School patronage

recedite

=expectationlost wrote: »

What are those yellow dots and in this blue dots https://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Establishing-a-New-School/New-Primary-Schools/Patronage-Assessment-Report-to-the-New-Schools-Establishment-Group-Assessment-report-for-Swords.pdf

AFAIK those dots are the locations of the households having kids of the relevant age, and having their names down for schools in the area. The year they are due to start school is shown in the legend of the map, with slightly different shades for each year. The bigger dots are the existing schools, showing their ID or roll number.

That 2013 Swords patronage report in your link shows that the whole process was a shambles, and a waste of time and money. Only two patrons applied, and the public were not interested in either of them.

The Dept. puts far too much emphasis on increasing the "diversity" of different schools in the country. They always include the question "Will the applicant patron(s) provide a school with an ethos not already catered for in the area?" This means that an existing school type in an area is ineligible or disadvantaged, even if it is popular and successful. A wacky new type of school automatically ticks the right boxes, even if nobody wants it. These two patrons were looking for control of a 16 classroom public school, but they only had 24 and 57 supporters respectively.
This was the conclusion in the report;

The Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Education and Training Board has not demonstrated viable parental demand for its model type even including children from outside the feeder area.

The Educational Society of Ireland has demonstrated the greater level of demand for its model type. Its expressions of interest do not include prospective pupils from outside the feeder area.
However, the demand for the model proposed is not strong enough for a viable school.
The demand for a viable new multidenominational, English medium school under the patronage of either applicant has not been demonstrated.

Recommendation:
It is clear that the models proposed by the applicants do not have sufficient parental support to sustain either a school of the size required to cater for the increasing demographics of the area (16 classrooms i.e. a two stream junior infant intake) or two individual eight-classroom schools with a single junior infant intake each. The establishment of a school on foot of the applications received could, therefore, leave a large level of unmet demand for school places in this area. In the circumstances, the Department recommends that a review of the need to establish the school in 2014 should be carried out with existing patrons in the area. If deemed necessary, the patronage determination process should be re-run for the establishment of the school in 2014, otherwise defer until 2015. In re-running the process the Department will discuss, with prospective patrons, possible means of promoting greater awareness of and participation in the process among parents.

The building of the new school seems to have been deferred as a result, even though it was badly needed locally.
Its about time we gave up this patronage lark altogether, and came up with a new standard model of state public school. Diverse private patrons shouldn't even be considered until everyone has access to a trusted standard type of state public school.

Bristolscale7

Is Educate Together bankrupt? I heard they're asking schools for a 'voluntary contribution' of €1000--this on top of the existing membership fee (or whatever it's called) per student.

recedite

Interesting. I suppose its for the admin and to cover other ancillary expense accounts.
Whats the point of being the king if you can't levy a tax on your minions?

Dades

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Is Educate Together bankrupt? I heard they're asking schools for a 'voluntary contribution' of €1000--this on top of the existing membership fee (or whatever it's called) per student.

All schools "ask" for voluntary contributions. Maybe they're just rattling the cup a bit harder than most.

That might be corporate donations they're asking for specifically, too. Without more facts I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

recedite

Dades wrote: »

All schools "ask" for voluntary contributions.

Yes, but that is the parents donating to the individual school; a net gain to the school.

This appears to be in relation to the school donating to the patron; a net loss to the school.

(that's my reading of it anyway, but I haven't really looked into it, to be fair)

Bristolscale7

The fees paid consist of:
1. So-called voluntary contribution paid to school.
2. Membership fee paid by the school to Educate Together (not sure how much this is--€12 per student maybe?).
and
3. This new €1000 'contribution' from every ET school.

recedite

Presumably ET is considered to be a private charitable organisation, and the accounts are available somewhere.
Like any other charity, the people who support it have to decide themselves whether they think the income:expenses ratio is reasonable.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK those dots are the locations of the households having kids of the relevant age, and having their names down for schools in the area. The year they are due to start school is shown in the legend of the map, with slightly different shades for each year. The bigger dots are the existing schools, showing their ID or roll number.

That 2013 Swords patronage report in your link shows that the whole process was a shambles, and a waste of time and money. Only two patrons applied, and the public were not interested in either of them.

The Dept. puts far too much emphasis on increasing the "diversity" of different schools in the country. They always include the question "Will the applicant patron(s) provide a school with an ethos not already catered for in the area?" This means that an existing school type in an area is ineligible or disadvantaged, even if it is popular and successful. A wacky new type of school automatically ticks the right boxes, even if nobody wants it. These two patrons were looking for control of a 16 classroom public school, but they only had 24 and 57 supporters respectively.
This was the conclusion in the report;
The building of the new school seems to have been deferred as a result, even though it was badly needed locally.
Its about time we gave up this patronage lark altogether, and came up with a new standard model of state public school. Diverse private patrons shouldn't even be considered until everyone has access to a trusted standard type of state public school.

couldn't quite believe they'd mark where kids lived on public map, although its not that precise.

despite this detail its still hard to figure out what the demand is, demographic time charts versus schools and patrons might be better.

but yes govs need to move beyond thinking in private patrons

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

couldn't quite believe they'd mark where kids lived on public map, although its not that precise.

Should be OK as they don't match names to the addresses. It is interesting to see on some of these maps that the dots tend to be crammed into newer estates and council estates, with relatively fewer around the more established and more up-market areas. But that's where most of the small kids actually are.

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Presumably ET is considered to be a private charitable organisation, and the accounts are available somewhere.
Like any other charity, the people who support it have to decide themselves whether they think the income:expenses ratio is reasonable.

Schools also have to publish their accounts AFAIK, so parents can check what donations are being made.

RainyDay

lazygal wrote: »

Schools also have to publish their accounts AFAIK, so parents can check what donations are being made.

That's a Dept Education rule, rather than legal requirement, and is often ignored or forgotten about in my experience.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/equal-school-access-and-the-proclamation-1.2575418

Equal school access and the Proclamation

Sir, – As Diarmaid Ferriter points out (“The 1916 proclamation has many uses and misuses”, March 12th) this week saw Proclamation Day marked in primary schools throughout the country.

The Department of Education has said “a major focus on Proclamation Day should be the unveiling and reading of each school’s own Proclamation for a new generation”.

One wonders whether this focus on a new Proclamation is because of the failure of our education system to live up to the ideals of the original document. Historians such as Mr Ferriter may debate the nuances of the phrase “cherishing all the children of the nation equally” but to me it seems pretty clear.

A 21st-century democracy that continues to uphold such legislation – the sole purpose of which is to discriminate against and segregate four-year-olds on the basis of religion – cannot be said to cherish its children equally.

Section 7 of the Equal Status Act is drafted quite deliberately to confer huge educational advantages on children of a particular religion, most obviously Catholic.

The fact is 96 per cent of taxpayer-funded primary schools are entitled under that law to turn away children on the basis of religion – in most schools religion is the top enrolment criterion when over-subscribed.

Not only is the philosophy underpinning such legislation wholly in opposition to that espoused in the Proclamation, it has real and practical effects beyond mere ideology.

Every year, schools really do turn away children of the “wrong” religion. Moreover, to avoid such a consequence, parents throughout the country are compelled by this Republic to baptise their children under duress.

It is noteworthy that the original Proclamation goes on to say that the “Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens”.

Is it any wonder the Department of Education is diverting attention away from this document in our primary schools?

– Yours, etc,

PADDY MONAHAN

Raheny,

Dublin.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/curriculum-overload-fears-threaten-religion-class-plans-1.2601046

‘Curriculum overload’ fears threaten religion class plans
Teaching would be separate to existing faith-based classes in primary schools

The planned classes would be separate to existing faith-based classes in denominational schools, which typically take up about half an hour of the school day. It is intended the curriculum would focus on learning about the major forms of religions, traditions and views of people around the world, including secular beliefs.

The solution is very simple, you replace the current catholic religion class with a general religion class. This ensures schools make best use of the available time.

Delirium

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/curriculum-overload-fears-threaten-religion-class-plans-1.2601046






The solution is very simple, you replace the current catholic religion class with a general religion class. This ensures schools make best use of the available time.

also noteworthy in that link:

In a highly critical submission, a group of six academics affiliated to teacher-training institutes – including Prof Eamonn Conway of Mary Immaculate College in Limerick – says the proposals would undermine faith schools’ religious instruction and characteristic spirit. “On the basis of our analysis we cannot recommend to the patrons of faith-based schools the introduction of this curriculum in any of the ways suggested by the NCCA.”

Cabaal

Delirium wrote: »

also noteworthy in that link:

To be fair, telling children in primary level that its ok for two gay people to get married would also impact faith school instruction, as its against the church's teachings.

recedite

As time goes by, the norms of society and its laws differ more and more from RCC Canon Law. At some point in time, state funded public schools will have to decide which set of values to teach. Its called "the separation of church and state".
If they opt for the state, then the option is always there for church-run privately funded schools to co-exist with them.

Liamario

Serious question- This is the enrolment criteria for a local school-

As a result of discussion with the aforementioned bodies and bearing in mind the
conditions listed above, the following criteria have been drawn up (noting age
appropriateness in each case) in descending order.

1. Siblings of children currently enrolled in the school [including step-siblings and
foster children, resident at the same address] and children of staff members.
2. Catholic children in the catchment area of the school (Ref:Appendix 1)
3. Catholic Children living outside the catchment area but in close proximity to
the school. (Ref: Appendix 2)
4. Children in the catchment area of the school (Ref:Appendix 1)
5. Catholic Children living in the Greater Mullingar area with parents who were
past pupils of St Colmcille’s given priority.

To me, this quite strongly restricts non catholic children from attending the school at all.

One eyed Jack

Liamario wrote: »

Serious question- This is the enrolment criteria for a local school-

To me, this quite strongly restricts non catholic children from attending the school.

What's the question?

Liamario

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's the question?

Well, is this legal? Are they allowed to totally restrict children outside catholicism.

Cabaal

Liamario wrote: »

Well, is this legal? Are they allowed to totally restrict children outside catholicism.

Yes they can do this and people like Jack are happy with it.

Liamario

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes they can do this and people like Jack are happy with it.

So, who can I contact about this? Because I seriously question it's legality.

One eyed Jack

Liamario wrote: »

Well, is this legal? Are they allowed to totally restrict children outside catholicism.

Ah! Yep, it's absolutely legal and above board.

Liamario

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ah! Yep, it's absolutely legal and above board.

I seriously doubt it's entirely legal. They may have preference for catholic children, but as it's a public school, I don't think they can fully restrict non catholic children attending where there are spaces available.

recedite

It does discriminate against local children who are not "Catholic", which IMO is unacceptable in a publicly funded school.

Part 5. also discriminates strongly against immigrants and other "blow-ins" from around the country.

The 2015 Admissions to Schools bill would have cracked down on Part 5 there, but it would not have done anything about the religiou discrimination.

The Minister may prescribe selection criteria that schools shall be
permitted to apply and/or selection criteria that schools shall be
prohibited from applying in cases where the number of students
seeking admission to the school is greater than the number of places
available at the school.
The selection criteria that schools shall be prohibited from
applying may include criteria based on the following:
• a student’s connection to a school by virtue of his/her
relationship with a specified category or categories of person;
• a student’s prior attendance at a specified category or
categories of pre-school or pre-school service;
• the payment of fees or contributions to the school;
• the occupation or financial status of the parents of a student;
• a student’s academic ability, skills or aptitude;
• a requirement that a student, or his or her parents, attend an
interview, open day or other meeting as a condition of
admission;
• the date on which an application for admission was received
by the school.

But it seems that the bill never crossed the finishing line.

The Bill was due to be enacted before the Government’s term ends, but Minister for Education Jan O’Sullivan signalled last week that it will be shelved.

So we are still waiting for some politicians with spines to take up those seats in the government. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes they can do this and people like Jack are happy with it.

Where did I ever say I was happy with it?

I've never suggested I was happy with it as I believe that no children should be denied an education on the basis of their parents religious beliefs or philosophy. I've also said that a school should be able to maintain and promote their ethos without interference from the State.

There have to be criteria in place because schools resources are limited, and in a religious ethos school, it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school.

Absolam

I think you probably have to look at it in the context of the " bearing in mind the conditions listed above", which conditions you omitted from your quote?

ENROLMENT CRITERIA
The criteria listed below have been drawn up after consultation with the School Patron and the Board of Management. While recognising the rights of parents to enrol their child in the school of their choice, the school also has a duty to respect the rights of the existing school community, and in
particular, the children already enrolled.
In the drawing up of the criteria listed certain factors must be taken into account
•Date of Birth
•Number of class places available according to the Department of Education and Science directive for the September of each enrolment year. This criteria is subject to the approval of the Board of Management
•When maximum class size has been reached this quota cannot be breached in any circumstances.
•Size of /space available in classrooms
•Ethos of the school

And then the bit after what you quoted:

Age appropriateness of all applicants will be an overriding factor for all classes.
ENROLING IN CLASSES FROM SENIOR INFANTS TO SIXTH CLASS
Parents wishing to enrol in classes other than Junior Infants may be accommodated under the following additional criteria:
•Number of children in relevant class. Class places are determined according to the Department of Education and Skills directive for the September of each enrolment year. This criteria is subject to the approval of the Board of
Management
•The maximum in any particular class for the school year 2016/17 will be 32 as decided by the BOM in November 2014.
•The maximum number of pupils in this school in its entirety as set by the Board for the school year 2016-2017 will be 241.
• Letter of release from current school.

Interesting that's it's not that they're just as strongly restricting non sibling children from attending the school at all (in fact moreso; they come first) that's exercising you though.

Why would you think it's legal to prefer siblings but not Catholics?

recedite

Liamario wrote: »

They may have preference for catholic children, but as it's a public school, I don't think they can fully restrict non catholic children attending where there are spaces available.

Well there's the rub. They can keep selecting their Catholic children from further and further away, until there are no places left. Which is exactly what they have said they will do.

On the question of "legality".. this is where it gets tricky. They are allowed to do so due to a loophole/exemption in equality legislation which only applies to "denominational schools".

But... arguably if they are a publicly funded school, they are not allowed to discriminate under the constitution (all citizens to be cherished equally) or under the ECHR which Ireland has signed up to, and which prohibits religious discrimination (no loopholes/exemptions).
So if you have a few hundred grand in your back pocket, all you have to do is get yourself a good barrister, and take the state to court

Hotblack Desiato

Liamario wrote: »

I seriously doubt it's entirely legal.

It's specifically allowed by the so-called 'Equal Status Act'.

Arguably unconstitutional though

Article 44 wrote:

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.

However our constitution (like the bible) has all sorts of contradictory and vague statements. 44.2.2 above is arguably violated in 96% of primary schools, state funded but including religion in the school day is endowing (funding) a religion.

Some claim that 44.2.5 permits religious discrimination in schools

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.

but I don't buy that a state-funded religious patronage school is a case of a 'religious denomination managing its own affairs' as the state already regulates every other aspect of the schools' operation except for religious instruction, and denominations do not directly run or manage schools anyway.

The so-called 'Equal Status Act' is almost certainly in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Good luck with challenging it on constitutional or ECHR grounds though, unless you have tons of money and are prepared to wait more than two decades to reach a decision in your favour and to have it actually implemented. Not much benefit to your child then, is it?

They may have preference for catholic children, but as it's a public school, I don't think they can fully restrict non catholic children attending where there are spaces available.

That's not what the policy says. It's only where schools have more applications than places that they prioritise them according to the admissions policy.

Liamario

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...I've also said that a school should be able to maintain and promote their ethos without interference from the State.....

Isn't that kind of an oxymoron though? Private faith schools should be able to do this, but publically funded schools shouldn't- you're restricting members of the public from attending.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've never suggested I was happy with it as I believe that no children should be denied an education on the basis of their parents religious beliefs or philosophy.

There have to be criteria in place because schools resources are limited, and in a religious ethos school, it makes sense to restrict enrolment to parents who's religious beliefs or philosophy or values are in line with the ethos of the school.

So in fact you're quite happy for discrimination on the grounds of religion to take place.

Children have a right to an education and invariably do find a school place, somewhere, eventually, but in practice this means if they're from a non-religious family they are much more likely to have to go to a school further away and/or of lower perceived or actual quality compared to catholics.

Sometimes all schools in an area will refuse a child and the Department of Education has to intervene to force one of them to create an extra place in their school for that child. How do you think that makes that child's family feel about being welcome in the school and the community despite not being catholics?

It's disgusting to do this to four and five year olds on the basis of professed religious beliefs, the vast majority of cultural catholics going along with the flawed system and paying no more than lip service to the religious aspect is the only thing that's allowing this sham to continue.

How anyone can defend this state of affairs beats me.