School patronage

seamus

Apparently Diarmuid Martin is very annoyed that people are "abusing" baptism in order to get their children into schools.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/archbishop-martin-catholic-education-is-not-poison-710327.html

Perhaps if the Catholic Church wasn't abusing its position as patron of 90% of the schools in this country, people wouldn't have to "abuse" baptism.

I'm not sure why he's surprised that people would get their children baptised to get them into schools when you run a school system which favours children who are baptised.

Delirium

Subject was touched upon across the water as part of the discussion about mandatory daily Christian worship.

The report also points to “negative practical consequences of selection by religion” in faith schools. One-third of schools in England are publicly funded faith schools, the vast majority of which are Christian. In Northern Ireland, more than 90% of children attend schools that are either Protestant or Catholic.

“It is in our view not clear that segregation of young people into faith schools has promoted greater cohesion or that it has not been socially divisive, leading to greater misunderstanding and tension,” the report says. “Selection by religion segregates children not only according to different religious heritage but also, frequently and in effect, by ethnicity and socio-economic background. This undermines equality of opportunity and incentivises parents to be insincere about their religious affiliation and practice.”

Bodies responsible for admissions policies should reduce selection on grounds of religion in state-funded schools, it concludes. Faith schools are also exempt from some aspects of employment law, to allow religion to be a criterion for recruiting teachers – a practice the commission says UK authorities must monitor for possible abuse.

A massive recruitment and retraining programme for teachers of religion and belief is needed, says the report. The subject should be treated “seriously and deeply in these unprecedented times of religious confusion and tension”.

Source

Bristolscale7

Aren't there some semi-enlightened jesuits knocking around that argue that the church would be better off if it were weaned from the public tit?

Cabaal

I think the fairest way in this is for the government to stop spending money on Catholic ethos schools and instead introduce a church tax (like Germany), the money taken from this tax can be used to fund the catholic schools, Muslim schools etc.

That way the church gets to keep their schools and the parents who want to use these effectively "private" (private as in a sense they are essentially they are really only for Catholics) can still use catholic schools. This allows the church full control over the schools including how much they decide to pay teachers.

Meanwhile the Gov can use the money they used to spend on catholic ethos schools to build new schools that are open to everyone, of course if a parent wants to use one of the new schools and they are catholic they'll heave to declare that they are leaving the catholic church in order to stop paying the church tax. Seems fair right?

Seems a fair system considering Catholics have no problem with atheists having to declare they are Catholics to use schools, its only fair we have a system the other way around

recedite

seamus wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/archbishop-martin-catholic-education-is-not-poison-710327.html

Diarmuid Martin wrote:

"Catholic education is not poison".

As they say in politics, "if you're defending, you're losing"

expectationlost

Jan O'Sullivan @JanOSullivanTD https://twitter.com/JanOSullivanTD/status/674328907437490176

Tonight, I confirmed that #rule68 will be repealed in January, along with any other rules that don't reflect the diversity of our nation

we'll see, theres only a matter of weeks left in the Dail supposed to disssolve early February (or early March at latest) as John Hamill points out this can be done by the Minister by statutory instrument doesn't need legislation, one those last minute things done at the end of a government that backbenchers won't get up in arms about, probably bargained off for some FG last minute instrument

depsite banging on about it a lot I wonder how practically important it will be

Jane Donnelly @JaneBDonnelly
.@eoinmauricedaly Will repeal of Rule 68 remove religious integrated curriculum from schools? From @_IHREC Report pic.twitter.com/W5OBPslQIo

expectationlost

there were two Education Equality bills introduced to the dail tonight one by SF one by SP

Equality in Education Bill 2015: SF http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015120800029?opendocument#BB05300

Equal Participation in Schools Bill 2015: SP http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015120800030?opendocument#CC00800

expectationlost

Rule on priority of primary-level religion classes to go http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/rule-on-priority-of-primary-level-religion-classes-to-go-1.2459167 seems the deal was not to progress the Admissions bill (which would have be somewhat useful) http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28712 presented in dail in April and stalled since, perhaps theres other stuff that they bargained for

School rule that gives priority to religious instruction to be scrapped
8 December 2015

Speech by Jan O'Sullivan TD
Minister for Education and Skills
https://www.labour.ie/news/2015/12/08/school-rule-that-gives-priority-to-religious-instr/

is she taking as Labour TD or Mininster?

JPNelsforearm

Ugh, "reflects the diversity of our nation", what guff, she cant just come out and say education should be about promoting free thought, rationalism and be free from religious influence. Nah, "Diversity Macht Frei", I wonder what type of PC inclusive crap they have in this bill.

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

I think the fairest way in this is for the government to stop spending money on Catholic ethos schools and instead introduce a church tax (like Germany), the money taken from this tax can be used to fund the catholic schools, Muslim schools etc.

Tongue in cheek? But I think in the Irish context, such a system would make things much worse. Even fully privately funded schools need to be heavily regulated by the state in the interests of children, and I would include religious run schools in that. The rights of parents to prioritise religion over a proper education can't be allowed to trump the rights of children. Church tax is a godsend (so to speak) for religious extremists as it drives all the moderates away, and allows the state to wash its hands totally of what the extremists then do.

That way the church gets to keep their schools and the parents who want to use these effectively "private" (private as in a sense they are essentially they are really only for Catholics) can still use catholic schools. This allows the church full control over the schools including how much they decide to pay teachers.

Their schools? Including the ones they didn't pay to build and didn't own the land as well as never paying a cent in running costs? Their schools??

Meanwhile the Gov can use the money they used to spend on catholic ethos schools to build new schools

In addition to all the ones it built already, but effectively gave away for nothing and still pays to run?

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Aren't there some semi-enlightened jesuits knocking around that argue that the church would be better off if it were weaned from the public tit?

Actually enlightened, or want a much smaller but much more conservative and doctrinaire church, with a few elite madrassas schools?

Jan O'Sullivan wrote:

Tonight, I confirmed that #rule68 will be repealed in January, along with any other rules that don't reflect the diversity of our nation

But they've just last week voted down a bill to end religious discrimination in enrolment.
They're patting themselves on the back about LGBT teachers, while locking atheist teachers in the closet (if they can get a job at all.)
ACTIONS, Jan, not words and certainly not tweets.
This should have been a first day in office announcement, not a (nearly) last one.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I think the fairest way in this <...>

I suspect there's not a whole heap of people on either side of the discussion who'd find those ideas fair, never mind workable

PopePalpatine

When presented with a list of choices, 40% of parents would send their children to a non-Christian school. (RTE)

Also, 20% said they knew someone who said they had baptised their children to get a school place, and 84% agree that the schools should be reformed so that religious discrimination against students is not allowed.

Hotblack Desiato

Survey says 40% of adults, not 40% of parents.

OAPs skewing the figures just like the census.

NoCrackHaving

Why doesn't the government just seize the schools and reimburse the landowners (ie the various Christian and indeed Jewish and Muslim denominations) under a compulsory purchase scheme? Wouldn't be very hard to do since you can do it for houses in the way of road extensions etc.

matrim

I've never gotten why the Rule 68 thing is considered so important. Aren't there rules for national schools that say girls should be taught sewing and cooking that are readily ignored. Why couldn't they just ignore the Rule68 like they do any other out of date rules?

Bristolscale7

matrim wrote: »

I've never gotten why the Rule 68 thing is considered so important. Aren't there rules for national schools that say girls should be taught sewing and cooking that are readily ignored. Why couldn't they just ignore the Rule68 like they do any other out of date rules?

It is basically ignored. This is a bull**** move by labour. They can point to this and the LGBT law as HUUUGE achievements while ignoring the issues of patronage and admissions discrimination.

RainyDay

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Why doesn't the government just seize the schools and reimburse the landowners (ie the various Christian and indeed Jewish and Muslim denominations) under a compulsory purchase scheme? Wouldn't be very hard to do since you can do it for houses in the way of road extensions etc.

Just the trifling little matter of the constitutional protection for private property to get over first? CPOs happen in very restricted circumstances, so unless we're going to be building very important roads over all of these sites, this won't happen.

Micheal Woods and FF had the perfect opportunity to address ownership when negotiating payments for child abuse - but Woods let them off the hook.

seamus

Yeah, there are various obstacles in place in regards to CPOs about the greater common good, alternative options and so forth. Besides, ownership alone isn't necessarily that big an issue.

I'd be happy enough for the state to enter into a tenant/landlord arrangement with a 1,000 year lease for any orders/churches who don't want to lose their land. The church continues to maintain the land and buildings, but the state for all intents and purposes owns the school and runs it as it sees fit, while having exclusive use of the school buildings and any sports grounds, etc, unencumbered by any religious "ethos".

The lease agreement could also include a "first refusal" clause that requires the church to approach the state first if it wishes to sell all or part of the lands.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

When presented with a list of choices, 40% of parents would send their children to a non-Christian school.
Also, 20% said they knew someone who said they had baptised their children to get a school place, and 84% agree that the schools should be reformed so that religious discrimination against students is not allowed.

"Presented with a list of different school types, 54% chose a Christian school, 9% picked non-denominational schools as their preferred option, 25% picked multi-denominational schools, 2% chose 'Other' and 11% did not know."

Seems RTE found an extra 1% in the survey, but at best there's 36% preferring a non Christian school... and that's from a survey on behalf of an organisation set up to campaign for change in the Irish school system.

Absolam

RainyDay wrote: »

Just the trifling little matter of the constitutional protection for private property to get over first? CPOs happen in very restricted circumstances, so unless we're going to be building very important roads over all of these sites, this won't happen.
Micheal Woods and FF had the perfect opportunity to address ownership when negotiating payments for child abuse - but Woods let them off the hook.

Well, that and the fact that there's no reason to think the government wants to seize the schools.

recedite

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

It is basically ignored. This is a bull**** move by labour. They can point to this and the LGBT law as HUUUGE achievements while ignoring the issues of patronage and admissions discrimination.

While it is a BS move to repeal an archaic law after it has already been made irrelevant, at least it is a BS move in the right direction.
The ET schools movement did all the heavy lifting in making Rule 68 irrelevant, by very gradually pushing religious indoctrination out of the school day and establishing the principle of having "after school" communion classes.

The hypocrisy of the minister's position is highlighted in this RTE article;

Referring to calls to amend equality legislation to prevent children who are not baptised from being discriminated against, she said she accepted that the Equal Status Act must be amended so that local schools were required to prioritise local children, no matter what their religion.
Last week both Government parties voted against an amendment proposed by Róisín Shortall which would have repealed a legislative clause allowing such discrimination.

She accepts that it needs to be amended, but she voted against the amendment.
Who does she think should amend it, the next minister for education?
Whats the point of being the minister if she is not going to do anything?

recedite

She went on to acknowledge that her Admissions to Schools Bill, published earlier this year was not perfect, but said she was proud of it.
She said it was unlikely that the bill would pass through both houses of the Oireachtas before the next general election.

Its not perfect, its BS. It does not address the core issue, which is that religious discrimination would be allowed to continue.
Now it looks like they have decided to bury it.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

Its not perfect, its BS. It does not address the core issue, which is that religious discrimination would be allowed to continue.
Now it looks like they have decided to bury it.

I've heard members of the same party at various times on the radio using the same tactic when talking about the decriminalisation of cannabis and the banning of zero hours contracts. Pathetic stuff.

Cabaal

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

Why doesn't the government just seize the schools and reimburse the landowners (ie the various Christian and indeed Jewish and Muslim denominations) under a compulsory purchase scheme? Wouldn't be very hard to do since you can do it for houses in the way of road extensions etc.

I don't see why the state should have to pay anything,
In alot of cases the state has paid for the building of the school or atleast upgrades to it and maintenance.

Also the state is still owed alot of money by religious organizations for compensation for abuse victims, seizing catholic church assets is better for the tax payer and it can be seen for pay back for the catholic church not playing ball when it came to compensating abuse victims.

seamus

Absolam wrote: »

"Presented with a list of different school types, 54% chose a Christian school, 9% picked non-denominational schools as their preferred option, 25% picked multi-denominational schools, 2% chose 'Other' and 11% did not know."

Seems RTE found an extra 1% in the survey, but at best there's 36% preferring a non Christian school... and that's from a survey on behalf of an organisation set up to campaign for change in the Irish school system.

[Edit: fixing the numbers, 46%, not 36%]

46% of adults. And they don't appear to have specifically surveyed parents with children under 18. In real terms that's 46% did not state a preference for a christian school, and excluding the don't knows, it becomes 60/40, i.e. 40% of adults specifically preferring a non-christian school.

Still, whichever way you look at it, 40%-ish. of people actively choosing something other than a Christian school, when 95% of schools are run by a single christian sect shows that we have a massive mismatch between the education system we have and the education system we want.

RainyDay

Absolam wrote: »

Well, that and the fact that there's no reason to think the government wants to seize the schools.

Which could be down to the fact that the government has no mandate to seize the schools.

Posters here may think it's a great idea, but posters here are not representative of the wider community.

expectationlost

wondering whether removal of rule 68 is cosmetic change emma o'kelly says on rte that its stil cited even when setting up the community national shcools http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/1209/20151209_rteradio1-newsatone-archaicreg_c20895414_20895431_232_.mp3

Bristolscale7

expectationlost wrote: »

wondering whether removal of rule 68 is cosmetic change emma o'kelly says on rte that its stil cited even when setting up the community national shcools http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/1209/20151209_rteradio1-newsatone-archaicreg_c20895414_20895431_232_.mp3

Love the reaction to the text of Rule 69: "WHAT?"

Yes, the bit at the end where she notes that Department of Education officials invoke rule 68. The DES is certainly part of the problem.

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

there were two Education Equality bills introduced to the dail tonight one by SF one by SP

Equality in Education Bill 2015: SF http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015120800029?opendocument#BB05300

Equal Participation in Schools Bill 2015: SP http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2015120800030?opendocument#CC00800

the actual bills don't know if there are really possible
Equal Participation in Schools Bill 2015 [PMB] SP http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=30280&&CatID=59

Bill entitled an Act to end religious discrimination in admission to primary and post-primary educational establishments and to provide for full participation of pupils of all faiths and none in primary and post-primary educational establishments.

Equality in Education Bill 2015 [PMB] SF http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=30344&&CatID=59

Bill entitled an Act to repeal without exception provisions of law allowing for discrimination on religious grounds against children in admissions to school; to mandate the Minister for Education and Skills to modernise the curriculum and to provide for related matters.

not much of a bill

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

wondering whether removal of rule 68 is cosmetic change, emma o'kelly says on rte that its still cited even when setting up the community national shcools http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2015/1209/20151209_rteradio1-newsatone-archaicreg_c20895414_20895431_232_.mp3

Emma O'Kelly is an excellent investigative journalist IMO, with a thorough knowledge of this subject. But when she says they "cited it" when setting up the CNS model, that means they used it to back up a plan they were going to implement anyway.
Repealing Rule 68 will not change the basic problem with these schools, which is the segregation of kids along religious lines for the purpose of allowing RC indoctrination to proceed during school hours. Which is justified on the basis that its what "the community" wants.

CNS schools were initiated by Mary Hanafin with the backing of RCC bishops, intended as a direct competitor to ET schools which they felt were getting too popular. CNS primary schools essentially hijack the public system and the good reputation of the ETB/VEC secondary schools to provide a "dominant denomination" version of "multidenominational" state education. Clare Maloney wrote the original religion program for these schools..

The GMGY programme was principally authored by Dr Clare Maloney, who worked in the Marino Institute of Education (a private charitable trust established by the Congregation of Christian Brothers), and who has strong Catholic affiliation. She co-authored a number of books in the Alive-O series (the formal Catholic Religious Education programme for primary schools), and other Catholic books for children. In 2012, due to parents’ strong objections to the GMGY programme, overall authorship of the programme was transferred to the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). However, Dr Maloney retained her position as principal author of the programme up to January 2014, when a new author from the Marino Institute was appointed.

Emma O'Kelly herself researched this article exposing the rationale behind the CNS model...

The documents released to RTÉ show that the Catholic Church played a strong role in the development of the new CNS schools.
They show that the CNS model which was first announced in 2007 by then Minister for Education Mary Hanafin corresponds to a model designed by the Catholic Church several years earlier.
They also reveal that in late 2008 Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe “reaffirmed” to the Catholic bishops what is described as "an earlier commitment" to provide Catholic pupils with the same programme of religious education as offered by Catholic Primary Schools.This meant that children would have to be separated in order for Catholic children to receive sacramental preparation from “suitably qualified” teachers during school hours.
Other religious leaders were clearly opposed to this. In a letter to the Department in 2007, Canon John McCullough of the Church of Ireland warned that it would be “inappropriate to separate denominational groups for religious education as this runs counter to the concept of a school providing inclusive education”. The Methodist Church wrote to the Department saying they were “in full agreement” with the concerns expressed by Canon McCullough

So it is fairly obvious that with the influence and political connections involved, CNS was going to be set up as a rival to the ET schools one way or another, regardless of Rule 68.

Its a pity that the educators already involved in the ETB/VEC secondary school system didn't provide more design input, instead of just jumping onto the opportunity to expand into the primary school sector with whatever was being offered to them.