School patronage

ABC101

Cabaal wrote: »

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


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.

You are very condescending!

robindch

Cabaal wrote: »

[...] a pathetic excuse for a human being.

ABC101 wrote: »

You are very condescending!

Ladies and gentlemen, please tone down the rhetoric.

I love yiz all!

The Randy Riverbeast

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

Isnt this the same person who complained that a minority wasnt getting what they wanted the last time we had a vote?

robindch

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Isnt this the same person who complained that a minority wasnt getting what they wanted the last time we had a vote?

David only bends over to move his shoe onto the other foot.

recedite

mariaalice wrote: »

What about all national schools be devastated of religious patronage.

I like the sound of that

Hotblack Desiato

ABC101 wrote: »

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.

Your idiotic analogy would have some merit if the result of the 1995 referendum were to force people to get divorced.

What right do the majority have to pass judgement on the relationships of other people and decide whether they can divorce (or marry!) or not?

What right does a majority have to decide to impose religion on my children?

expectationlost

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
503. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills if she will develop an Educate Together school in County Galway, given that an independent demographic study commissioned by GET2LS, the Educate Together secondary level start-up group, clearly demonstrated a demographic need for a new school, and there are now five Educate Together primary schools in County Galway which between them accept six classes of junior infants each year (details supplied) with no multi-denominational post-primary for them to go to; if she is aware that there are more than 1,200 expressions of interest from independent parents living in County Galway in having an Educate Together secondary level school in County Galway; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43794/15] and the Ministers reply

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-12-08a.1325&s=%22School+Patronage%22

My Department uses a Geographical Information System (GIS) to identify where the pressure for school places will arise. The outcome of the latest demographic exercises, based on the GIS, is that on 17th November last, I announced the establishment of 4 primary schools and 9 post-primary schools to open in 2017 and 2018.

so publish the stats and show us there no demand.

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-12-08a.1325&s=%22School+Patronage%22 so publish the stats and show us there no demand.

I don't think she said there was no demand though? She said "Further exploration of existing capacity and scope for expansion of existing provision is ongoing. The outcome of this exploration and the ongoing review of demographic changes in the area will determine the steps to be taken." and "The patronage determination process for new schools is a separate process, which is run after it is decided that, based on the demographic data, a new school is required."

Which sounds pretty much like, if there is a need then either existing schools will be expanded or new schools will be built. If there's a new school, then there's a process in place for determining who the patron will be.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Which sounds pretty much like, if there is a need then either existing schools will be expanded or new schools will be built. If there's a new school, then there's a process in place for determining who the patron will be.

Can you explain to us why there is need for a patron, of any variety?

Cabaal

looksee wrote: »

Can you explain to us why there is need for a patron, of any variety?

Absolam's response should be amusing,

The reality is there is no reason why a patron is needed at all, if you need a backer for a school then you already have the Gov and DOE who bank role the large costs anyway. Anything after that is really only down to control.

You can still have a board for each local school to discuss local issues, but this in no way needs to be controlled overall by any one religion.

recedite

200 years ago schools and hospitals were normally set up by private patrons as charities. Sometimes it was a wealthy individual, but more often it was a religious organisation.
Now we have a modern state which builds a public school out of tax receipts, and then hands control to a private patron, while still paying ongoing salary and maintenance costs. It is a bizarre concept when you actually think about it.

The Black Oil

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

Everything is an attack on Catholics these days. Quinn's been playing the same game the last few years, every other week he writes about Labour or FG.

seamus wrote: »

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.

Careful now, Ted. You know what the default response to this debate in general is, shure Catholic schools aren't the problem, the lack of places is.

https://twitter.com/micknugent/status/674633735975911425

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Can you explain to us why there is need for a patron, of any variety?

Sure, though I think you know the answer. The state has an obligation to provide for education, but none to provide education. In fact, direct education provision could interfere with the rights of parents.
The patronage system allows the state to fulfil its obligation by providing most of the funding for schools, whilst allowing parents to exercise their rights to choose the type of education they want without actually having to provide it themselves so long as they can find or create a patron that does it for them.

Which doesn't necasarily mean there's a need for the patronage system; just that it's what we've ended up with because it works for the majority of people.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Absolam's response should be amusing,
The reality is there is no reason why a patron is needed at all, if you need a backer for a school then you already have the Gov and DOE who bank role the large costs anyway. Anything after that is really only down to control.
You can still have a board for each local school to discuss local issues, but this in no way needs to be controlled overall by any one religion.

Sure, that could work if parents and the government wanted it that way. Do they though? The government would have to lay out more money, that won't be popular. It would mean the end of respected educational institutes, that won't be popular either. My feeling is most parents are getting what they want out of the current system, and they're not likely to give it up just because some other people have an ideological objection.

robindch

Breda O'Brien does not like Labour and feels that the removal of Rule 68 was done to appease "the chattering classes":

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-removing-religious-spirit-from-schools-an-act-of-desperation-1.2463575

looksee

In fact, direct education provision could interfere with the rights of parents.

In fact, lack of direct provision is interfering with the rights of parents. But so long as it is the wrong sort of parents who are being affected it doesn't matter.

I find it a bit difficult to see how the government is not providing education btw.

looksee

Ok, lets leave the emotional/religious stuff out of the equation for the moment. Consider the following scenario.

An order builds a school in the mid 1800s. Great. Over the following 150 years or so the state with local support and contributions builds a new school on the site, staffs it and maintains it. The original order are still patrons. Eventually the building becomes unsuitable as a school due to age and the state builds a new school on a green field site. The order is patron of the new school.The old property 'reverts' to the order. The building is still safe and usable and proposals are put to the order to allow community use of it. The order refuses so the building stands empty.

So. The order (presumably) provided the site originally. I don't actually know, they may have been left or given a property. The community and the state invested in it over the years but now it is the property of the order to do with as they choose. And apparently they now 'own' the new school.

Another situation: An order has a small private (fee paying) school. The building becomes run down and the situation is no longer viable. They announce the school will close. They are persuaded to allow the students in the school to finish their JC and LC. In the meantime the locals decide it would be a good idea to have a school for their own children, rather than bussing them some 15 miles. The DoE is lobbied and permission given (stupidly, as they have no idea how to run a school).

The order agrees to rent the building to them and cover insurance. The first years rent and insurance is modest and the locals forge ahead enthusiastically. What does not occur to them is that the teachers then become the responsibility of the new board, and thus absolve the order of any responsibility for making them redundant (this was before re-location.) The school goes ahead with a bit of patching up of the building by local effort. The next year the order increase the 'insurance' a bit. The next year they increase it rather more significantly, and the next and the next until after 5 years the rent and insurance cannot be covered, in spite of massive local fundraising by parents and teachers.

The school has to be closed, fortunately in the meantime relocation has been introduced for teachers. The order sells the property, having made a few £s in rent on the backs of local fundraising, and having saved themselves redundancy payouts. Nothing if not businessmen.

pH

recedite wrote: »

200 years ago schools and hospitals were normally set up by private patrons as charities. Sometimes it was a wealthy individual, but more often it was a religious organisation.
Now we have a modern state which builds a public school out of tax receipts, and then hands control to a private patron, while still paying ongoing salary and maintenance costs. It is a bizarre concept when you actually think about it.

I guess if enough people keep spreading nonsense like this then enough idiots will believe it. Read Fintan O'Toole's article from 2009
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/lessons-in-the-power-of-the-church-1.778683

"The great myth that hangs over so much discussion of the Catholic Church’s domination of the education and health systems is that the church stepped in to offer services that the State refused to provide. Had it not been for the church, the story goes, the plain people of Ireland would have been left without schools or medical services."

Read that, read it again.

the church consistently undermined State services, fought to limit their expansion and consistently put the maintenance of its own power ahead of the interests of vulnerable people.

The details are in the article, but the Catholic church systematically dismantled a national school system which had "mixed" classes and no religious education and replaced them them with the current system.

What's that I hear you say?, it's all nonsense, if any of it was true you'd have learned about it in history in school!

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

In fact, lack of direct provision is interfering with the rights of parents. But so long as it is the wrong sort of parents who are being affected it doesn't matter.
I find it a bit difficult to see how the government is not providing education btw.

I disagree; it's not that the State isn't providing the education that's the problem; it's that those who are providing it aren't providing every kind of education parents might want.
If we had direct provision today, and it wasn't the kind of education you want you'd still have a problem, and less opportunity for recourse, so direct provision isn't really the issue. Would you like it if direct provision included mandatory daily acts of worship, as in other countries, for instance?
Not that the system we have actually does interfere with the rights of parents; the delivery of that system simply makes it far easier for some to exercise those rights than others. An issue which can be resolved by those who want to resolve it by offering that particular variation of school.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Ok, lets leave the emotional/religious stuff out <...> Nothing if not businessmen.

What exactly are we supposed to be considering?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I disagree; it's not that the State isn't providing the education that's the problem; it's that those who are providing it aren't providing every kind of education parents might want.

Its not a need, its a thing done because it previously existed. A large amount of parents role their eye's at the very idea of going to mass, you've only to look at the massive reduction in church numbers to confirm this.

You can't be a good fine upstanding faithful catholic if you can't even fulfill basic stuff like going to mass each week and believe that you are actually eating Jebus when eating some bread.

As for religious education, religious education centres already exist....we have lots of them, atleast one in every town and decent sized village. They are called church's and they are very very much under-used in Ireland to the point that many have been closed around Ireland. A sad state of affairs I'm sure you must admit.

If you take the religion out of schools these buildings can be given a new lease of life as the community (according to you) will be all very actively involved since they want their kids to receive catholic teachings.

The reality is very different of course, both you and I know that doing such a thing would be a massive nail in the coffin of the catholic church in Ireland as parents won't do the extra work involved going to mass for this to happen in the vast majority of cases.

The problem is you won't actually admit it....but sooner or later its going to happen in this country because we can't continue to treat 5 year olds in such a disgusting manner and grin and smile about it like its ok.

Would you like it if direct provision included mandatory daily acts of worship

Ireland already has mandatory acts of daily worship, its called religion class and as we know some schools don't even want parents to opt their children out of such classes...thats even if the child can get into the state paid for school

If you want to pick a country we can copy I'd go with France, a country that knew from the start that mixing religion and government shouldn't happen.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Its not a need, its a thing done because it previously existed. A large amount of parents role their eye's at the very idea of going to mass, you've only to look at the massive reduction in church numbers to confirm this.

Who mentioned need? If parents want to roll their eyes at going to church that's fine by me, just as parents choosing to send their children to denominational schools is fine by me.

Cabaal wrote: »

You can't be a good fine upstanding faithful catholic if you can't even fulfill basic stuff like going to mass each week and believe that you are actually eating Jebus when eating some bread.

I'd say that's a matter of opinion, and when it comes to deciding who's a fine upstanding faithful Catholic, the only opinions that matter are those of the fine upstanding faithful Catholics :-)

Cabaal wrote: »

As for religious education, religious education centres already exist....we have lots of them, atleast one in every town and decent sized village. They are called church's and they are very very much under-used in Ireland to the point that many have been closed around Ireland. A sad state of affairs I'm sure you must admit.

. We also have denominational schools.... And right now whichever ones parents choose to deliver the religious education they want is up to them.

Cabaal wrote: »

If you take the religion out of schools these buildings can be given a new lease of life as the community (according to you) will be all very actively involved since they want their kids to receive catholic teachings.

According to me? Pretty sure I never said that. I imagine if the community wanted to educate their children the way you're proposing, they'd be doing it. Would they not?

Cabaal wrote: »

The reality is very different of course, both you and I know that doing such a thing would be a massive nail in the coffin of the catholic church in Ireland as parents won't do the extra work involved going to mass for this to happen in the vast majority of cases.

. So, forcing Catholics to educate their children the way an atheist wants would be a massive nail in the coffin of the catholic church in Ireland? I imagine Catholics might oppose it so....

Cabaal wrote: »

The problem is you won't actually admit it....but sooner or later its going to happen in this country because we can't continue to treat 5 year olds in such a disgusting manner and grin and smile about it like its ok.

Well, if it's inevitable then we don't need to force a secular education on parents who don't want it, eh? Because it's all just going to happen anyway......

Cabaal wrote: »

Ireland already has mandatory acts of daily worship, its called religion class and as we know some schools don't even want parents to opt their children out of such classes...thats even if the child can get into the state paid for school

Ah, I reckon you can tell the difference between education, instruction, and worship.

Cabaal wrote: »

If you want to pick a country we can copy I'd go with France, a country that knew from the start that mixing religion and government shouldn't happen.

Yes. It's a pity France ranks so far behind Ireland on OECD and TIMSS school rankings, but I imagine that wouldn't dissuade some parents from wanting us to be more like them. Possibly nor all though.....

recedite

pH wrote: »

I guess if enough people keep spreading nonsense like this then enough idiots will believe it. Read Fintan O'Toole's article from 2009

O'Tooles article refers to the situation post 1831, but previous to that "the state" or "the crown" did not take a leading role in the provision of services which today would be considered "state services" in most countries; such as schools, hospitals and even the police.
Its an interesting and pivotal period, but one which is regrettably not really covered in the Irish school history curriculum. People such as Peel, Stanley and the jackeen Wellington were active in pushing for reforms that would strengthen the state through providing more and better services to the people. They had seen at first hand how close Napoleon had come to implementing his ideals of liberte egalite and fraternite throughout Europe, and they knew that the future would be formed by these kind of ideas. But they wanted Britain in the lead position, not France.

In the end, they were outnumbered by the many small-minded politicians of the day. Their empire continued to expand for a short time, but it was founded on inequitable and unsustainable principles. Politicians who were unduly influenced by religion or personal wealth, the cute hoors of their time, had caused its downfall.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I'd say that's a matter of opinion, and when it comes to deciding who's a fine upstanding faithful Catholic, the only opinions that matter are those of the fine upstanding faithful Catholics :-)

I think you'll find its actually the catholic church in Ireland who decides this,
This is why they were fine to refuse communion to TD's who voted in favor of allowing abortions in certain situations a few years back and while some priests will refuse to baptise unwed mothers.

If somebody doesn't want to be a catholic by agreeing with the catholic church then in reality they are a christian, not a catholic.

You can't claim you are a member of a religion and then not believing in it, its just silly. Its like me claiming I'm a strict Muslim, of course in your world that would make me a Muslim even though I believe nothing about it. Its laughable.

We also have denominational schools.... And right now whichever ones parents choose to deliver the religious education they want is up to them.
According to me? Pretty sure I never said that. I imagine if the community wanted to educate their children the way you're proposing, they'd be doing it. Would they not?

You'll find that they won't and can't, the catholic church controls the school through catholic ethos. You know and understand this so why make such a suggestion?

So, forcing Catholics to educate their children the way an atheist wants would be a massive nail in the coffin of the catholic church in Ireland? I imagine Catholics might oppose it so....

So you admit and acknowledge that parents won't bring their kids to church's to learn about the god they are supposed to be believing in.

Alright then,
:rolleyes:

Meanwhile you're fine to discriminate against 5 years old's with the current system that will refuse them places in tax payer funded schools.

Does this type of discrimination make you feel warm and fuzzy inside at night?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

I think you'll find its actually the catholic church in Ireland who decides this, This is why they were fine to refuse communion to TD's who voted in favor of allowing abortions in certain situations a few years back and while some priests will refuse to baptise unwed mothers.

Are you talking about the whole Catholic Church in Ireland, or various members of it? Because if it's the former I don't think you can really say there was a unanimous agreement on the actions you cited, but if it's the latter then I'm happy to agree with you; the Catholic Church is pretty much the people in it after all.

Cabaal wrote: »

If somebody doesn't want to be a catholic by agreeing with the catholic church then in reality they are a christian, not a catholic.

. I think I'll leave it up to them to decide that for themselves; it seems more reasonable than someone who's not involved telling them what their rules should be.

Cabaal wrote: »

You can't claim you are a member of a religion and then not believing in it, its just silly. Its like me claiming I'm a strict Muslim, of course in your world that would make me a Muslim even though I believe nothing about it. Its laughable.

In my world you can call yourself whatever you like, I don't mind. I've no idea why in your world you think whether you think a Catholic is sufficiently Catholic for your taste should make any difference to what the Catholic (or anyone other than you) thinks of their Catholicism.

Cabaal wrote: »

You'll find that they won't and can't, the catholic church controls the school through catholic ethos. You know and understand this so why make such a suggestion?

Well, it was your suggestion, not mine. That they can't I think is simply not true, that they won't I'd suggest is up to them.

Cabaal wrote: »

So you admit and acknowledge that parents won't bring their kids to church's to learn about the god they are supposed to be believing in.

pretty sure I never admitted or acknowledged any such thing. You're the one saying they can't and they won't. I just can't see why they would need to....

Cabaal wrote: »

Alright then,
:rolleyes:

I love your little roll eyes, they're always so expressive

Cabaal wrote: »

Meanwhile you're fine to discriminate against 5 years old's with the current system that will refuse them places in tax payer funded schools.

I don't think I ever said that either, but just for the sake of the discussion, how many five year olds currently don't have places in tax payer funded schools?

Cabaal wrote: »

Does this type of discrimination make you feel warm and fuzzy inside at night?

Aw.... Am I supposed to feel bad because you're not being given your own way?

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Are you talking about the whole Catholic Church in Ireland, or various members of it? Because if it's the former I don't think you can really say there was a unanimous agreement on the actions you cited, but if it's the latter then I'm happy to agree with you; the Catholic Church is pretty much the people in it after all.

Catholics when it comes to our school system mean what the Irish Catholic Church believes. after all they are the patrons of the schools and they control the ethos.

This is why for example the catholic church didn't lobby to remove the rule to allow them to legally sack gay or lesbian teachers even though many local people had no issues with it and were outraged by such backwardness.

We know for a fact that although the Irish catholic church controls our schools, it by no stretch of the imagination reflects the views held by the majority of the Irish public over the age of 18.

Despite this they continue to have control,

how many five year olds currently don't have places in tax payer funded schools?

Why does it matter? Why the whataboutery?
Regardless of if its 30 or 3000 its wrong and discrimination, end of.

Can you somehow justify it as ok in your mind if its only 3?

Obviously we know its not 3, its more, but if it was for the sake of argument would you be fine with a child not getting a school place based on their parents different beliefs or non-beliefs?

Am I supposed to feel bad because you're not being given your own way?

Your not supposed to feel bad at all, I don't expect you to feel bad for one second.

Its obvious you have no real problem with children being discriminated against based on their religious faith or none faith of their parents. Otherwise you wouldn't be fear making silly attempts to justify the continued discrimination at the tax payer expense.

I'm just curious if somehow you get some weird kick out of it,

Bristolscale7

"We are not denying blacks a drinking fountain, they just have to cross the street and go behind that building to get to it. The issue is more drinking fountains, not discrimination.".
I doubt an EU court will find this logic compelling.

Cabaal

Its not discrimination when you treat people you don't agree with differently, wasn't this the same logic used for Iona for arguing against marriage equality

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

byhookorbycrook

I saw this on another site and got a bit of a land:

http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Events/Advancing-School-Autonomy-in-Ireland/Advancing-School-Autonomy-in-Ireland.html



"A school can identify a specific cohort within the community as its target client base and develop admissions and other policies to support provision for that cohort." So in other words, schools could decide to target the who they want and to suggest children not fitting those criteria go to somewhere "more suited to their needs." This is a consultation document, so please make your feelings known to the DES. So much for equality.