School patronage

The Black Oil

Irish Times

Catholic bishops have warned the Minister for Education that it is not her role to interfere with the ethos of faith schools.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Bishops’ Council for Education said religious education and admission policies were crucial to preserving the ethos of faith schools.

“It is not the role of the Minister to determine or interfere with the ethos of faith schools. Legal advice available to the Department of Education confirms this,” it said.

While it said it supported moves to update rules contained in the Rules for National Schools - published in 1965 - the rules relating to religion should not be dealt with isolation from others.

The Iona Institute went further, saying that plans to abolish “rule 68” represented another attack on the rights of faith schools.

Its spokesman David Quinn said while there is a need for more school choice, denominational schools must be allowed to have a “strong, faith-based ethos."

Well, at least we know what Dave'll be writing about this week.

lazygal

The Black Oil wrote: »

Well, at least we know what Dave'll be writing about this week.

Its delightful seeing his hissy fits about how we can't get rid of discrimination.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

Its delightful seeing his hissy fits about how we can't get rid of discrimination.

It's funny, iona don't seem to have learned that preaching hate puts people against them. People will support religion out of school just like they did marriage equality.

Anyone on the fence will go against iona once they hear the hatred,

Hotblack Desiato

David Quinn said while there is a need for more school choice

Just enough to ensure his precious catholic schools remain pure and unsullied by the presence of too many protestants, atheists, and other 'undesirables'

Catholic schools for catholic children paid for by everyone. Yeah, that's fair :rolleyes:

If you want catholic madrassas dig into your own pocket and your church's collection plate.

Absolam

seamus wrote: »

[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.

No.. 46% didn't choose a Christian school. Popepalpatines statement was "40% of parents would send their children to a non-Christian school"; at best the survey shows 36% would send their children to a non Christian school, as 54% (the majority) chose a Christian school, and 11% said they did not know. Leaving 35% who would send their children to a non Christian school, or 36% if we're generous with the dodgy 1%.

seamus wrote: »

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.

That's hardly news; even the Catholic Church has been saying it wants to divest schools. The crux of the argument is whether it's a problem with the system, or a problem with participation in the system... I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

And I suspect your use of the word sect is more descriptive of your bias than the Catholic Church's place in the Christian religion :-)

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

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.

If it helps, the subject was covered fairly comprehensively on A&A not long ago.
You even participated; odd that you'd forget the answers!

Absolam

RainyDay wrote: »

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.

I'd agree, neither a mandate or a reasonable rationale.

However, I'd suggest it does have a mandate for rewriting the Rules for Schools from the bottom up; there's no point is simply scrapping Rule 68 when so much more could be done.

expectationlost

another campaign group appeared yesterday Equate

Michael Barron, of the campaign group Equate, discusses the need for reform of primary and secondary education to ensure equality for all children

via RTÉ - Morning Ireland

http://ift.tt/1PYnYb0
Michael Barron founder of Belongto an LGBT youth support group http://www.belongto.org/about.aspx?contentid=641 https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelbarron1
IT OP ED http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-barron-no-child-should-be-excluded-from-local-school-over-faith-1.2459040
https://twitter.com/equateireland http://www.equateireland.ie/#!team/mm1tb ruairi quinn is on the board

funded by the One Foundation declan ryan
comissioned a poll http://www.equateireland.ie/#!news/c6v5

expectationlost

status of the programme for divestment of patronage https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-12-09a.16

seamus

Absolam wrote: »

That's hardly news; even the Catholic Church has been saying it wants to divest schools. The crux of the argument is whether it's a problem with the system, or a problem with participation in the system... I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying the problem is that parents keep sending their kids to Catholic Schools?

And I suspect your use of the word sect is more descriptive of your bias than the Catholic Church's place in the Christian religion :-)

Well yes. It's a sect of the overall christianity movement. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of christian sects. I don't hold it in any different regard than mormonism or protestantism or WBC.

I use the word sect to make the point that the survey wasn't in relation to catholic or non-catholic - the question was christian or non-christian. And yet just a single denomination of christianity controls 95% of the schools. Even inside that 60% who will prefer a christian school, how many of these would rather send their children to a non-catholic school?

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

status of the programme for divestment of patronage https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-12-09a.16

I think the word "not" must have been put into the transcript in error?

Minister for Education wrote:

I do not disagree that we need to address the Equal Status Act and that it needs to be amended. We are examining in what way it could be amended to protect, for example, minority religions in terms of wanting to have their particular schools protected. If one is, for example, a member of the Jewish faith, a member of the Church of Ireland or a Muslim for that matter, if a school has to take in all the local children where the school is situated, it will not have that ethos protected.

She is still caught in a circular argument; she is obsessed with protecting the "ethos" of religious schools, which is a requirement of 7c of the equal status Act, which she previously said needs to be amended.
If she would only realise that it is not the business of the state to endow these religions by funding schools for them, the problem is solved.
The state should only fund non-discriminatory secular schools.
The religions could run their own private schools according to their own particular ethos.
Anyway, I doubt that muslim schools would be swamped by the general population, even if public funding was continued.

The SF guy in the transcript seems sensible.

expectationlost

Bishops’ Council for Education statement concerning the autonomy of schools http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2015/12/09/statement-from-the-bishops-council-for-education-concerning-the-autonomy-of-schools-2/

stll not sure removal of rule 68 will happen

CPSMA expresses concern regarding proposals by the Minister for Education & Skills on religious education http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2015/12/09/cpsma-expresses-concern-regarding-proposals-by-the-minister-for-education-skills-on-religious-education/

Absolam

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying the problem is that parents keep sending their kids to Catholic Schools?

Nope, I'm saying it's not news that there are parents who want to send their children to non Christian schools (even if it's not as many as 40%).

seamus wrote: »

Well yes. It's a sect of the overall christianity movement. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of christian sects. I don't hold it in any different regard than mormonism or protestantism or WBC. I use the word sect to make the point that the survey wasn't in relation to catholic or non-catholic - the question was christian or non-christian.

Well no, a sect is a group with different beliefs from the larger group within a religion. Catholicism is the larger group, even balanced against all the sects put together. So it's not actually a sect; describing it by using the diminutive term is either accidentally misleading, or deliberately attempting to diminish.

seamus wrote: »

And yet just a single denomination of christianity controls 95% of the schools. Even inside that 60% who will prefer a christian school, how many of these would rather send their children to a non-catholic school?

Actually, I think that single denomination controls about 90%; religious denominations control about 96% in total.
Since they weren't asked, I don't think there's any data that would allow a reasonable assessment of splitting the 54% Christian preference into Catholic and others.

robindch

News of religious discrimination in Irish schools reaches the blogs section of the Wall Street Journal:

http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/12/10/irish-schools-out-of-sync-with-a-modern-multicultural-society/

Bristolscale7

robindch wrote: »

News of religious discrimination in Irish schools reaches the blogs section of the Wall Street Journal:

http://blogs.wsj.com/expat/2015/12/10/irish-schools-out-of-sync-with-a-modern-multicultural-society/

This from the comments section:

The situation here is stacked against anyone who is not Catholic. I didn't baptise my child and it has been a nightmare of epic proportions getting them into school. Once they are in school (every school in our area is Catholic or Protestant) they are indoctrinated daily with Cathlolic babble that teaches Noah's Ark and fact and put mythical figure of Saint Brigid in their history books as a historical figure. It's batpoo cray cray. Even Catholic Irish people are uncomfortable with it. As well as choosing Catholic parents first, they also give priority to parents who were past students. That means if you are like me and an immigrant to Ireland, and not religions, then you can't get your kid into ANY school. I had to take legal action to get my kid into a school and it is ridiculous that I had to do this. It's in an aging system that needs to go. It's embarassing on an international level

Bristolscale7

Two more articles from Irish Times today:

Scrapping religion rule ‘largely symbolic’
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/scrapping-religion-rule-largely-symbolic-1.2462242

Religion in school: ‘She feels excluded and different’
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-in-school-she-feels-excluded-and-different-1.2462201

robindch

Meanwhile, over in the Indo, La Quinn has blown yet another gasket:

Labour pandering to a tiny minority with latest attack on faith-based schools

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/labour-pandering-to-a-tiny-minority-with-latest-attack-on-faithbased-schools-34277719.html

On the plus side, Quinn has suddenly come out in favour of removing (a relatively large) number of schools from church control

La Quinn wrote:

This is why the handover of probably several hundred denominational schools to other patron bodies must happen much faster.

Penn

robindch wrote: »

Meanwhile, over in the Indo, La Quinn has blown yet another gasket:

Labour pandering to a tiny minority with latest attack on faith-based schools

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/labour-pandering-to-a-tiny-minority-with-latest-attack-on-faithbased-schools-34277719.html

On the plus side, Quinn has suddenly come out in favour of removing (a relatively large) number of schools from church control

The Master of the self-defeating argument strikes again:
"Rule 68 says that religious instruction is the most important part of the school day because its focus is God. If God exists, then knowledge of him is clearly the most important knowledge of all."

If God exists. If

The State shouldn't be funding and providing the education of children based on if, and not ahead of things we know to be facts.

lazygal

Penn wrote: »

The Master of the self-defeating argument strikes again:
"Rule 68 says that religious instruction is the most important part of the school day because its focus is God. If God exists, then knowledge of him is clearly the most important knowledge of all."

If God exists. If

The State shouldn't be funding and providing the education of children based on if, and not ahead of things we know to be facts.

Is La Quinn questioning his faith? Isn't doubting the existence of God materialism or some such threat?

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Is La Quinn questioning his faith?

Seems to be. I'm sure that's an indictable offence around the watercooler down Iona HQ.

ABC101

Would it not be better for each school.... every year to hold a vote of all the parents if they wanted a religious ethos in the school for the following year?

Would a majority decision by parents be acceptable to athiests?

L1011

ABC101 wrote: »

Would it not be better for each school.... every year to hold a vote of all the parents if they wanted a religious ethos in the school for the following year?

Would a majority decision by parents be acceptable to athiests?

A 51% majority in every school leaves 49% out

This is the reason we use multi member dail constituencies, etc

RobbieTheRobber

ABC101 wrote: »

Would it not be better for each school.... every year to hold a vote of all the parents if they wanted a religious ethos in the school for the following year?

Would a majority decision by parents be acceptable to athiests?

For me the issue is not whether the schools has a so called religious ethos and more whether they are allowed use religious ethos to discriminate on religious grounds for admission policies.

PopePalpatine

Ever heard of tyranny of the majority?

Also, is this vote you're proposing also going to elect the next patron? What about those living in rural areas, where it could be up to an hour's drive to the nearest non-Catholic school?

ABC101

It is the states responsibility to provide services for it's citizens.

If the majority of parents of children in a school want the school to have a religious ethos then I think that is only fair.

If the majority of parents want the school to be non denominational then so be it for that year.

I am suggesting a vote be held each year...as every year some students graduate, and some students join. Therefore variations can occur every year.

As for objections to a majority vote ..... this is what happens with the nations constitution, majority vote. The divorce referendum was carried by a majority of just 11,000 votes.

Even by such a slim margin.... Mr Mervyn Taylor stated that "a win is a win is a win".

Obviously a win when it suits of course.

mariaalice

What about all national schools be devastated of religious patronage and have community type patronage? and any religious education takes place after school if parents wish, however if parents want to come togather to form a faith based school they could as long as what is being thought does not conflict with the constitution. Problem solve or am I missing something.

Penn

State-funded schools should be non-religious by default. It should absolutely not be the role of the school to teach children their religion. If religious organisations want, they can hire schools and teachers and hold religion classes in the school outside of school hours.

There should be no right to send your child to a school with your religious ethos, because State-funded schools shouldn't have a religious ethos.

If religious organisations really want, they can set up their own school with their own religious ethos, receive part-funding from the State and raise the rest of the money themselves through enrolment fees from parents who really want their child to go to a religious school. However such schools will still have to hold to the State curriculum in terms of what children are required to be taught outside of religion.

Cabaal

ABC101 wrote: »

It is the states responsibility to provide services for it's citizens.
.

Provide religious services eh?
Where does that end exactly?

Should the Irish state fund the building of Mosque's for its Muslim citizens for example? After all its a service and a very important service to any Muslim out in the world.

If not why not? Mosque's are places of religious education for Muslims so its only fair that the state bank role them just like its currently bank rolling religious education centers for the catholic faith (our national primary and secondary schools).

How about the state sticks to education maths etc and religious groups stick to religion. If religion needs to be taught to children then use the existing church's etc to do so....after all they are so underused all over the country.

It would be a great boost for church numbers if parents actually became activiely involved in the religious upbringing of their children....like they agree to do so at baptism.

robindch

ABC101 wrote: »

Would a majority decision by parents be acceptable to athiests?

Would be fairer to reflect the wishes of the parents, percentage-wise. So, say, you have 30% wanting a secular school system, 30% want it run by priests, and 10% each wanting protestant, jewish, islamic and atheistic beliefs pushed.

So you'd get around 6 hours per week during which the teacher would explain that certain religious beliefs existed, but wouldn't express a preference. Another 6 hours or so during which the kids would be told that the catholic deity was the real one and damn all the rest; then 90 minutes each damning any other deities while pushing, by turn, the protestant, jewish and islamic gods. Then, ninety minutes denying the existence of any deities to start with.

What could possibly go wrong?

Cabaal

ABC101 wrote: »

It is the states responsibility to provide services for it's citizens.

If the majority of parents of children in a school want the school to have a religious ethos then I think that is only fair.

If the majority of parents want the school to be non denominational then so be it for that year.

Do you not realise how frankly idiotic this idea is? Right?

You are proposing that a school will change its ethos on a YEARLY BASIS,
So that one year it will accept muslim or atheist children and the next it will give lower priority to them and as such discriminate against them...all on a parents whim.

This is just silly,
I guess we can fly back in time to 1950's America and allow the parents of the pupils in the school to vote each year on if they will allow black kids into their school each year. Since its such a great idea. Sure what could go wrong?
:rolleyes:

*cough* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_%281954%E2%80%9368%29

A crisis erupted in Little Rock, Arkansas when Governor of Arkansas Orval Faubus called out the National Guard on September 4 to prevent entry to the nine African-American students who had sued for the right to attend an integrated school, Little Rock Central High School.[31] The nine students had been chosen to attend Central High because of their excellent grades.

On the first day of school, only one of the nine students showed up because she did not receive the phone call about the danger of going to school. She was harassed by white protesters outside the school, and the police had to take her away in a patrol car to protect her. Afterward, the nine students had to carpool to school and be escorted by military personnel in jeeps.

The students attended high school under harsh conditions. They had to pass through a gauntlet of spitting, jeering whites to arrive at school on their first day, and to put up with harassment from other students for the rest of the year. Although federal troops escorted the students between classes, the students were teased and even attacked by white students when the soldiers were not around. One of the Little Rock Nine, Minnijean Brown, was suspended for spilling a bowl of chili on the head of a white student who was harassing her in the school lunch line. Later, she was expelled for verbally abusing a white female student.[32]

Only Ernest Green of the Little Rock Nine graduated from Central High School. After the 1957–58 school year was over, Little Rock closed its public school system completely rather than continue to integrate. Other school systems across the South followed suit.

As you can see from the above, people would rather discriminate against children then change with the times, what pathetic people these people were. In the end they rather close the school then change.

Rights and equality don't work like you are suggesting. Either you continue to discriminate against 5 year old like the backwards country we are or as a country we are progressive and we decide that discriminating against 5 year old's is no longer acceptable and it must change.

For those that want to play football with the whole idea and think its their right to discriminate against 5 years olds then you should be ashamed of yourselves. Anyone who see's no issue with discrimination like this is a pathetic excuse for a human being.