School patronage

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

"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.

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2016/0622/21009837-legal-experts-say-there-is-no-constitutional-barrier-to-stop-schools-being-equally-accessible-for-all-children/

Moo Moo Land

Fair play to Labour for running with this bill. We really are an immature nation to put up with religion in schools.

Enda has always been afraid of his own shadow. When are we going to get a modern leader?

expectationlost

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Fair play to Labour for running with this bill. We really are an immature nation to put up with religion in schools.

fairplay to them for pretending to do something they wouldn't do in government?

Moo Moo Land

expectationlost wrote: »

fairplay to them for pretending to do something they wouldn't do in government?

Sounds like they were blocked by some gob****es in FG.

expectationlost

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Sounds like they were blocked by some gob****es in FG.

and this won't get blocked by go****es in FG and FF?

they _Labour_ refused to tackle section 7 of the equal status act and now suddenly out of government they come up with this way to tackle it, amazing :rolleyes:

expectationlost

How schools’ baptism barrier can be removed without breaching Constitution http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/how-schools-baptism-barrier-can-be-removed-without-breaching-constitution-1.2696441?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The amendment we propose clearly passes the tests in case law for assessing the constitutionality of legislation aimed at balancing competing constitutional rights.

he doesn't suggest a specificly worded amendment here does he? https://twitter.com/ConorUCCLaw/status/745562820767547393 im scrolling through it, he suggest the type of amendment

recedite

The amendment they are proposing is to remove the loophole/exception allowing religious groups to opt out of The Equal Status Act (not an amendment to the Constitution).

Specifically two examples are given, as possibilities for the amendment;

The imbalance inherent in the current position could be ameliorated to some extent (if not entirely eliminated) by amending s.7(3)(c) in one of a number of ways – for example:
1) Repeal s.7(3)(c) altogether, removing the exception to the general prohibition on religious discrimination in school admissions;

2) Amend s.7(3)(c) so that the exception could not be relied on by publicly funded schools

They explain that

Religious denominations would remain free to avail of a significant exception to anti-discrimination law an d choose to operate discriminatory admissions policies in denominational schools, but they could not accept public funding for such schools. While Article 42 of the Constitution clearly protects the freedom of parents to establish and operate private or denominational schools, it does not establish an automatic right to be provided with public funding for such schools. Similarly, religious denominations may have a right under Article 44 to operate entirely private educational institutions 17 that espouse a religious ethos and operate discriminatory admissions policies, but they do not have an automatic entitlement to public funding for such institutions. Where public funding is provided, it is clearly established that the State is
entitled – and perhaps even obliged – to make its provision subject to reasonable conditions.

A large part of the the paper is devoted to explaining why there is no constitutional impediment to the Oireactas changing the legislation in the Equal Status Act, along the lines suggested.

I wonder what our local poster Absolom would think of the legal opinion in the document?
Not to his liking, I suspect.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

The amendment they are proposing is to remove the loophole/exception allowing religious groups to opt out of The Equal Status Act (not an amendment to the Constitution).
.

i didn't suggest it was

so no he/they dont' suggest a specifically worded amendement as


heres the labour bill Equal Status (Admission to Schools) Bill 2016 [PMB] https://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=33231&&CatID=59

old Equal Status Act, 2000 9since amendmeded) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/8/section/7/enacted/en/html#sec7

wants to replace

section 7 3 (c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,

with

“(c) where the establishment is a school supported by public funds
providing primary or post-primary education to students and the
objective of the school is to provide education in an environment
which promotes certain religious values—
(i) it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in
preference to others, if it is proved that such a policy is essential
in order to ensure reasonable access to education for children of
that denomination within its catchment area in accordance with
the conscience and lawful preference of their parents, or
(ii) it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that
denomination, if it is proved that the refusal is essential to
maintain the ethos of the school,”;

and insert

(b) by inserting the following as subsection (3A):
“(3A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) whether an
admission policy referred to in sub-paragraph (i) or a refusal referred
to in sub-paragraph (ii) is essential for the purposes referred to, due
regard shall be had to—
(a) the constitutional right of any child to attend a school receiving
public money without attending religious instruction at that school,
and
(b) the concomitant obligation that every such school must be so organised as to enable that right effectually to be enjoyed.”.

its bascially a positive restatement of the current section based on the idea that publically funded schools shouldn't discriminate unless the really have to ( which is what it already said kinda without the publically funded bit)




its similar to this bill Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013 (Changed from Employment Equality (Amendment)(No.2) Bill 2013 [Seanad] [PMB])
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=23053&&CatID=59&StartDate=01%20January%202013&OrderAscending=0
if public school then

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I wonder what our local poster Absolom would think of the legal opinion in the document?
Not to his liking, I suspect.

I'd say it's sufficiently substantial that I wouldn't think of reducing it to a simple 'to my liking' or 'not to my liking'. It certainly adds a good deal more to the discussion that some of the propositions that have been put forward here :-)

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

It certainly adds a good deal more to the discussion that some of the propositions that have been put forward here :-)

Like what?

There have been two constantly recurring themes here.
1. That publicly funded schools should be equally accessible and suitable for all members of the public. But if schools were privately funded, they could impose their own admissions and indoctrination policies.

2. That there is no real constitutional barrier to the above. There are indeed competing constitutional rights, but the right of all citizens to be treated equally by the state has primacy. No school should be given an opt-out clause in equality legislation.

Absolam

Like the idea that nationalising private schools would reduce the cost of running the education system that you wanted to impose on everyone? That was a particular doozy

recedite

I suggested that if the above principles were put into operation, some discriminatory private schools that are currently receiving state subsidies would move voluntarily into the public system, thereby becoming fully state funded.
And others would opt to remain fully private, thereby having their subsidy removed.
The overall result could be broadly cost-neutral to the state, or at least not of any great financial significance.

Of course, we don't know exactly how many schools would want to remain private and how many would go public. It would depend on the parents, and how much they were prepared to spend to get a private education with a customised ethos. So any costings would be pure speculation.

Even if it ended up costing the state more, it would be well worth it from the point of view of the state upholding equal opportunities.

In effect, you would be abolishing the "semi-private" part of the current education system.

Absolam

Yep that was the one alright...

expectationlost

Labour suddenly in rush to deal with that Equal status Act which the refused to deal with when in gov https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2016-06-28a.127
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2016-06-28a.118

Bruton wants to give a whole year to pre-legisaltive scrutiny of their Equal Education Act

debate here http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016062800047?opendocument

bill here http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=33231&&CatID=59

see how Fianna Fail are most interested in the issue of catchments and this makes it into FG delaying amendment

SF giving qualified welcome to the bill as is AAA/PBP, I$C don't think it goes far enough, GP support it, while SD want section 7 3c abolsihed

[Deputy Danny Healy-Rae: Information on Danny Healy Rae Zoom on Danny Healy Rae] I have to say we do not have discrimination issues in Kerry, Killarney or Tralee.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016062800054?opendocument

if it passes 2nd stage then it must proceed after 10 weeks,which FF says is too short, while FF+FG obviosuly plan to suspend progress for a year to allow for pre-legislative scuritiny

vote on thursday

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

Burton wants to give a whole year to pre-legisaltive scrutiny of their Equal Education Act

debate here http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016062800047?opendocument

Burton is still not seeing the fundamental problem with allowing schools to set their own catchment areas;

Joan Burton wrote:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Equal Status Act to redress the imbalance between the right to maintain denominational schools and the right of children to receive a secular education in a State-funded school. Under our proposals, a denominational school’s preference for one religion would only be accommodated to the extent that it is demonstrably needed, by reference to actual circumstances, to meet the demand for denominational education in its catchment area, in accordance with the conscience and lawful preference of parents. Once that local need is met, the school cannot continue to prefer its own co-religionists to fill up the remaining places.

If demand is fully met from people of the preferred religion within the catchment area, how can the school "continue to prefer its own co-religionists" after that, when "demand is met" and there are no such people left? Its a nonsense. The only restriction being proposed here is to stop people of the preferred religion from outside the catchment area taking priority over random people from inside the catchment area. But if the school is allowed to set the size of the catchment area, they can just keep expanding the notional catchment area until it is big enough to fill the entire school with "co-religionists".

Joan Burton wrote:

I should make it clear that we intend to allow each school to define its catchment area under its statutory enrolment policy. Not every catchment area is equal in size.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Burton is still not seeing the fundamental problem with allowing schools to set their own catchment areas;
If demand is fully met from people of the preferred religion within the catchment area, how can the school "continue to prefer its own co-religionists" after that, when "demand is met" and there are no such people left? Its a nonsense. The only restriction being proposed here is to stop people of the preferred religion from outside the catchment area taking priority over random people from inside the catchment area. But if the school is allowed to set the size of the catchment area, they can just keep expanding the notional catchment area until it is big enough to fill the entire school with "co-religionists".

Surely they'd run up against the catchment area of another school with the same religious ethos at some point? After all there are quite a few denominational schools out there, and if one school extends into another's catchment area in order to hoover up those co religionists, then the 2nd school will end up accepting non co religionists. It seems like it would net out with schools not being in a position to constantly expand all their catchments just in order to dent non co religionists places. Not that anyone has demonstrated that schools actually want to attempt the kind of manoeuvring you're suggesting anyway...

recedite

Its quite easy for minority religions to do. These are generally the ones trying to prioritise their own people from outside the local area.

For catholic schools, not so easy to expand without bumping into the catchment area of another school run by the same denomination. What they have been increasingly doing is amalgamating a boys school with a girls school and then selling off the land from one school.
This has a similar effect ie it allows them to dominate that one remaining mixed school with co-religionists.

But my main point is that even in the scenario you describe (two adjacent catchment areas both giving priority admission to catholics) they will have secured places for every single co-religionist in the combined areas before anyone else can even be considered for a school place in either school.

I fail to see how this can be trumpeted as some great advance in equality, as Joan Burton is making it out to be.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its quite easy for minority religions to do. These are generally the ones trying to prioritise their own people from outside the local area.

How? Minority religions have so few adherents that they need huge catchment areas just to have a majority of students maintaining their ethos; that's why the CoI ended up with so many boarding schools. It's the same as the Catholic schools but on a different scale; they still end up meeting another schools catchment unless they only have one school in the whole country. In which case there's no reason not to have the whole of Ireland as a catchment.

recedite wrote: »

For catholic schools, not so easy to expand without bumping into the catchment area of another school run by the same denomination. What they have been increasingly doing is amalgamating a boys school with a girls school and then selling off the land from one school.
This has a similar effect ie it allows them to dominate that one remaining mixed school with co-religionists.

you mean it allows them to provide the ethos the parents of those pupils want? If there's a demand for an alternative ethos school in those circumstances, it sounds like there's a school available to purchase by anyone who wants to do so from what you're saying, so its just as improbable that it will be creating the issues you're positing, isn't it?

recedite wrote: »

But my main point is that even in the scenario you describe (two adjacent catchment areas both giving priority admission to catholics) they will have secured places for every single co-religionist in the combined areas before anyone else can even be considered for a school place in either school.

tTyat wasn't your main point though; your main point was that by setting their own catchments they'd increase their catchment areas in order to exclude non co religionists from the schools, remember? We've always known that denominational schools exist to service the needs of their community, and have a solid basis for preferring students from that community.

recedite wrote: »

I fail to see how this can be trumpeted as some great advance in equality, as Joan Burton is making it out to be.

. I think the only thing you would see as an advance would be the compulsory acquisition of all schools by the State and the implementation of a solely secular education system though... Everything else just won't be what you want, will it?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

But my main point is that even in the scenario you describe (two adjacent catchment areas both giving priority admission to catholics) they will have secured places for every single co-religionist in the combined areas before anyone else can even be considered for a school place in either school.

Exactly. In the situation where all the local schools are over subscribed state funded Catholic schools, local children who are not Catholics are at the back of the queue in terms of getting a place in the local state funded school. This is clearly religious discrimination on the part of the state.

Quite surprised at how weak Joan Burton's proposed bill actually is.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Exactly. In the situation where all the local schools are over subscribed state funded Catholic schools, local children who are not Catholics are at the back of the queue in terms of getting a place in the local state funded school. This is clearly religious discrimination on the part of the state.
Quite surprised at how weak Joan Burton's proposed bill actually is.

I would have said that if all local schools are full of local children, whatever their denomination, and there are still children without places, then the problem isn't religious discrimination, the problem is not enough schools.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

I would have said that if all local schools are full of local children, whatever their denomination, and there are still children without places, then the problem isn't religious discrimination, the problem is not enough schools.

So if there Dublin Bus ran a policy saying that white people were allowed get on their busses before coloured people, and as a result coloured people often couldn't get on busses at all because of insufficient spaces that wouldn't be racial discrimination, it would be not enough busses? Because, let me guess, they're not discriminating against the coloured people, they're simply preferring the white people because most of their customers are white. :rolleyes:

expectationlost

education equality says Labour bill doesn't go far enough and might become permanent temporary solution http://educationequality.ie/index.php/lab/ while after the debate they say there are dismayed at the proposed delay http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/proposal-to-delay-school-admissions-bill-simply-not-acceptable-742416.html can't be that dismayed

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

So if there Dublin Bus ran a policy saying that white people were allowed get on their busses before coloured people, and as a result coloured people often couldn't get on busses at all because of insufficient spaces that wouldn't be racial discrimination, it would be not enough busses? Because, let me guess, they're not discriminating against the coloured people, they're simply preferring the white people because most of their customers are white. :rolleyes:

Nope, it would be both; Dublin bus would be prioritising by race, but if they weren't, there still wouldn't be enough buses for all the people, would there? Assuming, for whatever reason, Dublin Bus were allowed to prioritise by race, the solution to getting everyone on the buses wouldn't be removing their facility to prioritise, it would still be adding more buses, whether or not they were provided by Dublin Bus.

I think we've already done the twhole rying to make it look like racism thing often enough, but your example still serves to make my point, so I'll swap your :rolleyes: for a

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Nope, it would be both; Dublin bus would be prioritising by race, but if they weren't, there still wouldn't be enough buses for all the people, would there? Assuming, for whatever reason, Dublin Bus were allowed to prioritise by race, the solution to getting everyone on the buses wouldn't be removing their facility to prioritise, it would still be adding more buses, whether or not they were provided by Dublin Bus.

I think we've already done the twhole rying to make it look like racism thing often enough, but your example still serves to make my point, so I'll swap your :rolleyes: for a

Thing is, many public services are stretched to breaking point all the time, and resources are such that people at the back of the queue simply don't get the service. Say for example we swap Dublin Bus for emergency care in a hospital. If we prioritise one group who make up the majority, and the system is running at capacity, the other group simply never get treated. This is clearly discrimination. Suggesting the issue is one of resourcing is utter nonsense, as we live in a world where we will always have resource issues but this does not excuse discrimination.

The Irish school system discriminates against non-Catholics. Dressing it up as a resource issue is both disingenuous and inaccurate, as it is based on a 'what-if' scenario that doesn't reflect reality. The reality is that some people's probability of getting school places is massively diminished because of their religion. This is discrimination, plain and simple.

Absolam

Well... No, to be honest. If you have a situation where people aren't getting treated because there's not enough treatment to go around, then that is a resourcing issue. There's no 'what if' involved; the only 'what if' in what you're positing is what if there were enough resources to treat everyone... and the answer is everyone would get treated/on a bus/into a school. Discrimination wouldn't be an issue at all because everyone would get what they need regardless of any prioritisation; it becomes an issue when there are not enough resources. Pretending otherwise is what is disingenuous and inaccurate.

looksee

Ok then, so everyone is sitting in A&E waiting room. Triage nurse comes out and says 'who's next?'.

Anxious mother says 'I've been waiting ages and I think my child may have concussion' and the young guy next to her says 'and I have been here for two hours and I am still bleeding badly'.

'Is either of you Catholic', says the nurse; they both say no.

'I just have to check' she says, and asks 'who is next and is a Catholic?'.

'That would be me' says a middle aged woman, 'I have a pain in my leg'.

'Come along the'n, says the nurse, she turns to the first two people, 'I will be with you as soon as I have sorted these other people'.

'Ah no', says the mother, 'my child needs help!'

'Well this is a Catholic hospital' says the nurse.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Ok then, so everyone is sitting in A&E waiting room. Triage nurse comes out and says 'who's next?'. Anxious mother says 'I've been waiting ages and I think my child may have concussion' and the young guy next to her says 'and I have been here for two hours and I am still bleeding badly'. 'Is either of you Catholic', says the nurse; they both say no. 'I just have to check' she says, and asks 'who is next and is a Catholic?'. 'That would be me' says a middle aged woman, 'I have a pain in my leg'. 'Come along the'n, says the nurse, she turns to the first two people, 'I will be with you as soon as I have sorted these other people'. 'Ah no', says the mother, 'my child needs help!' 'Well this is a Catholic hospital' says the nurse.

So... If you try to overextend the analogy it doesn't really work? I agree, a child not getting into the nearest school to them and having to attend one further away is nothing at all like a child being refused emergency medical treatment because someone who needs it less is treated first. I guess using unrelated tales of woe is never going to be quite as useful as an unbiased consideration of the facts

looksee

So you agree there is an analogy?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

So you agree there is an analogy?

I agree you can create analogies which are useful, or even analogous, to greater or lesser degrees... Your analogy above tending towards the extreme of lesser obviously.

looksee

Oh come on Absolam, you can do better than that. Are you not going to argue that the sorting out should have been done at reception, rather than the triage nurse having to decide? Or that the mother and the bleeding youth should have gone off and built their own hospital?