Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
School patronage
Comments
-
So Frozen did have a message? It's been waiting for me to hear it all this time.....0
-
There are at least 3 community schools within a few miles of Loreto Rathfarnham open to those of all faiths and none.
There's also a Jewish school, a CoI school and a number of other RC schools.
I would have thought this provides plenty of choice for people in the area of all faiths and none.
Why would an atheist want to send their child to an RC school such as Loreto when there are non denominational options available ?0 -
I don't believe that's correct.
The community schools are non denominational, non fee paying and receive state funding.
But even if they didn't, the point would still stand.
There are numerous options available in D16 for people of various faiths and none.
I'm confused as to why an atheist would want to choose an RC school over a non denominational school.
That's would be like me choosing Stratford College over a Balinteer Community School and complaining about the fact that my kids are receiving a Jewish education.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, I honestly don't understand the reasoning..
I also get that not everyone has the option but in this location, they certainly do.0 -
-
There are at least 3 community schools within a few miles of Loreto Rathfarnham open to those of all faiths and none.
What is the ethos of these schools? (Only in Ireland could a school entirely paid for and run by the state have a representative of a bishop on the board of management)There's also a Jewish school, a CoI school and a number of other RC schools.
Oh great. If you don't like RC there are other types of woo you can subject your kids to.I would have thought this provides plenty of choice for people in the area of all faiths and none.
The community schools are very unlikely to be as secular as you think. ET secondary schools were established for a reason, and there are now a handful in the entire country...Why would an atheist want to send their child to an RC school such as Loreto when there are non denominational options available ?
There are no non-denominational schools in the state except for a handful of entirely privately funded ones. The Dept of Education will not provide a cent in funding to any non-denominational school.Scrap the cap!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »What is the ethos of these schools? (Only in Ireland could a school entirely paid for and run by the state have a representative of a bishop on the board of management.
And that's what's great about boards. Every day is a school day
I wasn't aware who the patron was and would agree that it certainly puts a different slant on it.0 -
full FF ed doc here now https://www.fiannafail.ie/fianna-fail-launches-education-policy-blueprint-securing-the-future/# https://www.fiannafail.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Securing-the-Future.pdf
as pointed out above, their promise is limited, doesn't really tackle the issueWe favour the introduction of selection criteria for over-subscribed schools, based on locality and catchment area. Selection rules should be based on two mandatory criteria. Firstly on a sibling first principle, where siblings of pupils presently enrolled would be selected first. Secondly, children living in newly designated school catchment areas would have to be prioritised with access to a school place However we not believe that schools should be able to give admissions to children of their own denominational background from outside their catchment area, in preference to children of a different denomination from inside their catchment area.
Catchment Areas could be sized according to the availability of schools of different ethos. It is unlikely that this would be unconstitutional. This would mean that catchment areas could be sized according to the popularity of the schools ethos e.g. Presbyterian schools or Jewish schools would have an extremely wide catchment for admissions as there are so few of these schools in the country. This would protect them as Minority denominational schools.
This would mean that a situation could not occur where a child from outside an area could be considered for a school place before a child from the local area, even if the local child is not of the denominated religion of the school/ or is of no religion at all.0 -
Why would an atheist want to send their child to an RC school such as Loreto when there are non denominational other options available ?
Anyway the specific point we were discussing was whether or not their admissions policy was discriminatory in favour of RC. Not whether atheists would want to enroll.0 -
expectationlost wrote: »This would mean that a situation could not occur where a child from outside an area could be considered for a school place before a child from the local area, even if the local child is not of the denominated religion of the school/ or is of no religion at all.
In one sense they mean the "catchment area" and in another "the local area" and they mix and conflate the two meanings to make the policy seem reasonable.
As an example, lets say the state is funding a school and CoI gains control of "the patronage". The catchment area is very large and therefore it is quite possible for people outside the local area to take most of the places.
In that situation a child from outside the area could be considered for a school place before a child from the local area, if the local child is not of the denominated religion of the school/ or is of no religion at all.
Its not the worst proposal yet, but still it does not address the basic issue. The simple and obvious solution; secular schools with religion practiced outside school hours.0 -
An interesting take on it, but the error here is in their use of the word "area".
In one sense they mean the "catchment area" and in another "the local area" and they mix and conflate the two meanings to make the policy seem reasonable.
As an example, lets say the state is funding a school and CoI gains control of "the patronage". The catchment area is very large and therefore it is quite possible for people outside the local area to take most of the places.
In that situation a child from outside the area could be considered for a school place before a child from the local area, if the local child is not of the denominated religion of the school/ or is of no religion at all.
Its not the worst proposal yet, but still it does not address the basic issue. The simple and obvious solution; secular schools with religion practiced outside school hours.
Yes, I was just thinking this. The fact that they say the catchment area would be sized according to the popularity of a particular ethos seems to be something that would allow a school to continue to discriminate.
This was actually a point that someone brought up a couple of weeks ago, in relation to UK faith schools, which I asked for clarification on. They said something along the line of "the faith schools have much larger catchment areas". MY immediate thought was, all the better to discriminate against local children.
Whilst I agree that it is not the worst possible proposal, I do think it is pretty terrible.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
Catchment areas can mean anything. There's a huge link between parishes and catchment areas. Then there's schools operating without boards of management which have arbitrary enrolment criteria. Most of the six schools in our "area" have crossover in their catchment areas.0
-
.................jaysus help us if true......
"Ending religious discrimination in schools’ admission policies may require a constitutional referendum, Minister for Children James Reilly has said. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/school-bias-over-religion-may-require-referendum-1.24973560 -
.................jaysus help us if true......
"Ending religious discrimination in schools’ admission policies may require a constitutional referendum, Minister for Children James Reilly has said. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/school-bias-over-religion-may-require-referendum-1.2497356
its not, its just an excuse of inaction0 -
.................jaysus help us if true......
"Ending religious discrimination in schools’ admission policies may require a constitutional referendum, Minister for Children James Reilly has said. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/school-bias-over-religion-may-require-referendum-1.2497356
https://twitter.com/eoinmauricedaly/status/687973591426666497
According to his online information he is lecturer at the National University of Ireland focusing on political theory and constitutional law.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
.................jaysus help us if true......
"Ending religious discrimination in schools’ admission policies may require a constitutional referendum, Minister for Children James Reilly has said. "
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/school-bias-over-religion-may-require-referendum-1.2497356
I don't see how the ethos is damaged by having a minority of students from different religions. They says that it is only a problem with 20% of schools. How has the ethos of the other 80% of schools which aren't over subscribed been affected?0 -
The old "we need a referendum" excuse was trotted out ad nauseam by previous ministers for education. I think it's a total red herring, designed to make out that inaction isn't really inaction and there's a political will for equal that's blocked by the constitution.0
-
-
PopePalpatine wrote: »Address the basic issue? Nah, that's not the Fianna Failure way.
'Irish solutions to Irish problemsi0 -
expectationlost wrote: »its not, its just an excuse of inaction..The only way to get forward movement on this might be in the next government; that in the citizens’ convention, this issue could be considered0
-
Jan O'Sullivan I met with the Education and Training Boards, Educate Together and with representatives of the Catholic Church in December. I will be meeting with An Foras Pátrúnachta, and Gaelscoileanna Teoranta in January. Following those meetings I will outline a number of actions to advance the recommendations which arose from the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism, and these actions will include the immediate repeal of rule 68.0
-
Advertisement
-
Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)801. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills if she will clarify her reply to Parliamentary Question No. 197 of 10 December 2015 regarding the religious criteria for admission to non-denominational schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1099/16]
Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)As the Deputy is aware, the model schools have their origin in the set of instructions drawn up by Chief Secretary Stanley in 1831 and they initially operated as schools for the purpose of training teachers. From about 1883 onwards this role ended and the schools have functioned as ordinary schools since that time. While I am patron by virtue of the 1998 Education Act, the schools have historically catered for local Catholic or Protestant communities. In this respect they are de facto denominational schools. I do not envisage any change to the status of these schools without engaging with the school communities concerned.0 -
How can handing control of a State asset to a religious body be legal?
Greystones is another clear example. A church gets to run a school as it sees fit despite not having contributed a cent towards it.
The position with respect to many schools' ownership is (deliberately) hazy, but there is no question who built and owns the model schools, and who built and owns recent schools like the one in Greystones.Scrap the cap!
0 -
The old "we need a referendum" excuse was trotted out ad nauseam by previous ministers for education. I think it's a total red herring, designed to make out that inaction isn't really inaction and there's a political will for equal that's blocked by the constitution.
For all the rubbish that made its way into the Irish constitution, I think its pretty well developed around the issue of protecting the rights of the religious institutions and their property while balancing it with the rights of the child to receive education while opting out of religious instruction given by the school. Or is there something I am missing? I just don't see that anyone can hide behind the constitution as a way to support laws that discriminate against children of one faith attending another school of a different faith.
RELIGION
ARTICLE 44
2
1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession
and practice of religion are, subject to public
order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
2° The State guarantees not to endow any
religion.
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or
make any discrimination on the ground of
religious profession, belief or status.
4° Legislation providing State aid for schools
shall not discriminate between schools under the
management of different religious denominations,
nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of
any child to attend a school receiving public money
without attending religious instruction at that
school.
5° Every religious denomination shall have the
right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and
administer property, movable and immovable,
and maintain institutions for religious or
charitable purposes.
6° The property of any religious denomination or
any educational institution shall not be diverted
save for necessary works of public utility and on
payment of compensation.0 -
Article 42 probably has some relevance as well, to be fair...
ARTICLE 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
If there's something you're missing, it may well be in there. I'd suggest that focusing on the idea that it's big bad religions forcing this system on the unfortunate parents could well be missing the notion that the religious bodies involved are simply the vehicles that delivered the education that parents wanted. We now have a situation where there are more and more parents wanting to use different vehicles to provide the education they want (not to mention the odd crusader who wants all children to receive the education that is best for them in the crusaders view) and not much means to provide those vehicles (hence the desire to 'liberate' vehicles from the religious bodies who own them).0 -
Article 42 probably has some relevance as well, to be fair...
ARTICLE 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
If there's something you're missing, it may well be in there. I'd suggest that focusing on the idea that it's big bad religions forcing this system on the unfortunate parents could well be missing the notion that the religious bodies involved are simply the vehicles that delivered the education that parents wanted. We now have a situation where there are more and more parents wanting to use different vehicles to provide the education they want (not to mention the odd crusader who wants all children to receive the education that is best for them in the crusaders view) and not much means to provide those vehicles (hence the desire to 'liberate' vehicles from the religious bodies who own them).
You're getting totes emosh. Calm down. I didn't attack religion or the religious orders. I just suggested that the constitution did a decent job at protecting both the rights of the religious orders as well as the rights of kids to an education. They balanced it fairly well in my opinion. I can't fault it unless there is a line I misinterpreted a line in the constitution. Article 42 doesn't add much in my mind as it just deals with education rather than the religion/education overlap.
The problem is that at the moment schools have the right to reserve admission to schools for those of that religion where the waiting lists to enter the school are greater than the number of places in the school. So non Christians are being rejected or at risk of being rejected from publicly funded schools because they are not Christians. That's just wrong. And the government is dragging its feet about getting rid of these laws and in cases they are lying to bodies like the UN who quiz them on the Irish laws. The government suggest that they have to allow this sort of discrimination because the work of religious institutions are protected in the constitution. I am saying that I see no evidence that religious institutions are protected to that degree in the constitution. I see plenty of lines in the constitution that indicate that schools cannot discriminate against kids so they can easily change the law. They are protected in civil law and that can be easily changed by the government without a referendum.
And no I'm not advocating making schools with a religious ethos (whatever that means) more secular. But they should allow non Christians into the schools where they are a minority in the area. In certain schools, you might be only talking about letting in a handful of kids who are non christian into a christian school.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »You're getting totes emosh. Calm down. I didn't attack religion or the religious orders. I just suggested that the constitution did a decent job at protecting both the rights of the religious orders as well as the rights of kids to an education. They balanced it fairly well in my opinion. I can't fault it unless there is a line I misinterpreted a line in the constitution. Article 42 doesn't add much in my mind as it just deals with education rather than the religion/education overlap.Deleted User wrote: »The problem is that at the moment schools have the right to reserve admission to schools for those of that religion where the waiting lists to enter the school are greater than the number of places in the school. So non Christians are being rejected or at risk of being rejected from publicly funded schools because they are not Christians. That's just wrong.Deleted User wrote: »And the government is dragging its feet about getting rid of these laws and in cases they are lying to bodies like the UN who quiz them on the Irish laws.Deleted User wrote: »The government suggest that they have to allow this sort of discrimination because the work of religious institutions are protected in the constitution. I am saying that I see no evidence that religious institutions are protected to that degree in the constitution. I see plenty of lines in the constitution that indicate that schools cannot discriminate against kids so they can easily change the law.Deleted User wrote: »They are protected in civil law and that can be easily changed by the government without a referendum.Deleted User wrote: »And no I'm not advocating making schools with a religious ethos (whatever that means) more secular. But they should allow non Christians into the schools where they are a minority in the area. In certain schools, you might be only talking about letting in a handful of kids who are non christian into a christian school.0
-
From Irish Times Letters page/site:Minister for Children and Youth Affairs James Reilly suggests that a referendum may be required to remove the exemption for religious schools from equality legislation (Section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act).
However, there is no explicit or implied constitutional right of national schools to prioritise children of their own denomination over other children.
Article 44.2.5 provides that “Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.”
National schools are not religious institutions but educational establishments. They are funded by the State in order to fulfil the State’s obligation to provide for free primary education for all children. As State-funded educational institutions, national schools cannot rely on Article 44.2.5 to claim an entitlement to non-interference by the State in their admissions policies. To the contrary, as bodies funded by the State, schools are required to respect human rights as prescribed by constitutional and international human rights laws, and are therefore prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion.
By requiring State-funded schools to treat all children equally, the State would not be preventing religious institutions from “managing its own affairs” by privately running schools for children of that faith alone.
It would simply be making equal treatment a condition of State funding.– Yours, etc,
APRIL DUFF,
Chairwoman,
Education Equality,If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
I have to say I'm inclined to agree with Ms Duff that the admission policy of a school can hardly considered to be a part of a religious denomination's right to manage it's own affairs.
On the other hand, I'm inclined to agree with the High Court that a body funded by the State is not an organ of the State (though that does not absolve the State of all responsibility for what occurs in it), and a school is not therefore responsible for implementing the obligations placed on the State by international agreements any more than any other body; therefore not prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion except as prohibited by Irish law.0 -
a school is not therefore responsible for implementing the obligations placed on the State by international agreements any more than any other body; therefore not prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion except as prohibited by Irish law.
Your point seems to be that the state can avoid these responsibilities by inserting an extra (and arguably unnecessary) layer of management between itself and the schools, thereby isolating itself from any discrimination.
However, despite choosing to fund these schools via managers or "patrons" instead of by direct management, the buck still stops at the state.
This was proved in the Louise O Keefe case last year when the state denied any responsibility, but the ruling was that "an inherent obligation of a government to protect children from ill-treatment, especially in a primary education context". So we can assume the same principal applies to religious discrimination as for any other forms of ill treatment or abuse.
Similarly if a private company was being paid to manage a public swimming pool by a county council, it would be incumbent on the county council to ensure that no discrimination was occurring in the pool's admission policy.
They could not simply say "its out of our hands" while continuing to fund the swimming pool with public money.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement