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
-
Have you met many county councillors? The term "cute hoor" comes to mind :pac: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.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).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....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 ChristianityLike 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.0
-
ETB guyMs Nowlan states that the community national school model “relies on separating children of different faith backgrounds”. In terms of nurturing specific beliefs, this happens only for a four-week period in the school year and in response to parental wishes. Children participate in belief-specific groups where they have a better opportunity to focus on their own belief system.
For the rest of the school year, children follow a multi-belief programme, Goodness Me, Goodness You, which has been devised by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in consultation with teachers, principals, parents and children. Here, all children share their belief experiences together, including what they learn in their belief-specific programmes. The emphasis is on inter-belief dialogue and increasing awareness of, and fostering respect for, their similarities and their differences.
vs ET guy, while noting that ET and ETB co-run four secondary schools
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/issues-to-address-if-we-are-to-have-400-nonfaithbased-schools-34801613.htmlCommentators and academics have recently justified the CNS model on the basis of the 'normality' of children being put into separate groups for a variety of reasons in schools. This argument completely ignores the fact that religious discrimination is illegal under Equal Status legislation.
From my experience of years of talking to teachers and principals of primary schools, the forming of groupings in a classroom is one of the most careful and sensitive jobs for a teaching professional. The careful grouping of children is essential to promote in individual children their sense of identity, their sense of place and expectation, their confidence in their peer relationships, their ability to work in teams and the management of personality and the prevention of unhealthy classroom dynamics.
No teacher I know of in Educate Together schools would countenance the deliberate grouping and separation of children on the basis of any of the grounds of our equality legislation. As April Duff of Education Equality mentioned last week, if such a suggestion was made in relation to skin colour or race there would be uproar. To do so on the basis of religion is unacceptable. It is a fundamental principle upon which the definition of rights and intellectual and religious freedom in a modern democratic state relies.0 -
Goodness me, Goodness you seems to imply you can't have full a life without spirituality http://www.gmgy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FAQ_GMGY_FINAL-1.pdf http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0329/foirecord161.pdf0
-
expectationlost wrote: »1 The term sacramental education is somewhat narrower than sacramental preparation. Sacramental education refers to the support of children’s learning in relation to the sacraments. Sacramental preparation builds on this learning and relates it to the liturgy which forms the context for receiving the sacraments.
It reads suspiciously like something Absolam would be the author of0 -
So... Christians means Christians then?
Its a theological matter, there are degrees of heresy. Let me explain.
First there is the one true faith, then there are "Christians" (which group consists of those minor heretics the "non-Roman Catholic Christians") then there are "the people of the book" (which includes the other Abrahamic religions that revere the Old Testament; Muslims and Jews)
Then there are the "people of faith" (those who believe in any god at all) and finally there are those pesky atheists.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well here's something I haven't seen before...
I'm not sure too many people will understand what it means, but it appears to be some sort of jesuitical argument to refute the allegation "that CNS schools have been devised to provide the full RC religious instruction program while ostensibly not being religious schools" They must have anticipated what allegations the alligators such as ourselves would make, and so they built in this somewhat dubious disclaimer.
It reads suspiciously like something Absolam would be the author of
Much more likely that, totally unaware anyone had made such an allegation, they noted that a frequently asked question was "What is the difference between Sacramental education and Sacramental preparation" and decided to include an answer somewhere sensible... like a Frequent Asked Questions pageIn this context, no.Its a theological matter, there are degrees of heresy. Let me explain. First there is the one true faith, then there are "Christians" (which group consists of those minor heretics the "non-Roman Catholic Christians") then there are "the people of the book" (which includes the other Abrahamic religions that revere the Old Testament; Muslims and Jews) Then there are the "people of faith" (those who believe in any god at all) and finally there are those pesky atheists.
I think you may need to polish up on your theology0 -
a frequently asked question was "What is the difference between Sacramental education and Sacramental preparation" and decided to include an answer somewhere sensible... like a Frequent Asked Questions page
But maybe I am not mixing in the right circlesReallly? Which of the Christians mentioned are you claiming aren't Christians?
Is there any reason not to include Catholics in the general Christian group, other than a desire to separate out the subset "Catholics" and give them their own special Sacramental Preparation? A facility that is not afforded to any other specific sect of any religion.
Are Catholics more different to other Christians in a doctrinal sense than say, Sunni Muslims are to Shia Muslims? Or Atheists are to Hindus? (These others are examples of pairs that are to be put in the same group according to the CNS logic).0 -
I have never in my life heard anyone asking that question.
But maybe I am not mixing in the right circlesIs there any theological reason that Catholics are not considered Christians?Is there any reason not to include Catholics in the general Christian group, other than a desire to separate out the subset "Catholics" and give them their own special Sacramental Preparation? A facility that is not afforded to any other specific sect of any religion.Are Catholics more different to other Christians in a doctrinal sense than say, Sunni Muslims are to Shia Muslims? Or Atheists are to Hindus? (These others are examples of pairs that are to be put in the same group according to the CNS logic).0 -
There is if they account for 84% of the class, yes. Just as if Hindus, Muslims, or Jehovahs Witnesses accounted for 84% of the class I'd expect there's a reason to separate them out and allow them to have their own special Sacramental Preparation.
Remember this is not the state providing assistance to the private education initiatives of parents.
We are talking about a state school here, not just one owned by a private or religious patron and receiving state support.Michael Moriarty the general secretary of Education and Training Boards Ireland has said no religion will be given priority.0 -
Wouldn't it be rather embarrassing if someone were to take a figure for (supposed) religious affiliation for the population as a whole, including OAPs etc etc and then try to apply that to junior infants.
If you want to get an insight into the views of parents of young children, how about the stat that non-religious marriages are now well over 1/3 of the total and growing rapidly - they're hardly looking for sacramental preparation during the state funded school day for their eventual children, are they? How about those who defy catholic mores and don't get married at all - I suppose 84% of them are deadly serious into the religion too...Scrap the cap!
0 -
Advertisement
-
On this point I strongly disagree, on a matter of principle. It is not the function of the state to provide Sacramental Preparation, nor is it the states right to award special treatment to the majority community, just because they are in the majority. In fact, it is unconstitutional to do so (it must cherish all equally).Remember this is not the state providing assistance to the private education initiatives of parents. We are talking about a state school here, not just one owned by a private or religious patron and receiving state support.He would say that, wouldn't he0
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote: »Wouldn't it be rather embarrassing if someone were to take a figure for (supposed) religious affiliation for the population as a whole, including OAPs etc etc and then try to apply that to junior infants.
If you want to get an insight into the views of parents of young children, how about the stat that non-religious marriages are now well over 1/3 of the total and growing rapidly - they're hardly looking for sacramental preparation during the state funded school day for their eventual children, are they? How about those who defy catholic mores and don't get married at all - I suppose 84% of them are deadly serious into the religion too...0 -
An even more novel thought would be if you want to get an insight into the views of parents of young children, just ask them as the school enrols them and then you can tailor classes accordingly. That way only the ones who are looking for sacramental preparation during the state funded school day for their actual children will get it. Or perhaps that would be too sensible for anyone to consider?
That's a great idea, and parents could also ask for their children to do horse-riding, or ballet, or golf or soccer during school hours too. The children who do not want to do ballet could sit and colour pictures while the class went on.0 -
That's a great idea, and parents could also ask for their children to do horse-riding, or ballet, or golf or soccer during school hours too. The children who do not want to do ballet could sit and colour pictures while the class went on.0
-
The State is not prohibited by the Constitution from allowing State assets to be used to provide Sacramental Preparation..... and it is obliged by the Constitution to allow religious education to be provided to pupils in schools recognised or established by the State.
The state may indeed fund a school operated by a religious patron, which school provides religious instruction according to its own particular sect.
But only if children of other religions are also admitted and are allowed to opt out of the indoctrination. These schools can be either privately or publicly owned.....Article 42 wrote: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.
But, in the case of all other schools (ie not under religious patronage) the state should only ensure a minimum moral education, note that is specifically not a minimum moral and religious education.....Article 42.3.2° wrote: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.
If the state is operating as its own patron directly (such as the ETB which is established by a statutary order of the state) then it is bound by the above Article and by other relevant provisions in the constitution such as...Article 44.2 wrote:2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
and...Article 40.1 wrote:All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.0 -
That's a very flimsy argument. Just because there is no specific ban on the state engaging in Sacramental Preparation mentioned in what is, after all, a very short document, does not mean the state should engage in it. Especially when the ban can be inferred from some other articles, such as cherishing all citizens equally, or not endowing any particular religion.Well no, you are wrong there. You are creating a mish-mash of two different Articles.
"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.
The state may indeed fund a school operated by a religious patron, which school provides religious instruction according to its own particular sect.
But only if children of other religions are also admitted and are allowed to opt out of the indoctrination. These schools can be either privately or publicly owned..... So the above Articles allow that if parents wish for some private initiative or patronage to be supported by the state, that support can include support for the Sacramental Preparation if it is integral to that school type.But, in the case of all other schools (ie not under religious patronage) the state should only ensure a minimum moral education, note that is specifically not a minimum moral and religious education.....
Recent changes to the primary school curriculum for mandatory new classes in "Religion Beliefs and Ethics" are in line with this article. These classes cover the "moral" requirement without providing any specific faith formation or indoctrination. However religious patrons will still be allowed to have the latter as an add-on.If the state is operating as its own patron directly (such as the ETB which is established by a statutary order of the state) then it is bound by the above Article and by other relevant provisions in the constitution such as...2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion. (majority religion or not)
and...All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.0 -
My arguments are real, yours rely on imaginary lines of demarcation. "Chinese walls" that would allow the state to fund the activities of a religion "indirectly" while also saying it does not endow any religion.
Who is to say whether an ETB school is a state school or not? You say ETB is its own patron. I say it was established by statutary order and is therefore a state institution.
If a county councillor sends a guy round to fix a pothole outside your house, do you view that as a personal favour from him to you? I see it as a local government function, and local government is an arm of the state.
Your other line of reasoning, that anything not specifically banned in the Constitution is approved by the Constitution is equally fallacious. The document outlines broad principles. Where it says all citizens are equal, and no religion will be endowed, these are broad guidelines. The Constitution does not need to list every single instance of possible inequality, or every conceivable means of funding a religious doctrine.0 -
My arguments are real, yours rely on imaginary lines of demarcation. "Chinese walls" that would allow the state to fund the activities of a religion "indirectly" while also saying it does not endow any religion.Who is to say whether an ETB school is a state school or not? You say ETB is its own patron. I say it was established by statutary order and is therefore a state institution.If a county councillor sends a guy round to fix a pothole outside your house, do you view that as a personal favour from him to you? I see it as a local government function, and local government is an arm of the state.Your other line of reasoning, that anything not specifically banned in the Constitution is approved by the Constitution is equally fallacious.The document outlines broad principles. Where it says all citizens are equal, and no religion will be endowed, these are broad guidelines. The Constitution does not need to list every single instance of possible inequality, or every conceivable means of funding a religious doctrine.
So really... they're not so much guidelines in fact, but specific obligations placed on the State.0 -
Burton moves Labour’s School Admissions Bill to combat religious exclusion
21 June 2016 https://www.labour.ie/news/2016/06/21/burton-moves-labours-school-admissions-bill-to-com/#.V2lQFQ-rPHc.twitter otherwise known as the didn't do it while in government less chance of it happening now bill, no actual bill yet, it seems to be creating a higher test of ethos protection to encourage catholics schools to be more accomodating of non-religious and while mention the right to have schools without religion it doesnt' call for the state to provide them.0 -
Its a pity she didn't "move" this bill while she was Tanaiste. Obviously she knows that as an opposition bill it will have close to zero chance of success. So this is merely a cynical ploy.
Apart from that, there is a serious problem with it; it does not limit the size of a denominational school's catchment area. So the school could expand its own catchment area to suit the number of applicants available from the particular denomination. Even a minority religion could fill up the school with just "its own people" by declaring a very large catchment area.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its a pity she didn't "move" this bill while she was Tanaiste. Obviously she knows that as an opposition bill it will have close to zero chance of success. So this is merely a cynical ploy.
Apart from that, there is a serious problem with it; it does not limit the size of a denominational school's catchment area. So the school could expand its own catchment area to suit the number of applicants available from the particular denomination. Even a minority religion could fill up the school with just "its own people" by declaring a very large catchment area.
who sets the catchments again, the Dept of ed?0 -
expectationlost wrote: »who sets the catchments again, the Dept of ed?
No, schools do, unless they're new. Most near me don't use catchment areas, it's based on religious denomination and residing in the parish linked to the school.0 -
"Legal experts contradict Taoiseach on school admissions"
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0622/797272-schools-admission/A group of constitutional law experts have said they see no constitutional impediment to changing the law to ensure that children have equal access to State-funded schools regardless of their religion.
Two weeks ago Taoiseach Enda Kenny told the Dáil that the Government had been advised of "potentially very significant constitutional" barriers to change in this area.
Although the Taoiseach referred to "advice" received, a spokesperson confirmed to RTÉ News that no legal advice had been received by Government on this issue.
Three constitutional law experts from UCC, NUIG and Trinity College Dublin have published a legal opinion that conflicts with the Taoiseach's assertion.
The Equal Status Act gives Catholic children preferential access to the vast majority of publicly funded schools.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has recently recommended that the act be amended in order to eliminate discrimination.
Mr Kenny warned of "lengthy legal challenges" should the law be amended and said that a referendum may be necessary.
However the three academics conclude that there is no constitutional impediment to amending legislation to ensure equality.
They say case law shows there is no constitutional right to unconditional public funding for denominational schools, and that the Constitution permits the imposition of reasonable conditions on the provision of public funding.
The legal opinion was commissioned by Equate, a charity campaigning for equal access to schools.
The report does not yet appear to be on Equate's web page.0 -
Bristolscale7 wrote: »"Legal experts contradict Taoiseach on school admissions"
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0622/797272-schools-admission/
The report does not yet appear to be on Equate's web page.
While I'm not disagreeing with them there is always a group of law experts to say things like this. There was a group of law experts saying we didn't need the same-sex referendum or that it shouldn't have been held because of ongoing legal challenges.
In some cases it may be preferable to have a referendum to change the constitution to remove any ambiguity because otherwise you could have challenges to the legislation ongoing for years.0 -
Bristolscale7 wrote: »"Legal experts contradict Taoiseach on school admissions"
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0622/797272-schools-admission/
The report does not yet appear to be on Equate's web page.
i bet Ruairi Quinn said similar as Kenny when he was minister and now here he is backing something different0 -
No, schools do, unless they're new. Most near me don't use catchment areas, it's based on religious denomination and residing in the parish linked to the school.
A new school is typically built by the state via a Dept. of Education tender, then handed to over to a "patron" for management. The patron may or may not be a religious patron. The state still owns the school though. The terms of the lease will specify the catchment area, which will be delineated on a map of the local area. It is not based on parish boundaries. Usually this happens in an area with a young and expanding population.
In a more mature area, the schools are typically owned by religious bodies, and located in parish grounds. The patron is obviously the religion that owns the grounds, and they set the catchment area. typically it corresponds to their own parish boundary. But they could expand it into the next parish if they felt too many outsiders were getting into the school. These "voluntary" schools are also state funded, but may receive slightly less money.0 -
it seems that labour's new bill may be based on this legal opinion, await bill to confirm0
-
"The Taoiseach needs to explain exactly what the legal opinion was, and where he got it" ....Richard Boyd Barrett TD after it was confirmed that the "constitutional barriers" opinion did not come from the AG, who is the official legal advisor to the govt.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Just saw him interviewed on the RTE news, standing outside the Dail I think.0
Advertisement