If you are pregnant , don't bother with MY school

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

Yes people separate...but when they do the child doesn't drop dead and no longer needs to be cared for

Just because the parents are not in a relationship does not mean they do not have responsibility for their children and the state picks up the pieces.

What type of home did this girl come from?


Partner dies: I have no problem supporting the children, I'll even give them a €50 from my own pocket if I meet them on the street:D

I know what it's like to be a single mother and the state did not need to provide for my children, I did that myself.

You seem to think all single mothers rely on welfare, Newsflash THEY DONT.

stop using those stupid smiley's, your posts come across as childish and trollish.

Pherekydes

micropig wrote: »

...both still have a duty to the child.

Great. Easily said or typed. But not so easy in practice. What if one parent leaves the jurisdiction? Absconds out of the state.

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

Or maybe other people will start seeing the wood for the trees;):p

she got pregnant, it's not the ideal situation but she is trying her best to get an education and hopefully get a job in order to give her child a decent life.
My biggest problem with the story is the attitude of the principle it's downright insulting to people in general not just mothers.
We all make mistakes but hopefully learn from them.

PlainP

They're taliking about it on Joe Duffy atm for those who want to listen in..

SerialComplaint

crucamim wrote: »

I did not know that the law requires a Catholic school, or indeed any school, to accept a 16 year old.

Why should a Catholic school accept a 16 year old who obviously does not accept one of the core principles of Catholicism? Why should a Catholic school allow its Catholicism to be undermined by any pupil? Or by any teacher? This girl's rights do not exist in isolation from the rights of the owners of the school or from the rights of the parents of children attending that school.

So you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't accept the core principles of Catholicism should not be permitted in any Catholic school - right? So any teenager who masturbates then, would be excluded from Catholic schools? And any teenager who is homosexual would be excluded from Catholic schools? And any teenager who believes that perhaps some women would be great priests should be excluded from Catholic schools? And any teenager who believes that condoms might help cut down Aids in Africa should be excluded from Catholic schools?

If you're going to have morality tests - let's have fair and equality morality tests for everybody - not just the girls with a bump under their school jumpers.

prinz

On the one side:
She should get her education.

On the other side:
The school should have the right to promote the ethos, and all that that encompasses, including views on teenage pregnancies, premarital sex etc without fear of one student then kicking up a fuss about discrimination or feeling picked on. You'd also have to take steps that it doesn't become a distraction for other pupils. You'd also have to look at the insurance on the school etc in the worst case scenario anything were to happen the girl on school grounds.

On the balance:
Let her in, if she's willing to play her part.

dvpower

Biggins wrote: »

If they are good enough to be allowed join the main org', surely a single person can get over himself and his daftness, and not discriminate against a young school girl?

The point is that we allow them to discriminate based on their 'ethos', so we can't expect then to be allowed to tell them what their 'ethos' should cover.

We need to remove their exemption from the Equal Status Act which allows them to discriminate where anyone else would be prosecuted.

Logical Fallacy

seanmc1980 wrote: »

i'd have to agree with the school here. there are plenty of schools that will take anybody. If i was a parent of a young teenage girl i wouldn't want a single teen mother telling everyone how much she get off gov, free house etc... she could potentially glamourise her situation to other pupil. fair play to the school for putting the mass before the individual!

In this case, very literally.

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So you're suggesting that anyone who doesn't accept the core principles of Catholicism should not be permitted in any Catholic school - right? So any teenager who masturbates then, would be excluded from Catholic schools? And any teenager who is homosexual would be excluded from Catholic schools? And any teenager who believes that perhaps some women would be great priests should be excluded from Catholic schools? And any teenager who believes that condoms might help cut down Aids in Africa should be excluded from Catholic schools?

If you're going to have morality tests - let's have fair and equality morality tests for everybody - not just the girls with a bump under their school jumpers.

You would also need to see a massive change in school uniforms.

Remember, the bible says you cannot wear a blended material.

geeky

What's amazing about the report IMO isn't just the bigotry of the principal/manager in School A - it's his spectacular contempt for an organ of state.

The Office requested, but did not receive, a copy of the school’s complaint procedures.

In this particular school, the ‘Whole School Evaluation Report’ issued by the Department of Education and Science in 2007 indicates that there is no Board of Management in place nor are there plans for one. According to the Report, at that time the Principal of the school, was also the founder, owner and patron. It is stated that “the Principal appointed his son as manager of the school in 2006”

No information was provided by the School during the investigation in relation to its management structure, other than the school advised that it is ‘unitary managed’. No details were given regarding the implications of this for issues relating to enrolment or handling of complaints. It has not been made known to this Office what consideration was given by the school to establishing a Board of Management and its rationale for not doing. It is also not
been revealed to the Office, what steps, if any, have been taken since 2007 in relation to establishing an Advisory group as recommended by the Department.

The Department has not directed that schools follow a specific complaints procedure and no procedures have been prescribed under Section 28 of the Education Act 1998, resulting in no regulated complaints process in schools. In this case, the school has characterised complaints policies as ‘frills’, which it is not obliged to have in place. The Ombudsman for Children in her 2010 annual report raised the issue that the statutory arrangements under
Section 28 of the Education Act 1998, have not been put into operation.

The school is obliged to have an admissions policy and to publish same. No policy was provided to this Office or available on the school website.

Response from the School
The response received from the School does not include any response to the
recommendations or detail the steps being taken in relation to these

Whatever about his objection to having a single mother in the school, school 'a's manager clearly doesn't equate the state support he receives with an obligation to follow the rules.

Stercus Accidit

luckyfrank wrote: »

school kids shouldnt really be getting pregnant

They need the most education though.

old_aussie

Schoolgirl mother, earn while you learn.

minidazzler

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

I do love how this Catholic school judges this girl so harshly, all while claiming to follow teachings like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "judge not lest ye be judged" and so on.

Really shows the hypocrisy that many very religious folk have.

And even better, Mary had another mans baby outside of wedlock. Yet she is held up as a beacon for all that is good and true.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

You'd also have to take steps that it doesn't become a distraction for other pupils.

Perhaps we could set up a system of asylums where kids like her could be kept out of view. She could earn her keep there by maybe doing laundry work or something.

She wouldn't be able to distract anyone again. Just a thought.

prinz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You would also need to see a massive change in school uniforms..

Not really relevant to this case though, catchy and all as it seems.

The Radiator

School is right, yer wan was stupid

eviltwin

Own goal for Liveline....a caller has just named the school

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

Just a thought.

A fairly ill-thought out one, predictable in nature all the same. I'd imagine it's hard enough to keep secondary school students focused and paying attention, I can't see much productive work getting done when you have 30 odd students who want to feel the baby kicking for example. But hey, you want to pretend I was advocating a magdalene laundry, go ahead.

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

Own goal for Liveline....a caller has just named the school

Was it a caller from Clontaaaaaaaaaaaarf, ye ye ye ye go on ye ye ye, ah you cant be saying that Mary, ye ye

The Radiator

eviltwin wrote: »

Own goal for Liveline....a caller has just named the school

That's not cool

eviltwin

prinz wrote: »

A fairly ill-thought out one, predictable in nature all the same. I'd imagine it's hard enough to keep secondary school students focused and paying attention, I can't see much productive work getting done when you have 30 odd students who want to feel the baby kicking for example. But hey, you want to pretend I was advocating a magdalene laundry, go ahead.

She has had the baby so there is no "distraction"

eviltwin

The Radiator wrote: »

That's not cool

Tbh its not exactly a secret...the journal had a comment naming the school this morning.

The Radiator

eviltwin wrote: »

Tbh its not exactly a secret...the journal had a comment naming the school this morning.

Yeah, but only eejits read the journal

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

She has had the baby so there is no "distraction"

In that case the principal acted like a halfwit.

SerialComplaint

prinz wrote: »

A fairly ill-thought out one, predictable in nature all the same. I'd imagine it's hard enough to keep secondary school students focused and paying attention, I can't see much productive work getting done when you have 30 odd students who want to feel the baby kicking for example. But hey, you want to pretend I was advocating a magdalene laundry, go ahead.

Jeez, if fears over '30 odd student wanting to feel the baby kicking' are the best you can come up with, the argument is over. Pregnant females manage to survive in all kinds of environments without being run over by mass charges of people trying to feel a kicking baby.

eviltwin

The Radiator wrote: »

Yeah, but only eejits read the journal

There will probably be a stampede now In fairness it was a forgone conclusion, you can't keep things like this secret for long in this country.

prinz

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Jeez, if fears over '30 odd student wanting to feel the baby kicking' are the best you can come up with, the argument is over..

It was over long before that. In some people's heads anyway.

MagicSean

eviltwin wrote: »

She has had the baby so there is no "distraction"

Yeah because being a single teenage mother is easy.

We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse. As far as i am concerned the Ombudsman was very wrong to go public with this case and only a few facts.

The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply. On the other hand the girl could be a real victim and the last thing she needs is the whole country looking at her.

dvpower

eviltwin wrote: »

She has had the baby so there is no "distraction"

She did attend a different school while she was pregnant, apparently without causing 'distraction'.

Ombudsman Report wrote:

The young person enrolled in another school, which she reports were supportive of her in relation to the pregnancy and she attended there until she went on maternity leave during which period she received Home Tuition through the Department of Education and Skills

Maybe its only extreme Catholics that are distracted so much by a young pregnant girl that they would feel the need to exclude her from their midst.

St.Spodo

The irony is that, without a doubt, Jesus would allow the girl into the school.

eviltwin

MagicSean wrote: »

Yeah because being a single teenage mother is easy.

We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse. As far as i am concerned the Ombudsman was very wrong to go public with this case and only a few facts.

The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply. On the other hand the girl could be a real victim and the last thing she needs is the whole country looking at her.

I never said it was easy.

dvpower

MagicSean wrote: »

We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant.

Her reasons for wanting to move school are in the report - did you read it at all?
We're all adults here, so I think we all know how she got pregnant.

MagicSean wrote: »

As far as i am concerned the Ombudsman was very wrong to go public with this case and only a few facts.

What facts that aren't in the report do you think would be relevant, and why?

MagicSean wrote: »

The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply.

So they might have circumvented their own admissions criteria, lied to the girl and to the ombudsman? That would be nearly worse than what they did do.

Logical Fallacy

prinz wrote: »

Not really relevant to this case though, catchy and all as it seems.

Of course it's relevant, as the case highlights that a person is basing policy off faith...so it only makes sense to either go all the way or not at all.

dark crystal

micropig wrote: »

Yes. Unable to choose a suitable partner


Choosing a person who will run, instead of facing their responsibilities and all the 'accidents' with the contraception:rolleyes:

I've read some mind numbingly stupid bile on this thread, but this post has to take the biscuit!

I hate to break it to you, especially seeing as you seem so happy in la la land up in that ivory tower of yours, looking down on everyone else, but life isn't always perfect. People aren't always perfect. Sh!t happens, even to the people who weren't expecting it or didn't ask for it. Even the best laid plans can go awry.

The obviously massive disdain you have for single parents is tainting your logic completely. I can only hope you are either extremely young or extremely sheltered, because some of the ludicrous assumptions you have posted on here just smack of pure naivety at best and utter ignorance at worst.

Bigtoe107

This is retarded imo, a state funded school should not have the right to exclude any pupils based on some bull**** religious ethos. It's actually making me angry thinking how much sway and power the church still has in this country

prinz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Of course it's relevant, as the case highlights that a person is basing policy off faith...so it only makes sense to either go all the way or not at all.

Except you are referring to a Mosaic law, which isn't relevant to Christians, much like circumcision and eating pork.

dvpower

Bigtoe107 wrote: »

This is retarded imo, a state funded school should not have the right to exclude any pupils based on some bull**** religious ethos. It's actually making me angry thinking how much sway and power the church still has in this country

In this case, its even stranger.
The then school principal is also the school founder, owner and patron and has appointed his son as school manager. Its looks like a personal fiefdom.

It wouldn't be so bad if it was a private school, but this school is being paid for by state funds and they seem to show disdain for any state oversight.

3.12 The Office also sought a meeting with representatives of the school but they did not avail of the opportunity to represent any further views regarding the matters under investigation. A letter from the School Manager dated September 2011 stated:
’Do not try to blame this school for having a moral code. You have no business coming down here to single us out - we are a Catholic school and shall remain so’. [Emphasis as per letter]

When asked for details of various school policies and procedures by the Ombudsman for Children:

3.10 A response was received from the School Manager in late July in which it is stated:
‘Neither am I obliged to have any other frills that you mention. This school is NOT a haven for young pregnant people or for young mothers who, in particular, have been in two other post primary schools. The school has an uncompromising ethos and will not become a dumping ground for those rejected elsewhere”.

Corruptedmorals

I wonder if anyone who thinks that there is an element of society who thinks that teen pregnancy is glamorous have ever actually watched '16 and pregnant'. If anything, it works as a contraceptive and they have several live shows where a doctor bangs on about its importance. The show glamourises nothing, it shows them losing their friends, losing their sleep, having a terrible time trying to get the fathers to do anything or even stick around, and a good few having dysfunctional families and how that plays out. Only one of them I think ever actually finished high school and got her GED whatever that is. It makes no bones about how limited their prospects are without their education. All of the girls at the end always state that they love their children but they wish they had been wiser and had them later in life. Seriously, no glamour, no matter what MTV pays them. I think it's a pretty effective tool really- here's what having a baby at 16 is actually like.

LittleBook

eviltwin wrote: »

Tbh its not exactly a secret...the journal had a comment naming the school this morning.

Plus, a modicum of googling skills would get you the name of the school ... there aren't that many where one person is the founder, owner and patron who "appointed his son as manager of the school in 2006". The Whole School Evaluation Reports are public information.

prinz

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

I wonder if anyone who thinks that there is an element of society who thinks that teen pregnancy is glamorous have ever actually watched '16 and pregnant'..

Great show. Some of the people involved are incredible, but there's a couple of muppets too...*cough* Farrah.... All in all though, yes good TV.

muppetkiller

I blame the teachers !!!
Students see how Teachers can get out of working the entire school year by giving birth in September so now the students are simply copying the trend...simples really.

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

In this case, its even stranger.
The then school principal is also the school founder, owner and patron and has appointed his son as school manager. Its looks like a personal fiefdom.

Sounds very odd.

Logical Fallacy

prinz wrote: »

Except you are referring to a Mosaic law, which isn't relevant to Christians, much like circumcision and eating pork.

Actually, not really, but you have highlighted my point quite perfectly.

Kudos.

geeky

Hmmm... it's an easy comment but 'let he who is without sin,' etc.

A bit of googling turns up the 2007 report, which names the school. Charming place.

prinz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Actually, not really, but you have highlighted my point quite perfectly. Kudos.

You didn't have one. You tried to be smart by asking why a Catholic school wouldn't adhere to Mosaic Law... because it is Mosaic Law that's the answer. Your point was that they should adhere to all the rules of their religion... mixed fibre cloth isn't one of them so your point falls flat.

Nodin

Does anyone know the name of this evil minded kip? (I have it now, thanks)

prinz wrote: »

On the one side:
She should get her education.

On the other side:
The school should have the right to promote the ethos, and all that that encompasses, including views on teenage pregnancies, premarital sex etc without fear of one student then kicking up a fuss about discrimination or feeling picked on. You'd also have to take steps that it doesn't become a distraction for other pupils. You'd also have to look at the insurance on the school etc in the worst case scenario anything were to happen the girl on school grounds.

On the balance:
Let her in, if she's willing to play her part.

She wasn't prgenant. She'd had the kid. As regards your guff with regards to her "risk factor" when she was pregnant - you might as well ban the fat, the short sighted and buck toothed while you were at it.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

As regards your guff with regards to her "risk factor" when she was pregnant - you might as well ban the fat, the short sighted and buck toothed while you were at it.

Yes guff. Heaven forbid anyone actually have concerns about the safety and well being of a pregnant teenager.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

To forgive one has to be sorry for the wrong they did.

Was this schoolgirl sorry she has loose morals while wanting to enter a lay Catholic school which has different morals?
If the school girl was sorry for her actions, then the school should have taken her in, if not then the problem is not the school's.

A new low, which, given your record, is some achievement.

Nodin

prinz wrote: »

Yes guff. Heaven forbid anyone actually have concerns about the safety and well being of a pregnant teenager.

.....by which lights no workplace would have them on-site from the moment preganancy is discovered. Yet they do.

prinz

Nodin wrote: »

.....by which lights no workplace would have them on-site from the moment preganancy is discovered. Yet they do.

Are you trying to equate workplaces with schools? It's been a few years since I was in school but I distinctly remember people running through the corridors, pushing others out of the way on stairs, lads wresting and horseplaying in the class room, books etc being thrown around but hey if that's the kind of workplace you work in good for you.

eviltwin

Pregnancy isn't an illness. Pregnant women can do pretty much anything a non pregnant woman can with a few modifications as time goes on. Besides this was not the reason she was refused a place, had that been the case I am sure they would have had no problem letting her attend after the baby arrived. Its just blatant discrimination. Don't kid yourself this guy acted out of concern.