School patronage

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

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

A follow-up article Children and parents will pay the price for Bruton's surrender to church power on the 'baptism barrier'

Finally, Mr Bruton must explain if there are reasons, other than the church's "non-negotiable" demands, that he has endorsed community national schools as the State's preferred multidenominational school model.

Bristolscale7

1. Right-wing government in place.

2. Anachronistic constitution.

4. Church desperation to hold on to education at all costs.

5. Quisling civil servants

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Education Minister, Richard Bruton, announces a new policy for control of schools.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/baptism-barrier-in-schools-here-to-stay-34775244.html

A new type of primary school, under the joint control of the Catholic Church and the State, is among the options being considered.

Jesus weeps. I thought we had moved beyond that idea back in 1831 when Stanley proposed govt. funded multi-denominational schools open to all.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A follow-up article Children and parents will pay the price for Bruton's surrender to church power on the 'baptism barrier'

Bruton pretending not to know of current constitutional problem of not providing non-religious education

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

Bruton pretending not to know of current constitutional problem of not providing non-religious education

What's the current constitutional problem of not providing non-religious education?

recedite

From Mr. Nugent of Atheist Ireland..

The Minister is essentially saying we need more different types of schools but the Oireachtas Education Committee concluded when it was examining the Admissions to School Bill some years ago, based on briefings from Atheist Ireland, that the patronage system itself with multiple patrons with multiple ethos, leads to segregation and inequality in the education system.

I fully agree with that. The multiple patron system also leads to increased transport costs and traffic chaos, as we discussed here a few pages back.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

From Mr. Nugent of Atheist Ireland..
I fully agree with that. The multiple patron system also leads to increased transport costs and traffic chaos, as we discussed here a few pages back.

He's right. All this talk of 'diversity' is code for segregation. I want all children to be treated equally and educated together. It's really not much to ask.

Hotblack Desiato

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

.

Somehow 3. disappered

But we now have the most conservative (and, by no coincidence at all, ruralist) government in living memory, anything that might scare the horses is forbidden, all hard decisions ignored or fobbed off to some delaying tactic committee, all the really hard decisions ignored altogether.

There will be no referendum on the 8th in the current Dail, there will be no change in respect of schooling either :mad:

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

From Mr. Nugent of Atheist Ireland..
I fully agree with that. The multiple patron system also leads to increased transport costs and traffic chaos, as we discussed here a few pages back.

That religious patronage causes traffic chaos may be one of the most extravagant pieces of hyperbole we've had on the thread so far... right up there with the idea that nationalising private schools would save the DoE money. Even increased transport costs is pretty debatable; there's nothing at all to suggest that most of the children availing of the School Transport Scheme are doing so because they can't attend a school within walking distance of their home due to being refused a place on religious grounds, is there?

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/school-patronage-and-parental-choice-1.2675766

Sir, – Minister for Education Richard Bruton’s commitment to accelerating progress to provide choice for parents in primary education is welcome (“Bruton plan backs church to transfer primary patronage”, June 6th). And he is right to explore different avenues to address the growing demand for change.

However, continuing to promote the flawed and unpopular Community National School model over others is at best misguided, and at worst a further waste of public money. Devised by Mary Hanafin in 2007, this model relies on separating children of different faith backgrounds and attempting to provide religious instruction for all. Even if this weren’t divisive and impractical, it clearly does not address the actual demand for change, which comes from parents who want their children educated together in inclusive schools.

In surveys conducted by the Department of Education in 2012/2013, parents around the country expressed an overwhelming preference for the Educate Together equality-based school model; this model was preferred in 25 out of the 28 areas where the need for change was established. In the three areas where new primary schools were announced for 2016, only 70 children were registered for Community National Schools, compared to 1,173 children for Educate Together schools.

What parents want is not in question. What is required now is a properly funded programme to bring all the education partners together to make change happen. – Yours, etc,

EMER NOWLAN,

Educate Together,

11-12 Hogan Place, Dublin 2.


A chara, – Here we go again! The Minister for Education’s plan is once again tinkering around the edges. The State should get on with its duty, as outlined in the European courts, and manage all primary schools. The detail of how this can be achieved should be negotiated in the best interests of the children of the nation. It is encouraging that Richard Bruton in his proposals is prepared to recognise the wishes of parents with regard to the teaching of religion during school time. This could remove some of the fears and concerns of denominational patrons and speed up the process of divestment. What the Minister certainly should not do is repeat the mistakes of the past by replacing one dominant form of patronage with a new one. – Yours, etc,

SEÁN Ó DÍOMASAIGH,

Dunsany,

Co Meath.

The ever-busy Rev Burke's pen has not been idle either :rolleyes:

A chara, – Atheist Ireland claims our school system “is breaching the human rights” of atheists and those of minority faiths (“School patronage plans will worsen situation, says –Atheist Ireland”, June 6th). Its solution is to deny the rights of everyone else to have their children educated in schools with a denominational ethos by removing religion from the schools – this despite the fact that local communities around the country founded these schools so their children could receive this kind of an education.

Atheist Ireland also claims the current system is used to “indoctrinate children”. What it calls indoctrination is, of course, nothing but the natural desire of parents to bring their children up according to their own values and beliefs. A purely secular system would deny them this. It would also serve to indoctrinate their children according to the values and beliefs of secularism.

The rights of small groups who do not share the beliefs of the majority must be both respected and vindicated, but this cannot be done by disregarding the rights of the majority. One of the stated goals of Atheist Ireland is to promote secularism. I hope it does not think that Irish parents are so foolish that they would give up their rights to determine the manner in which their children are educated in order to help this tiny group achieve its aims. – Is mise,

Rev PATRICK G BURKE,

Castlecomer,

Co Kilkenny.

Hotblack Desiato

Community national schools are a bad idea

Why not just make the education system we already have more inclusive?

While there is no doubt that more truly non-denominational schools (of the Educate Together model) are needed, first we must remove the religious enrolment criteria that dominate our national schools. It is deeply wrong children who play and grow up together can face State-imposed religious segregation.

More than anything, the proposal to provide 400 new schools by 2030 feels like a prolonged diversionary tactic.

Community National Schools that segregate children on the basis of religion are an Irish solution to an Irish problem – they are also a red herring. The real issue here is man-made and the solution is simple. Politicians created this objectionable law – now they must repeal it.

Two more good letters today:

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/school-patronage-1.2677254

Sir, – The Government’s plan to increase the number of non-denominational and multidenominational schools to 400 by 2030 is welcome. However, leaving aside the minor issues of the intervening 14 years, the questionable worth of the current Government’s promise during (never mind beyond) its mandate, and the fact that such a number will constitute around a paltry 8 per cent of primary schools, there are still other issues worthy of consideration.

Serious systemic problems permeate the Irish state-funded schools system – equality of access, religious discrimination and the lack of an effective opt-out from indoctrination by virtue of the “integrated curriculum” are just a few. Religious segregation is another.

The Community National Schools model, as envisioned by Minister for Education Richard Bruton, should come with a health warning. Under this model, the plan is that children will be segregated during “faith formation” classes during the school day. Religious segregation did not work in Northern Ireland. A recent report from the Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life revealed that (surprise, surprise!) segregation of young people did not promote greater cohesion, but was in fact “socially divisive” and led “to greater misunderstanding and tension”. There is no reason to believe that there won’t be similar consequences here.

In our republic, we should be moving away from a model of religious segregation and towards a proper, inclusive State school system, where equality of access and equal treatment are core, not enshrining segregation in the very DNA of our society. What sort of republic are we building?

Segregating children along religious grounds is a bad idea. – Yours, etc,

ROB SADLIER,

Rathfarnham,

Dublin 16.

Sir, – In among Rev Patrick G Burke’s usually cogent letters there often lurks a claim which must be challenged (June 8th). He says denominational and faith schools were founded by local groups so that their children could receive an education with a particular religious ethos. The truth is that the ordinary people of Ireland had about as much say in the founding of Catholic schools as they had in the location of British garrisons. He will also be aware that the schools were created at a time of unusual circumstances.

The very notion of indoctrination is anathema to a proper education. On the question of supreme beings, all schools, everywhere, should have an open mind. None of us has the competence to be dogmatic on this matter.

It is regrettable that the word secularism should be mischievously bandied about with such disregard for the enlightened motives of those who are endeavouring to fashion out a modern curriculum which serves all students, under one roof. – Yours, etc,

PADDY McEVOY,

Holywood,

Co Down.

I can only assume the new minister's enthusiasm for the unproven and unpopular CNS model is on the advice he has been given. He may eventually see sense, but there are two chances of getting this fractured populist ruralist conservative government to do the right thing.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

That religious patronage causes traffic chaos may be one of the most extravagant pieces of hyperbole we've had on the thread so far...

It certainly contributes to traffic problems at the all important 8-9am peak congestion time. A lot of kids nowadays do not attend their nearest school. Maybe they were refused a place in it, or maybe they prefer the "ethos" of a different school.
A child living in location A commutes to school in location B, while another child in location B commutes to the school in location A.

Its impossible to provide enough school buses to cater for that kind of inefficiency, but it can be done through private transport clogging up the roads. The more "diversity" of school types they introduce into the country, the more of this will go on.

Cabaal

The gloves are coming off for Catholic groups now

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/pressure-catholic-schools-ban-amnesty-international

Catholic schools are coming under increasing pressure to ban Amnesty International from addressing their students, given the organisation’s support for a liberalisation of Ireland’s abortion laws.

Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute told The Irish Catholic that Catholic schools had to “draw a line in the sand” on the issue after Amnesty International Ireland visited a number of schools in the Dublin archdiocese recently.

“If you are a group campaigning aggressively for abortion, something that is completely contrary to a Catholic ethos, then you don’t have a right to visit Catholic schools and attempt to gain support for your organisation.

“If you are a Catholic school you are obliged – and parents expect you – to adhere to the ethos of the Catholic Church,” she warned.

So kids,
we're going to teach you about how condom use is wrong, gays getting married is wrong, abortion is always wrong, divorce is wrong, kids before marriage is wrong, single mothers are wrong.

This idiot doesn't live in the real world, I high percentage of kids going to those schools were born in situations against the catholic ethos

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

It certainly contributes to traffic problems at the all important 8-9am peak congestion time. A lot of kids nowadays do not attend their nearest school. Maybe they were refused a place in it, or maybe they prefer the "ethos" of a different school. A child living in location A commutes to school in location B, while another child in location B commutes to the school in location A.

Which is to say that kids being driven to school generally contributes to traffic, a fact which is evident in first world countries around the world, regardless of their policies on school patronage and denominational education. An altogether less hyperbolic statement

recedite wrote: »

Its impossible to provide enough school buses to cater for that kind of inefficiency, but it can be done through private transport clogging up the roads. The more "diversity" of school types they introduce into the country, the more of this will go on.

Oh I don't know about 'impossible'; the American school district system is admirable though I think their move towards public transport is something we could emulate, and improve our public transport infrastructure generally to support both schools and commuters, which could have a significant impact on traffic congestion. If that's something that actually concerns you, rather than being an excuse, that is.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Oh I don't know about 'impossible'; the American school district system is admirable though I think their move towards public transport is something we could emulate....

Its only possible for them because the schools are secular and all the local kids are going to the same local school together.

expectationlost

people talking about segregation in CNS schools but also saying denominational teaching only happens for 4 weeks in the year (spread over how long?)

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its only possible for them because the schools are secular and all the local kids are going to the same local school together.

If they're all going to the same local school together, why would they need buses? And you know there are literally thousands of religious schools in the US, right? School buses carry children to public and non public schools in their districts, and (in New York for instance) those children using the system are generally required to live between three and fifteen miles from the school they attend ( in Ireland it's not less than 3.2km, so American kids have to live further from their schools to qualify). Not all that local.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

And you know there are literally thousands of religious schools in the US, right?

That is not a very large number in the US scale of things. As in France, there is a minority of schools which are controlled by religions, but these are not state-funded. The normal situation in continental Europe and the USA is that a child attends their local state school, which is a publicly funded school, and is open to all citizens irrespective of their colour or creed, and is teaching a secular curriculum.

It is also normal in countries that provide school buses for a minimum commute distance to be applied, so that those kids who are close enough to easily walk or cycle do not clog up the system.

In the situation as described above, where there is only one mainstream state school, a public school transport system to that school can be organised reasonably efficiently.
As you probably know there has been some controversy in the USA with a small number of private schools in some states availing of publicly funded transport, which has led to accusations of "indirect govt. support for sectarian schools" but the practice is banned in most US states.

Its a far cry from the situation here, where not just the bus service, but the entire sectarian school would be publicly funded.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

That is not a very large number in the US scale of things. As in France, there is a minority of schools which are controlled by religions, but these are not state-funded. The normal situation in continental Europe and the USA is that a child attends their local state school, which is a publicly funded school, and is open to all citizens irrespective of their colour or creed, and is teaching a secular curriculum.

Which is to say, yes, in the US children use State provided school transport to get to both public and private schools which may actually be closer to their homes than similar circumstances in Ireland, showing it is possible to provide enough school buses to cater for that kind of inefficiency...

recedite wrote: »

As you probably know there has been some controversy in the USA with a small number of private schools in some states availing of publicly funded transport, which has led to accusations of "indirect govt. support for sectarian schools" but the practice is banned in most US states.

Hmm.. all private schools in New York are entitled to avail of the publicly funded school transport system, and there's not much controversy. Certainly your own link shows the degree to which the Blaine Amendment has been pushed back by States to allow both direct and indirect funding for non public schools; particularly with the number of States allowing tax dollars to follow pupils to non public schools.
Not that any of that obviates the point that a school transport system which facilitates denominational educational choices is perfectly feasible

recedite

I think you are deflecting from the point that in countries such as the USA, France, Germany, Finland etc.. there is one state-funded model of primary school. Any other type of school that may be available privately is the exception rather than the rule.

The current govt. here in Ireland seems to be suggesting that the more diversity of publicly funded school types we have, the better. In reality that can only mean one of two things; either the kids will have to do a lot more travelling to get to the school of their preferred ethos, or they will attend the nearest school despite its unsuitable ethos. Neither of these is a satisfactory outcome IMO.

expectationlost

Community schools boss: no religion will be given priority http://www.businesspost.ie/community-schools-boss-no-religion-will-be-given-priority/ paywall

but from what I read about CNS schools and VEC secondary schools it doesn't seem to be the case christianity is still favoured

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I think you are deflecting from the point that in countries such as the USA, France, Germany, Finland etc.. there is one state-funded model of primary school. Any other type of school that may be available privately is the exception rather than the rule.

Not really, I'm pointing out that those other types of schools avail of the publicly funded school transport schemes, without leading to increased transport costs and traffic chaos, and that it's manifestly possible to provide enough school buses to cater for variation in schools types.

recedite wrote: »

The current govt. here in Ireland seems to be suggesting that the more diversity of publicly funded school types we have, the better. In reality that can only mean one of two things; either the kids will have to do a lot more travelling to get to the school of their preferred ethos, or they will attend the nearest school despite its unsuitable ethos. Neither of these is a satisfactory outcome IMO.

Well, in reality it actually means that only the schools for which there is sufficient demand will get funded, so choice in any given area will be limited by what parents in that area want. I understand that only wholly secular schools which refuse to acknowledge parents wishes is the only satisfactory outcome in your opinion, but I think a broader range of parents opinions is probably a better gauge of what ought to be satisfactory, or at least acceptable.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

Community schools boss: no religion will be given priority http://www.businesspost.ie/community-schools-boss-no-religion-will-be-given-priority/ paywall

but from what I read about CNS schools and VEC secondary schools it doesn't seem to be the case christianity is still favoured

A school that segregates kids into the four religious categories; Catholic, Christian, Muslim and Other is prioritising "Catholic" as the default religion.
Why segregate RC pupils from all the other Christian denominations? Why lump Sunni and Shia and Ahmadi Muslims together when their doctrines are very different?
The obvious reason is to be able to continue teaching the full RC religious programme including communion classes during school hours, while at the same time claiming to be a neutral state school in terms of religion.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

A school that segregates kids into the four religious categories; Catholic, Christian, Muslim and Other is prioritising "Catholic" as the default religion.
Why segregate RC pupils from all the other Christian denominations? Why lump Sunni and Shia and Ahmadi Muslims together when their doctrines are very different? The obvious reason is to be able to continue teaching the full RC religious programme including communion classes during school hours, while at the same time claiming to be a neutral state school in terms of religion.

You don't think that sounds at all conspiracy theoryish?

recedite

No. Truth is stranger than fiction in this case.

Absolam

Well... what you call 'truth' seems a little short on 'facts' to be fair... is there any actual evidence that local government bodies have any investment at all in continuing to teach the full RC religious programme including communion classes during school hours, while at the same time claiming to be a neutral state school in terms of religion? Other than accommodating the wishes of the parents of students, obviously, which doesn't mean they're not neutral, just that they're aware of why they exist.

Is it not possible that separating children into four groups for religious instruction provides the greatest possibility of giving time to the faiths represented in the class without devoting an extravagant amount of resources to providing vanishingly small groups which accommodate every single outlook (and we know how much you abhor the idea of expending resources on accommodating diversity)?

Given that an average class size is 25 pupils, on average;
21 are (at least nominally) Catholic
1.3 are some other flavour of Christian
0.3 is Muslim
2.4 are Other.

Even on those numbers it seems it's the Muslims winning out on the pupil to teacher ratio, and it looks like you'll need to have 6 classes of the same year just to have a chance of needing to decide which of the two main Muslim denominations you'll want to spend most time on. It seems to me that dividing the class into four groups based on those numbers is actually discriminating against Catholics, since the other groups will likely receive more one to one teacher time dues to their size. Do you not think?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

... is there any actual evidence that local government bodies have any investment at all in continuing to teach the full RC religious programme including communion classes during school hours, while at the same time claiming to be a neutral state school in terms of religion? Other than accommodating the wishes of the parents of students ETB members, obviously, which doesn't mean they're not neutral, just that they're aware of why they exist.

You have answered the question posed there yourself. And I agree with you mostly, though I would dispute whether it is the wishes of the new generation of parents.

The full RC programme has been introduced at the behest of the "members" of the ETBs. These "members" are mostly county councillors, plus a few other cronies, plus one or two parents association reps. They are not above reproach. They are not even particularly well educated or qualified. What they do best is to represent the majority of local people including the older generation (whose kids are long past school age), and the majority of those are RC; there is no denying that.

So in this matter I would distinguish between a modern european republic (rule by law on egalitarian principles) and a democracy (majority rule). Obviously a combination of the two is best, but where do you draw this line in a "democratic republic"?

The ETBs are statutary bodies. Their membership overlaps with the Local Authorities, which are separate statutary bodies. As such, the ETBs are indeed an arm of the state. The rules under which they were set up do not give them the authority to provide any religious instruction. The members have come up with this CNS model and its segregated religious groups themselves. As I said, they are not above reproach, and they represent the majority community.

Absolam wrote: »

Is it not possible that separating children into four groups for religious instruction provides the greatest possibility of giving time to the faiths represented in the class without devoting an extravagant amount of resources to providing vanishingly small groups which accommodate every single outlook..

Firstly, as I pointed out, there is no statutary obligation to provide any religious instruction.

Secondly, you are correct in that it is impossible to provide separate publicly funded education for every conceivable religion and crank ethos out there.
Which leaves us in the position of asking do we (a) cater for the majority and pay scant regard to the minority?
Or (b) do we cater for all of society equally by providing a secular education and letting them get their religious instruction after school hours.

You obviously favour (a) as do the "inventors" of the new ETB model of primary school; the CNS.

I favour (b) as do the parents in the fastest growing new primary school type, the Educate Together schools. So this is possibly more representative of the opinion of the actual demographic that will be using the schools.

Absolam wrote: »

Given that an average class size is 25 pupils, on average;
21 are (at least nominally) Catholic
1.3 are some other flavour of Christian
0.3 is Muslim
2.4 are Other.

Even on those numbers it seems it's the Muslims winning out on the pupil to teacher ratio, and it looks like you'll need to have 6 classes of the same year just to have a chance of needing to decide which of the two main Muslim denominations you'll want to spend most time on. It seems to me that dividing the class into four groups based on those numbers is actually discriminating against Catholics, since the other groups will likely receive more one to one teacher time dues to their size. Do you not think?

Your statistics/maths seem good, so I'll award you first prize for that :pac:
But unfortunately your conclusion is based on a false premise. The RCs in the example are the only ones receiving specific faith formation tailor-made for their specific sect, therefore all others are being segregated out of the main classroom and discriminated against.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

You have answered the question posed there yourself. And I agree with you mostly, though I would dispute whether it is the wishes of the new generation of parents.

So, representatives of pupils, and representatives of local voters. You know I think I have; there's no representation of a religious body there, so no reason to think some shadowy Catholic cabal is is prioritising "Catholic" as the default religion, or dividing up the school purely in order to continue teaching the full RC religious programme. Just local bodies serving local patrons, and you're the fan of 'local'....

recedite wrote: »

The full RC programme has been introduced at the behest of the "members" of the ETBs.

I haven't heard they've introduced 'the full RC programme' though, or that the members need inverted commas to describe them; there doesn't seem to be any reason to dispute their status on the Boards, does there? I heard the way they accommodate local community demand is to "provide periods within the timetable of the school year when some children form into different groups for faith nurturing. Others can form a nonfaith group during these times, all in accordance with the wishes of their parents."
Sounds a bit different?

recedite wrote: »

These "members" are mostly county councillors, plus a few other cronies, plus one or two parents association reps. They are not even particularly well educated or qualified. What they do best is to represent the majority of local people including the older generation (whose kids are long past school age), and the majority of those are RC; there is no denying that.

Leaving the aside the pejorative (and unsupported) epithet of 'cronies' you're saying that local representatives chosen by the local electorate are unsuitable for representing what local people might want... something the local community might dispute. I can't help but feel it's more because they're not doing what you'd like rather than their qualifications that you're taking issue with them; it's not even as if you can offer any real assessment of county councillor's educations or qualifications, is it? You're literally just mudslinging for the sake of it.

recedite wrote: »

So in this matter I would distinguish between a modern european republic (rule by law on egalitarian principles) and a democracy (majority rule). Obviously a combination of the two is best, but where do you draw this line in a "democratic republic"?

Is there a modern european republic that doesn't have majority rule? Pretty sure they all have elections where the candidates with the majority of votes get elected don't they? And their parliamentary houses, do they or do they not have votes on national business where the majority of votes carry the day? I suspect if you thought the majority agreed with your point of view, you wouldn't be as dismissive of democracy

recedite wrote: »

The ETBs are statutary bodies. Their membership overlaps with the Local Authorities, which are separate statutary bodies. As such, the ETBs are indeed an arm of the state. The rules under which they were set up do not give them the authority to provide any religious instruction. The members have come up with this CNS model and its segregated religious groups themselves. As I said, they are not above reproach, and they represent the majority community.

So... the rules they were set up under don't prohibit them from providing religious instruction, do they? And, like you say, they represent the majority community, so they have some obligation to provide them with what they want... and allowing children to have their own separate faith nurturing time does sound pretty egalitarian.

recedite wrote: »

Firstly, as I pointed out, there is no statutary obligation to provide any religious instruction.

Which is not to say they can't provide faith nurturing, is it? After all, pretty much everyone in the country has no statutory obligation to provide any religious instruction... but many do so anyway.

recedite wrote: »

Secondly, you are correct in that it is impossible to provide separate publicly funded education for every conceivable religion and crank ethos out there. Which leaves us in the position of asking do we (a) cater for the majority and pay scant regard to the minority? Or (b) do we cater for all of society equally by providing a secular education and letting them get their religious instruction after school hours.

Oh, you're limiting the options a bit there! Can't we think a little outside that box?

recedite wrote: »

You obviously favour (a) as do the "inventors" of the new ETB model of primary school; the CNS.

Personally, I favour a laissez faire approach; if a particular viewpoint can attract enough adherents to establish a school that serves their needs better than home education, the State should provide for it. I also like that the State should provide a backup, where it provides education on behalf of parents in as ecumenical a fashion as possible, bearing in mind that it is acting on behlaf of parents who are Constitutionally entitled to provide the religious and moral education of their children in schools recognised or established by the State; the CNS model seems to do a reasonable job of addressing that to my mind.

recedite wrote: »

I favour (b) as do the parents in the fastest growing new primary school type, the Educate Together schools. So this is possibly more representative of the opinion of the actual demographic that will be using the schools.

I would have though that if that demographic were particularly well represented, they would be establishing ET schools, would they not? Which would be all well and good, and fit my own laissez faire approach.

recedite wrote: »

Your statistics/maths seem good, so I'll award you first prize for that :pac: But unfortunately your conclusion is based on a false premise. The RCs in the example are the only ones receiving specific faith formation tailor-made for their specific sect, therefore all others are being segregated out of the main classroom and discriminated against.

Do you have any foundation for the premise that Catholics are the only ones receiving specific faith formation tailor-made for them? Any reason to think a class primarily composed of Jehovah's Witnesses, or Sunni Muslims, wouldn't get a similar standard of appropriate faith nurturing? Whilst others are chosen to be part of whichever group suits their perspective, and receive education in accordance with the wishes of their parents?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I can't help but feel it's more because they're not doing what you'd like rather than their qualifications that you're taking issue with them; it's not even as if you can offer any real assessment of county councillor's educations or qualifications, is it? You're literally just mudslinging for the sake of it.

Have you met many county councillors? The term "cute hoor" comes to mind :pac:

So... the rules they were set up under don't prohibit them from providing religious instruction, do they? And, like you say, they represent the majority community, so they have some obligation to provide them with what they want...

The rules don't prohibit religious instruction, nor do they give a mandate to provide it. This is politicians pandering to what they perceive as the majority community, at the expense of the minority. Politics, pure and simple. Not statesmanship.

Personally, I favour a laissez faire approach; if a particular viewpoint can attract enough adherents to establish a school that serves their needs better than home education, the State should provide for it...
I would have though that if that demographic were particularly well represented, they would be establishing ET schools, would they not? Which would be all well and good, and fit my own laissez faire approach.

Not a bad approach, though it would still have to be moderated by the state to some extent, by imposing egalitarian principles even where the majority were enjoying some cosy privilege or advantage. For example, as school that gave priority admission to the children of white catholics should not be operated or even funded by the state, even if the majority of locals wanted it.

However even by this simple criterion (popularity), the CNS model often fails. When a new primary school is proposed, ET schools generally get as many or more votes from local parents than the CNS model, but the Dept. may still allocate the new school to CNS in the interests of providing a greater "diversity" of school types to the area (as if that was a good thing in itself).

Do you have any foundation for the premise that Catholics are the only ones receiving specific faith formation tailor-made for them?

Not only are Catholics the only sect to have their own specific faith formation group (allowing communion and sacramental preparations within school time) but the general religion program taught to the whole class was also devised by RC theologians.
See here for some "non-Catholic" views on it.

Here's some more nonsense from the "Goodness me Goodness You" religion program....

2 or 3 times a week, those who belong to a monotheistic background (e.g. Christians and Muslims) will say a prayer to God and the polytheists, Humanists and atheists will meditate on the lesson instead. This prayer or contemplation takes place at the end of the multi-belief class and is based on the lesson for that day. Children are used to being put into different groups for English, support and other lessons so it’s a natural movement for them.

I can just imagine the atheists happily humming away, while meditating on the days religion lesson :pac:
"Christians" in that context BTW means "prods" and any other oddball non-RC form of Christianity
Like the "Muslims", they can all be lumped in together, because we are not interested in whatever differences in doctrine they might have with each other. They are not to be put in the "Catholic" class, and that's all that matters.

And sure, kids don't mind being segregated really. They get a bit upset at first, but they forget all about it after a while. Maybe it encourages a little bit of teasing, but sure it toughens them up.