School patronage

recedite

2RockMountain wrote: »

I'm still not sure why students outside of cities get their transport paid for and provided by the State, while those in cities don't?

Its only available to rural kids if they live more than a certain distance from the nearest school, which I think is about 7km. So that would rarely apply in a city. Also its only free in some cases. The "concessionary" kids that they are thinking of bumping off the buses are paying for their tickets.

2RockMountain

recedite wrote: »

Its only available to rural kids if they live more than a certain distance from the nearest school, which I think is about 7km. So that would rarely apply in a city. Also its only free in some cases. The "concessionary" kids that they are thinking of bumping off the buses are paying for their tickets.

So if I buy a property in a much cheaper location, I can expect the State to subsidise my decision by paying to get the kids to school - good to know...

expectationlost

robindch wrote: »

Statistics indicate that state-run secondary schools in Ireland take far more special-needs students than schools run by religious organizations.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0530/791888-special-needs-education/

SNA hours is a rough way to count it http://ncse.ie/resource-teaching-hours-and-sna-allocations http://www.eveningecho.ie/cork-news/faith-schools-deny-special-needs-claim/2256311/

recedite

2RockMountain wrote: »

So if I buy a property in a much cheaper location, I can expect the State to subsidise my decision by paying to get the kids to school - good to know...

Your comments are asinine because;
a) I already said they were paying for their tickets, even though there is some degree of state subsidy.
b) All public transport is subsidised by the state, as is An Post, with an objective to ensure a reasonable nationwide coverage. The fact that the likes of Bus Eireann and the Luas are not run in the most cost-efficient manner is the main reason for that.
c) City dwellers actually benefit far more than rural dwellers from publicly funded public transport infastructure.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

In today's Ireland, there are very many different religious doctrines. The state cannot fund schools for all types of doctrine in every locality, so there can never be enough choice when providing indoctrinating schools.
The state is not obliged to try to provide them, and it shouldn't try.

Segregating kids on the basis of religion is wrong, and deeply damaging to society.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Your comments are asinine because;
a) I already said they were paying for their tickets, even though there is some degree of state subsidy.
b) All public transport is subsidised by the state, as is An Post, with an objective to ensure a reasonable nationwide coverage. The fact that the likes of Bus Eireann and the Luas are not run in the most cost-efficient manner is the main reason for that.
c) City dwellers actually benefit far more than rural dwellers from publicly funded public transport infastructure.

They're not asinine and raise a valid point.
Nobody pays the full economic ticket price for public transport - but some providers make an operating profit (Luas) some break even (Dublin Bus) and some are massive money losers - Irish Rail in general, and the "western rail corridor" in particular. It would be cheaper to provide each passenger on the latter with a free taxi.
City dwellers benefit the most as a group, but per capita? There are huge economies of scale in providing infrastructure in cities, it's why they exist in the first place.
There is a massive transfer of taxation from city dwellers to rural dwellers in this country so it's a moot point.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Segregating kids on the basis of religion is wrong, and deeply damaging to society.

But permitting freedom of association is right, and a hallmark of democratic society... it's funny how things can look different from different points of view isn't it!

2RockMountain

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is a massive transfer of taxation from city dwellers to rural dwellers in this country so it's a moot point.

And let's not forget how the rules for the Part V social housing supports were written to specifically avoid impacting those who build one-off houses (just about everybody outside of main cities) so leaving all city dwellers to bear the costs of all social housing - one of the reasons why we're in the current massive housing shortage.

The Randy Riverbeast

Absolam wrote: »

But permitting freedom of association is right, and a hallmark of democratic society... it's funny how things can look different from different points of view isn't it!

It is impressive how far you go to justify discriminating against 4/5 year olds who have no control over what they are doing.

Not hiring a woman could be seen as freedom of association. Allowing the stoning of women could be seen as freedom of religion. Most people are smart enough to see through the excuses.

recedite

Also freedom of association is a private right, which private clubs can appeal to. Nearly all schools in this country are publicly funded facilities to a greater or lesser degree, so they cannot appeal to have that right vindicated unless they also give up their public funding.

One eyed Jack

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

It is impressive how far you go to justify discriminating against 4/5 year olds who have no control over what they are doing.

Not hiring a woman could be seen as freedom of association. Allowing the stoning of women could be seen as freedom of religion. Most people are smart enough to see through the excuses.

Who's discriminating against 4/5 year olds exactly? They're discriminating between parents who are willing to support the ethos of the school, and those that aren't. The State is obliged to provide for the education of children regardless of the patron body which is why it is not favouring one religion over another, nor is it favouring one patron body over another.

It is ultimately parents choice how they choose to educate their children and where they choose to have their children educated. If that doesn't suit some parents, then as was suggested earlier by one poster - that's their problem, and their responsibility.

Not sure what your second paragraph has to do with anything, if only to point out that different people see different things, differently? But at least we're agreed on the fact that most people can indeed see through excuses, like pretending anyone is discriminating against 4/5 year olds as an excuse to bolster your lack of support for your argument.

The Randy Riverbeast

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who's discriminating against 4/5 year olds exactly? They're discriminating between parents who are willing to support the ethos of the school, and those that aren't.

Then why do they look for the child's baptism cert? My father wasn't a Catholic, my parents wanted me to choose my own religion and yet I was treated as equal to all the other baptised children.

If by supporting the ethos of the school you mean willing to baptise their child then you are right. Once theres a bapstism the schools dont care.

Here's a random enrollment policy thats pretty much the same as the other.
1. Brothers and sisters (including step-siblings, resident at the home address) of children already enrolled – priority to the eldest.
2. Children of current school staff – priority to the eldest.
3. Roman Catholic children who are resident within the parish boundary – priority to the eldest.
4. Catholic children living outside the parish boundary who do not have access to a Catholic school in their own parish. A letter of recommendation may be required from the applicant’s Parish Priest.
5. Children living within the parish – priority to the eldest.
6. Children whose home address is closest to the school (as measured by a straight line on an OS map) if the child is normally resident outside the parish.

Feel free to point out where it mentions support of the ethos. Only mention of something that could be connected to parents is staff.

One eyed Jack

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Then why do they look for the child's baptism cert? My father wasn't a Catholic, my parents wanted me to choose my own religion and yet I was treated as equal to all the other baptised children.

Because it's handy to know these things. Of course you were treated as equal, which nukes a hole in your discrimination theory against 4/5 year olds.

If by supporting the ethos of the school you mean willing to baptise their child then you are right. Once theres a bapstism the schools dont care.

By supporting the ethos of the school, I mean that parents are expected to be Roman Catholic themselves if it is a Roman Catholic ethos school, and parents are encouraged to be involved in their children's education. It's one of the fundamental principles of the new religious curriculum in national schools. Some schools are more lenient in this regard than others.

Since you have presented only anecdotal evidence for your claim that once there is a baptism the schools don't care, should I take your random enrolment policy seriously too? My own anecdotal evidence would lead me to believe that schools require a baptismal certificate for their records, but it also helps to know the parents or guardians opinions on their aspirations for their children's education.

Here's a random enrollment policy thats pretty much the same as the other.

...


Feel free to point out where it mentions support of the ethos. Only mention of something that could be connected to parents is staff.

Enrolment policies can vary greatly depending upon the Board of Managements decisions as to what they should or shouldn't or are obliged by law to include or exclude from their enrolment policies, and the enrolment policy requirements don't usually include a statement that the parents are expected to support the ethos of the school, regardless of their religion affiliation, beliefs or their philosophy or none.

Times they are indeed changing, but for now most parents appear at least to be satisfied to support their local religious ethos schools by applying to enrol their children in them, and they don't even need to have their children baptised to do so! They may apply the same as any other parents or guardians.

The Randy Riverbeast

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it's handy to know these things. Of course you were treated as equal, which nukes a hole in your discrimination theory against 4/5 year olds

Because I was baptised. If I wasn't I would only be allowed in because they didn't have a catholic to take my place.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest when you clearly aren't paying attention. We get it, you have some fantasy that parents are all God fearing Catholics who want their children to be brought up as good little Catholics and the heathens to be kept at a safe distance. Everyone else should stick to their own kind or baptise their kids, sorry, I mean "support the ethos". I'm not going to waste anymore time on you avoiding that some children are at a disadvantage in getting into the majority of schools in this country.

One eyed Jack

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Because I was baptised. If I wasn't I would only be allowed in because they didn't have a catholic to take my place.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest when you clearly aren't paying attention.

I could have paid all the attention I wanted, and nowhere did you mention that you had been baptised. I assumed from your saying that your parents let you choose your own religion, that you weren't baptised! It wasn't anything like the spectacular leaps in logic you're making!

We get it, you have some fantasy that parents are all God fearing Catholics who want their children to be brought up as good little Catholics and the heathens to be kept at a safe distance. Everyone else should stick to their own kind or baptise their kids, sorry, I mean "support the ethos". I'm not going to waste anymore time on you avoiding that some children are at a disadvantage in getting into the majority of schools in this country.

If that's genuinely what you think, then clearly you don't get it, and perhaps there isn't much point in our continuing discussion. Meanwhile, you'll still have to search for a better excuse to support your argument for a change in the status quo, whereas if I thought like you think I do, I don't need one, to maintain the status quo.

Absolam

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

It is impressive how far you go to justify discriminating against 4/5 year olds who have no control over what they are doing.

In fairness you don't need to go far at all; parents do it every day when they decide who goes to birthday parties, whose house is ok to play at etc etc. What's impressive is how you view any choice not to your liking as somehow wrong...

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Not hiring a woman could be seen as freedom of association. Allowing the stoning of women could be seen as freedom of religion. Most people are smart enough to see through the excuses.

I imagine they are; and smart enough to see that sometimes not hiring a woman is neither illegal, or wrong. Leaping to associating that with stoning someone is to assume superhuman powers; no one is being stoned. Stoning someone has no correlation with not hiring someone, never mind prefering someone else for a school place. Over extravagant hyperbole there I'm afraid...

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Also freedom of association is a private right, which private clubs can appeal to. Nearly all schools in this country are publicly funded facilities to a greater or lesser degree, so they cannot appeal to have that right vindicated unless they also give up their public funding.

Mmm... freedom of association is a right; I've no idea what you think a private right is. Schools don't have a right to freedom of association anyway... but people who attend (and whose children attend) them do, regardless of whether the schools receives public funding. Just as members of clubs which receive public funding retain their right to freedom of association. A school is under no obligation to give up public funding if those who use the school exercise their rights, that's simply nonsense.

recedite

As a private individual, or a member of a private club, I can choose not to admit certain types of people, or I can give priority to members of a certain religion.
A public facility or a business that is serving the general public cannot do that.

evolving_doors

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Then why do they look for the child's baptism cert? My father wasn't a Catholic, my parents wanted me to choose my own religion and yet I was treated as equal to all the other baptised children.

If by supporting the ethos of the school you mean willing to baptise their child then you are right. Once theres a bapstism the schools dont care.

Here's a random enrollment policy thats pretty much the same as the other.
1. Brothers and sisters (including step-siblings, resident at the home address) of children already enrolled – priority to the eldest.
2. Children of current school staff – priority to the eldest.
3. Roman Catholic children who are resident within the parish boundary – priority to the eldest.
4. Catholic children living outside the parish boundary who do not have access to a Catholic school in their own parish. A letter of recommendation may be required from the applicant’s Parish Priest.
5. Children living within the parish – priority to the eldest.
6. Children whose home address is closest to the school (as measured by a straight line on an OS map) if the child is normally resident outside the parish.

Feel free to point out where it mentions support of the ethos. Only mention of something that could be connected to parents is staff.

In fairness though you just showed an extract, could you provide a link to all of it.


Just to add here's another school (with similar enrolement policy)... here's the typical 'support of the ethos' clause

parental rights to enrol their children in the school of their choice; this in the context of the existing school community and the rights of the pupils already enrolled.

It's not explicit but it's implied.

Similarly, it does not have to be in the enrolement policy once it's mentioned somewhere else e.g. This section was in the enrollment policy but it outlined that you had to cooperate with all the other policies also!

Children enrolled in our school are required to co-operate with and support the school’s policies including policies on Code of Behaviour (available in our policy booklet and on our website), Curriculum, Organisation and Management.

and then in another area it can reference this...

Within this context, the school supports the following underlying principles:

Inclusiveness, especially with reference to the enrolment of pupils with special educational needs.
Equality of access and participation in the school.
Parental choice in relation to selection of school, having regard for the characteristic spirit of that school.

So you see, it's necessary to give the full details.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

As a private individual, or a member of a private club, I can choose not to admit certain types of people, or I can give priority to members of a certain religion.
A public facility or a business that is serving the general public cannot do that.

Actually, a business can choose not to admit anyone it wants, so long as it doesn't do so illegally (just as schools can't do so illegally). Even public facilities can restrict admission to certain people; men are prohibited from using womens bathrooms for instance. But a school isn't a public facility or business, is it? It's a school, funded by public money. And as is obvious by the fact that they do, they're not prevented from choosing who attends them on the basis of sex or religion by their receipt of public money, even if you wish they were.
Regardless none of what you said makes the right to freedom of association a private right; it's simply a right like every other right.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

But a school isn't a public facility..

If its funded by the state, then yes it is.

Bristolscale7

recedite wrote: »

If its funded by the state, then yes it is.

You're forgetting that absolam is merely a vessel to deliver the current catholic version of the constitutional/legal argument for discrimination. blah blah blah...patron owns the schools blah blah blah....patron....blah blah blah constitution grants entitlement....blah blah.

robindch

Education Minister, Richard Bruton, announces a new policy for control of schools.

tl;dr summary - we'll build a few new schools for you fancy types, but removing the church's legal right to discriminate? Nah.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/baptism-barrier-in-schools-here-to-stay-34775244.html

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If its funded by the state, then yes it is.

Well, no, it's not. It's a facility (largely) funded by the State, which is different. It's not generally open to the public (try wandering through a few classrooms and see how you get on).

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

You're forgetting that absolam is merely a vessel to deliver the current catholic version of the constitutional/legal argument for discrimination. blah blah blah...patron owns the schools blah blah blah....patron....blah blah blah constitution grants entitlement....blah blah.

That's an astonishingly compelling argument... or at least, astonishingly, more compelling than any other you've put forward. The 'blah blah blah' I think shows just how much thought you've put into it, so well done, and I look forward to a coherent sentence in one of your posts in the near future!

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

Well, no, it's not. It's a facility (largely) funded by the State, which is different. It's not generally open to the public (try wandering through a few classrooms and see how you get on).

Hospitals, prisons, government buildings etc are all examples of publicly funded places but not generally open to the public. Try wander around a few and see how you get on.

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Hospitals, prisons, government buildings etc are all examples of publicly funded places but not generally open to the public. Try wander around a few and see how you get on.

Absolutely; as you say there are plenty of publicly funded places not generally open to the public; so they don't have their funding withdrawn simply because they can choose not to admit certain types of people (like womens prisons not admitting male prisoners), or give priority to some of those they admit (like hospitals prioritising emergency patients) either. Public funding is obviously not a bar to selectivity.

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

Absolutely; as you say there are plenty of publicly funded places that don't have their funding withdrawn simply because they can choose not to admit certain types of people (like womens prisons not admitting male prisoners), or give priority to some of those they admit (like hospitals prioritising emergency patients). Public funding is obviously not a bar to selectivity.

- Women not being allowed into male prisons is for safety reasons (and visa versa). That of course doesn't stop women working in a male prison however (and visa versa).
- Prioritizing issues in a ER is just common sense and only an idiot would argue otherwise.

Something that Prisons, Hospitals, Government Buildings, Army bases etc all have in common is they don't discriminate on religious grounds.

Schools however do and its utterly pathetic and wrong to do so and what is more pathetic is the people that will try and justify it as ok.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

- Women not being allowed into male prisons is for safety reasons (and visa versa). That of course doesn't stop women working in a male prison however (and visa versa). - Prioritizing issues in a ER is just common sense and only an idiot would argue otherwise. Something that Prisons, Hospitals, Government Buildings, Army bases etc all have in common is they don't discriminate on religious grounds. Schools however do and its utterly pathetic and wrong to do so and what is more pathetic is the people that will try and justify it as ok.

Sure... but what you think is pathetic and wrong isn't what we were discussing, is it?

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

Absolutely; as you say there are plenty of publicly funded places not generally open to the public; so they don't have their funding withdrawn simply because they can choose not to admit certain types of people (like womens prisons not admitting male prisoners), or give priority to some of those they admit (like hospitals prioritising emergency patients) either. Public funding is obviously not a bar to selectivity.

How could I have been so blind. Of course prioritising emergencies in a hospital and segregating male and female prisoners is exactly the same as refusing entry to a child to a state funded school based on religious affiliation.

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How could I have been so blind. Of course prioritising emergencies in a hospital and segregating male and female prisoners is exactly the same as refusing entry to a child to a state funded school based on religious affiliation.

Well, I certainly didn't say it was exactly the same; but you did show State funded organisations are not obliged to be entirely accessible to the public lest they lose their funding, they're not even obliged not to choose who they service.