thorns.

crucamim

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Also, that scenario would never arise in a Primary or Pre-School classroom...

Probably true.

Even in primary school, conflict situations can arise. This is especially the case where the parents of some of the pupils are militant secularists.

E.T.

crucamim wrote: »

Probably the RSE class. But what does it matter what name is given to the subject?

That sort of sex lesson is common in State schools in England. And also in Northern Ireland.

And this is just one example of the difficulties which can arise from having children of different religions in the same classroom - especially when some of the parents care very much for religon while the parents of other children care very much against religion in general or against one religion in particuar. The classroom becomes a field of thorns.

It matters very much when you're on a thread about Religion, and you're talking about a completely separate subject, which has nothing to do with Religious education.

To address the end of your point - sex education doesn't have anything to do with religion in schools. RSE is part of our national curriculum and is taught in ALL schools. Again, absolutely nothing to do with the religious status of the school

This is more an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing - if you're going to comment on such a serious issue, it would be worth reading up on it and familiarising yourself with it first instead of posting completely inaccurate points.

crucamim

E.T. wrote: »

"It matters very much when you're on a thread about Religion, and you're talking about a completely separate subject, which has nothing to do with Religious education."

Sorry, I did not know that the thread was about Religion. I thought that the thread was about control of schools - until you started attacking segregation by religion.

"To address the end of your point - sex education doesn't have anything to do with religion in schools. RSE is part of our national curriculum and is taught in ALL schools. Again, absolutely nothing to do with the religious status of the school."

Are you are trying to convince me that devout Catholics would agree to their teenage children being taught how to fit condoms on to the appropriate parts of plastic models?

"This is more an example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing - if you're going to comment on such a serious issue, it would be worth reading up on it and familiarising yourself with it first instead of posting completely inaccurate points."

What is inaccurate about any of the points which I made?

axer

E.T. wrote: »

Schools actually pay the CPSMA (Catholic Primary Schools Management Association) at this stage!

"CATHOLIC primary schools are furious after being hit with a new €2m-per-year demand for money from the church."

That effectively is looking for 2m from the government in a roundabout way. Crazy.

crucamim wrote: »

What a lucky parish.

So you are saying other parishes do fund the schools?

crucamim

axer wrote: »

So you are saying other parishes do fund the schools?

Yes. Catholic parishes, and Church of Ireland parishes, partly fund the parochial school.

That is also the case in England and Wales. Even though the Church of England is a central part of the British State, its schools receive less public funding than Catholic schools in Northern Ireland which, since 1992, have been receiving 100% State funding.

axer

crucamim wrote: »

Yes. Catholic parishes, and Church of Ireland parishes, partly fund the parochial school.

In Ireland? I thought that schools were funded by the capitation grants and other lump sum payments e.g. funds for ancilliary services such as secretarys etc. Any shortfall after this is usually picked up by fundraising by parents. I have never heard of funds from the church getting redirected to fund schools but I am interested to hear some figures. have you any more information about how much they fund and which schools receive funding? or how do you know they are being funded?

crucamim

axer wrote: »

"In Ireland? I thought that schools were funded by the capitation grants and other lump sum payments e.g. funds for ancilliary services such as secretarys etc. Any shortfall after this is usually picked up by fundraising by parents. I have never heard of funds from the church getting redirected to fund schools but I am interested to hear some figures. have you any more information about how much they fund and which schools receive funding? or how do you know they are being funded?

The situation varies from parish to parish. Often, the fund raising takes the form of direct subscriptions to the parish - usually collected at Sunday mass. This is often supplemented by fund-raising activities organised by the parish. It is true that many of the parishioners, who organise such activities, will be parents of pupils while others will be merely energetic parishioners.

I am not aware of any funds being provided by a diocese to fund the building of a school.

E.T.

crucamim wrote: »

Are you are trying to convince me that devout Catholics would agree to their teenage children being taught how to fit condoms on to the appropriate parts of plastic models?

What is inaccurate about any of the points which I made?

Your points about sexual education are inaccurate and misleading in the context of this discussion. I've detailed above how anything you're describing is content of the RSE (Relationship and Sexuality Education) programme, which is part of a subject called SPHE (Social, Personal and Health Education). ie it is not part of any Religious Education programme.

You keep referring to things which may be the content of the RSE programme at Secondary level, certainly not content at Primary level. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs or the religious ethos of a school in the context of education. Again, this has nothing to do with any type of patronage. SPHE (including RSE) is not an optional subject, it's part of the national curriculum in all schools, of any ethos.

crucamim

E.T. wrote: »

"Your points about sexual education are inaccurate and misleading in the context of this discussion."

That comment is possibly true in the context of the thread title. But it is very untrue in the context of your objection to education being segregated on grounds of religious belief.

"You keep referring to things which may be the content of the RSE programme at Secondary level"

Indeed I do. What could be wrong with that? If Catholics are to be enticed into schools not controlled by their church, there will have to be guarantees, not just about what the curriculum is now, but also against things which might later be added to the curriculum.

In my opinion it will not be possible for any school to meet the needs of Catholics and also the needs of non-Catholics so I think that segregation should continue and should be expanded. Non-Catholics need to be provided with an alternative to Catholic schools. That is needed in the interests of Catholics in order to allow Catholic schools to be truly Catholics and also in the interests of non-Catholics in order to allow their children to be educated uncontaminated (as many of them see it) by Catholicism.