School patronage

recedite

Fair play to Roisin Shortall for giving this a go. I see her buddy in the Social Democrats, Stephen Donnelly didn't bother voting to support her amendment, the backstabber.
It was a very simple amendment; to delete the section of the "equal" status act that allows schools to use religious discrimination in their admission policies.
BTW, it is legislation not the constitution, therefore it is the job of the Dail, which is the legislature, to make any changes to it. A Yes vote would have deleted this bit from the legislation...

where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

recedite

Shrap wrote: »

This flies in the face of reason :mad: If they have something up their sleeve about the issue, it would be nice if they'd let us in on their thinking

They intend to introduce their own version, at some time in the future, which will allow some schools to maintain a discriminatory admissions policy, while others will be prevented.

"The Labour Party will be proposing an amendment to the Equal Status Acts, so that priority can only be given to school admission on the basis of religious exemptions, where the school can prove that using such a prioritisation is necessary to preserve their ethos."

The spokesperson added that it would "strike a much better balance, and will make sure that local schools prioritise local children for admission, regardless of their religion, while also allowing for an ongoing protection of the rights of minority religions".

For "local schools" read instead "RC schools, ET schools, and ETB/VEC schools" (ie schools for normal people).
For "minority religions" read instead "Prods, Jews and Muslims - the non RC religions which possess schools".

The main difference then is that this version would allow publicly funded schooling to continue more or less along religiously segregated lines, whereas the Shortall version would not.

From an atheist's or a Hindu's perspective, they would find themselves excluded from publicly funded CoI schools, but not RC schools.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Fair play to Roisin Shortall for giving this a go. I see her buddy in the Social Democrats, Stephen Donnelly didn't bother voting to support her amendment, the backstabber.

was he in the building?

you don't expect these opposition amendments to actually pass?

Mark Hamill

Delirium wrote: »

https://twitter.com/emma_okelly/status/672524518485835777

That image is missing a load of names. Full list is here

JPNelsforearm

Is this really an issue? I went to a "catholic" all irish primary in the 90's, never baptised, a complete non believer. I didnt have to join in the class prayers every morning, wasnt forced to do anything, participated in the school nativity in the local church willingly as it was a bit of craic. It simply wasnt an issue.
I would think to change that, in favour of some diversity/inculsive PC all religions/ethics/philosophy nonsense would be simply exchanging one set of beliefs for another.

Shrap

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

I would think to change that, in favour of some diversity/inculsive PC all religions/ethics/philosophy nonsense would be simply exchanging one set of beliefs for another.

No, it would change one set of beliefs being taught as fact, to an overview of many beliefs being as valid as each other.

Like you, I went to a religious school as an atheist and it never rubbed off, as did my kids. But we shouldn't had to have.

JPNelsforearm

Shrap wrote: »

No, it would change one set of beliefs being taught as fact, to an overview of many beliefs being as valid as each other.

Like you, I went to a religious school as an atheist and it never rubbed off, as did my kids. But we shouldn't had to have.

But they are doing it for PC reasons, to be "inclusive", why shoot for more rubbish, why bother teaching ramadan, hannukah etc etc. Its just more religion, that doesnt even have the "cultural/tradition" excuse thats used now, its just pure religion.
It seems to me to be heading more towards the (failed) multicultural set up they have in England, where they replaced church/state patronage and ended up with a heap of Saudi funded Islamic schools, the whole "trojan horse" scandal.

PopePalpatine

Last time I checked, Muslims haven't overrun the UK Ministry of Education.

The Randy Riverbeast

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But they are doing it for PC reasons, to be "inclusive", why shoot for more rubbish, why bother teaching ramadan, hannukah etc etc. Its just more religion, that doesnt even have the "cultural/tradition" excuse thats used now, its just pure religion.
It seems to me to be heading more towards the (failed) multicultural set up they have in England, where they replaced church/state patronage and ended up with a heap of Saudi funded Islamic schools, the whole "trojan horse" scandal.

You have to teach religion and have some form of denomination to get state funding. That leaves either segregating (allowing a saudi funded patron to have a school mostly funded by the state run a school) or being "PC" as you put it and treating everyone the same.

inocybe

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Is this really an issue? I went to a "catholic" all irish primary in the 90's, never baptised, a complete non believer. I didnt have to join in the class prayers every morning, wasnt forced to do anything, participated in the school nativity in the local church willingly as it was a bit of craic. It simply wasnt an issue.
I would think to change that, in favour of some diversity/inculsive PC all religions/ethics/philosophy nonsense would be simply exchanging one set of beliefs for another.

It's a big issue when a child is excluded from their nearest school in favour of those with baptismal certs.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

It's a big issue when a child is excluded from their nearest school in favour of those with baptismal certs.

Would it be as big an issue if a child was excluded from their nearest school in favour of those who had a better academic record? Or in favour of those who lived nearer?

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

Would it be as big an issue if a child was excluded from their nearest school in favour of those who had a better academic record? Or in favour of those who lived nearer?

We're talking about primary school here so academic record doesn't come into it. I think for primary school distance to school should be the only factor. The less car and bus journeys the better.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Would it be as big an issue if a child was excluded from their nearest school in favour of those who had a better academic record? Or in favour of those who lived nearer?

You think children leave the pre-school year with an academic record?

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Or in favour of those who lived nearer?

You think there's a reason for building schools in built-up areas?

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

We're talking about primary school here so academic record doesn't come into it. I think for primary school distance to school should be the only factor. The less car and bus journeys the better.

Really? I thought we were talking about both...
Anyway, are you saying it wouldn't be a big issue if a child was excluded from their nearest school in favour of those who lived nearer? Why would other reasons for excluding a child be less acceptable?

Nett79

Another complication is that the Cathloic church simply own many of the school building and land on which they were built. Sometimes I feel people over-simplify the whole matter. It would be a very difficult separation process on many levels.

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

Really? I thought we were talking about both...
Anyway, are you saying it wouldn't be a big issue if a child was excluded from their nearest school in favour of those who lived nearer? Why would other reasons for excluding a child be less acceptable?

To me that is the only acceptable reason. If there isn't space for kids for whom it is the nearest school then that school need to expand.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

To me that is the only acceptable reason. If there isn't space for kids for whom it is the nearest school then that school need to expand.

The same solution applies equally to a denominational school though; they prefer students by denomination when oversubscribed.
If the solution in either case is that the school needs to expand, then the problem isn't the denominational admission policy, it's the lack of places.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

The same solution applies equally to a denominational school though; they prefer students by denomination when oversubscribed.
If the solution in either case is that the school needs to expand, then the problem isn't the denominational admission policy, it's the lack of places.

But the problem can still be admissions policy.

Say you have a school with 100 places but 101 kids apply, 100 of them are catholic, 1 is atheist.

The school will use its admissions policy to give priority to all of the 100 Catholics first and foremost, it doesn't matter if they live 1 mile away or 4miles.

They will then turn around to the atheist and tell the parents that they can't accept them because the school is full.

While saying it is full is technically correct and they may never say it is because the person is not catholic but that is the actual reason why they didn't get a school place.

The problem is still the admissions policy, the words "The applicant is Catholic" should not be part of any schools admissions policy when the school receives tax payers money to run that school and pay staff wages.

Its laughable that you'll actually argue against this...what a weird and whacky world you live in that you have no problem treating a 5 year old differently just because his/her parents don't believe in the same made up god as others.

Would you also argue for giving special treatment to Catholics if hospitals gave priority to Catholics over non-catholics in hospitals when it came to say non-urgent appointments, surgery etc? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

The same solution applies equally to a denominational school though; they prefer students by denomination when oversubscribed.
If the solution in either case is that the school needs to expand, then the problem isn't the denominational admission policy, it's the lack of places.

Well I believe distance from school should be the only factor. I don't care what denomination.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

Well I believe distance from school should be the only factor. I don't care what denomination.

Which favours some of those for whom the distance they travel is the most important factor in their child's education, but it doesn't really suit anyone else.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

But the problem can still be admissions policy.
Say you have a school with 100 places but 101 kids apply, 100 of them are catholic, 1 is atheist.
The school will use its admissions policy to give priority to all of the 100 Catholics first and foremost, it doesn't matter if they live 1 mile away or 4miles.
They will then turn around to the atheist and tell the parents that they can't accept them because the school is full.
While saying it is full is technically correct and they may never say it is because the person is not catholic but that is the actual reason why they didn't get a school place.

Sure. And if we used Inocybes criteria, one child will be refused because they live in the wrong area, regardless of whether they would have contributed positively to the schools ethos, or even if they live 1 mile or 4 miles away, if there are 100 children living within half a mile of the school. In both cases a child will have to go to a different school, you just prefer your reason for doing that over the reason of the people running the schools.

Cabaal wrote: »

The problem is still the admissions policy, the words "The applicant is Catholic" should not be part of any schools admissions policy when the school receives tax payers money to run that school and pay staff wages.

That's a matter of opinion; plenty of tax payers would disagree with you, particularly those with Catholic children that want to see them attend a Catholic ethos school.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its laughable that you'll actually argue against this...what a weird and whacky world you live in that you have no problem treating a 5 year old differently just because his/her parents don't believe in the same made up god as others.

. If you find it laughable you're probably just missing the point.

Cabaal wrote: »

Would you also argue for giving special treatment to Catholics if hospitals gave priority to Catholics over non-catholics in hospitals when it came to say non-urgent appointments, surgery etc? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

if patients had a Constitutional right to such a hospital, and the hospital was established for the purpose of providing medical care to Catholics with a Catholic ethos, and only turned away non Catholics if it were already full? I imagine it would be difficult to argue against it to be honest.

inocybe

It's not just my criteria, bus eireann use the same for eligibility for a seat on a school bus, you have to go to your nearest school. It makes sense practically, socially and environmentally.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

It's not just my criteria, bus eireann use the same for eligibility for a seat on a school bus, you have to go to your nearest school. It makes sense practically, socially and environmentally.

Well Bus Eireann are a transport company, so you'd think location would be a significant feature wouldn't you? But in fact, they don't (well we say they, but the criteria are set by the DoE to be fair) say you must go to your nearest school, do they? The criterion is that a student must must be living 4.8 km or more from the nearest post-primary education centre, having regard to ethos and language, in order to qualify for transport. So even there, ethos (and language) are considered. Anyone whose home is within 4.8km of their nearest (with provisions) school is excluded from the service. So pretty much the opposite of your criteria, though they are prepared to give some consideration to more than just distance from the school, unlike yourself.

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

Well Bus Eireann are a transport company, so you'd think location would be a significant feature wouldn't you? But in fact, they don't (well we say they, but the criteria are set by the DoE to be fair) say you must go to your nearest school, do they? The criterion is that a student must must be living 4.8 km or more from the nearest post-primary education centre, having regard to ethos and language, in order to qualify for transport. So even there, ethos (and language) are considered. Anyone whose home is within 4.8km of their nearest (with provisions) school is excluded from the service. So pretty much the opposite of your criteria, though they are prepared to give some consideration to more than just distance from the school, unlike yourself.

Ethos meaning Protestantism - that's a throwback to the past that will be gone soon. Besides which in so many places all the schools are the same ethos!

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

..if patients had a Constitutional right to such a hospital, and the hospital was established for the purpose of providing medical care to Catholics with a Catholic ethos, and only turned away non Catholics if it were already full? I imagine it would be difficult to argue against it to be honest.

Such a hospital would be considered "private". I would object strongly to it, if it was being funded with my taxes. But that wouldn't happen.
People only tolerate the schools nonsense because they are so conditioned to it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Such a hospital would be considered "private". I would object strongly to it, if it was being funded with my taxes. But that wouldn't happen.

No necessarily. If patients had a Constitutional right to such a hospital, and a Constitutional right to have it provided for by the State, then it could certainly be public, even if you objected to it.

recedite wrote: »

People only tolerate the schools nonsense because they are so conditioned to it.

Perhaps. I don't think you can really provide an objective assessment of their 'conditioning'; I suspect it will only lead us to how they don't know what's best for them but you do, because you are a most remarkable individual unaffected by the 'conditioning'.
People will tolerate, or oppose,or endorse, schools as they choose to.

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

Ethos meaning Protestantism - that's a throwback to the past that will be gone soon. Besides which in so many places all the schools are the same ethos!

Ethos means the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations.
Yes, lots of posters think religion is a throwback to the past that will be gone soon. Of course, other posters have pointed out that that belief seems to have been around almost as long as religion has.
Yes, in most places the majority of schools have very similar ethoi. That might well be a part of the reason it's part of the criteria?

inocybe

Absolam wrote: »

Ethos means the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations.
Yes, lots of posters think religion is a throwback to the past that will be gone soon. Of course, other posters have pointed out that that belief seems to have been around almost as long as religion has.
Yes, in most places the majority of schools have very similar ethoi. That might well be a part of the reason it's part of the criteria?

You misunderstood - 'ethos' in the bus eireann sense means Protestant school, that's from Ireland's past problems. You can't get an exemption by being atheist, not that there are any non religious schools where I am anyway

Absolam

inocybe wrote: »

You misunderstood - 'ethos' in the bus eireann sense means Protestant school, that's from Ireland's past problems. You can't get an exemption by being atheist, not that there are any non religious schools where I am anyway

No I didn't; ethos means what I said it does.
So far Bus Eireann has been required by the DoE to be cogniscant of whether the ethos of a school is a Catholic or Protestant one, but the rules do not restrict the ethos requirement to those two ethoi, do they? It's possible for the DoE to include any other ethos without altering the rules at all. I agree, 'atheist' doesn't seem to be the ethos of any school I'm aware of, so I'm not sure how you'd go about claiming school transport to the nearest atheist school. Ditto for 'non-religious'. But let's pretend someone (maybe even you!) opens a new 'atheist non-religious ethos' school 8 km from your home. Nothing in the School Transport rules as they currently are would prevent you from using the scheme to access that school, would it?

Not that any of this helps your argument that Bus Eireann operate the same form of discrimination as you would prefer National Schools do.....