School patronage

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

You really have an interesting way of looking at things - anyhoo nope I haven't changed my mind on what I'll be bringing up - it was you that focussed in on my desired outcome being persuading people to hand over schools to me (helluava mental leap there , by the way)
Divestment is not the key focus of this particular meeting it will be , for me and many, ensuring equality of access to all children to publicly funded schools

True... I can be quite literal; probably why I noticed that you've gone from saying that you very much welcome the opportunity to (yet again) bring up the topic of the stunning reticence of those divesting to touch this topic of real level of divestment necessary, to saying that divestment is only a minor part of the issue re religion and admissions, and the equal treatment of all in respect of access is what you will be speaking about.

Still, that all said, a discussion that reaches back to the Stanley letter and the minutiae of the 1988 education act and the 1960's rules for national schools was what you were saying you were interested in. Having now read the previous discussion, do you think you have any insights to add that might have been missed at the time? How do you feel now about your idea that the Stanley Letter set out an explicitly secular nature for the National School system, given the evidence?

Hotblack Desiato

The principal of one of the schools where the Christian Brothers are flogging off land has called for it to be taken into State patronage:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/south-dublin-principal-feels-betrayed-by-land-sale-1.3112550

The principal of a Catholic secondary school in south Dublin has called on the Department of Education to take it over and for its patron, the Edmund Rice Schools Trust (ERST), to step aside.

The comments by principal of Clonkeen College in Deansgrange, Edward Melly follow the Christian Brothers? decision to sell 3 hectares (7.5 acres) of playing fields behind the school.

He says the school had been "betrayed" and "cast adrift" by both the trust and its founders, the Christian Brothers.

Bristolscale7

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The principal of one of the schools where the Christian Brothers are flogging off land has called for it to be taken into State patronage:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/south-dublin-principal-feels-betrayed-by-land-sale-1.3112550

Ha. Don't know what analogy to use...taking money for sex and then whinging about being treated like ****, or closing the stable door after the horses have been molested.

recedite

I think the school principal is just having a whinge, because there is no real logic to what he is saying. If the state took over the school (by some unknown mechanism) it would have to pay the E18M in compensation to the Trust for the playing fields land, plus another lump sum for the residual school and its land. Then the Trust would pay E10M back to the state in overdue Redress funds. Leaving the State with a significant shortfall.

It would be far cheaper for the state to wait until after the playing fields have been asset stripped, and then purchase the residual school.

Who can afford to keep 7.5 acres of prime development land in South Dublin in grass? Certainly not the Dept. of Education. Not when there are other schools that need the money for basic accommodation, such as this primary school not too far away which has been operating out of a prefab in the car park of a sports club for the last couple of years.

expectationlost

this issue with the school in Killarney is stunning, Church is giving it to the ETB without seeing whether Educate Together would take it on despite ET being the highest choice when a survey was done by the Department https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2017/0612/882215-kerry-school/

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I think the school principal is just having a whinge, because there is no real logic to what he is saying. If the state took over the school (by some unknown mechanism) it would have to pay the E18M in compensation to the Trust for the playing fields land, plus another lump sum for the residual school and its land. Then the Trust would pay E10M back to the state in overdue Redress funds. Leaving the State with a significant shortfall.

The Principal doesn't care about the redress payments or the economics of the situation.

His protest is the fact that his school is going to lose a huge chunk of its facilities because of a decision taken without any consideration for the needs of the school or its pupils.

Hence the "betrayed" and "cast adrift" comments - the trust is not doing its duty to look after the interests of the school.

The economics of the scenario are irrelevant to him.

Absolam

I think redress payments are pretty much irrelevant to the principal; he wants the best deal he can get for his school, so the upgrade plus the playing fields. Can't blame him really.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

The Principal doesn't care about the redress payments or the economics of the situation.

No, but surely he must also comprehend the reality of the situation. He manages a non fee paying school but he wants private school facilities. Does he really think that if Dept. of Education took over the patronage directly (which does not happen anyway) they would indulge him?

Its interesting to think about the word "patron" here, because we see echoes of the real meaning of the word. The patron is the boss, the rich guy who provides the moolah, but demands subservience and loyalty in return.
The kind of relationship that existed between a renaissance era baron and his artist, or between a modern Columbian drugs baron and his henchmen. Pablo Escobar was known as El Patron in "his" town.

So this school principal now finds that his current patron has fallen on hard times, and is floundering around looking for another.
Perhaps he should look to Qatar or Saudi Arabia instead of to the Dept of Education? He seems quite flexible about the "ethos" so long as he gets the best facilities
Memorising the Koran is a kind of education, is it not?

J C

... an interesting and far reaching recent Supreme Court decision on state aid and religious liberty in the United States ... which also has relevance for state aid for church-run schools in other common-law juristictions, like Ireland,, where all of the pressure is to go in the opposite direction.
Quote:-
"But despite (indeed, because of) the relatively un-dramatic facts of the case, Trinity Lutheran v. Comer could potentially be one of the most significant SCOTUS decisions of the year, setting the tone for generations of legislation about the separation between church and state on the state level, and potentially paving the way for more radical education reform, like the use of state vouchers for religious schools."
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/6/26/15610224/cotus-decision-church-playground-religious-freedom-america.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-sides-with-religious-institutions-in-a-major-church-state-decision/2017/06/26/f6187a2a-5a13-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.c20728b3911b

This was headline news, when I was over in America last week ... and President Trump's new Supreme Court appointee was party to the decision by the court.

recedite

The essence of that case is that state funding was available to make playgrounds safer using a rubber floor surface. It was decided in the end that the Lutheran's preschool playground could not be excluded from the grants, just because it was on church property.

Its a borderline kind of situation. But still a far cry from the Irish situation where staff in a religious owned school would be put directly on the state payroll, and capitation plus building maintenance grants paid to the school for non-specific uses.

J C

recedite wrote: »

The essence of that case is that state funding was available to make playgrounds safer using a rubber floor surface. It was decided in the end that the Lutheran's preschool playground could not be excluded from the grants, just because it was on church property.

Its a borderline kind of situation. But still a far cry from the Irish situation where staff in a religious owned school would be put directly on the state payroll, and capitation plus building maintenance grants paid to the school for non-specific uses.

It would equally apply to paying teachers to teach non-religious subjects in church owned schools ... the only payment that could not be made is for teachers time teaching religion in these schools ... and in Ireland's case this would be more than matched by the funding put into church-run schools by their patrons ... so whichever way you look at it, the status quo is perfectly in line with the legal concept of freedom of religion.
Any payment by the government for teachers time teaching religion, is more than matched by the parish contribution to the school ... and if they want to not pay teachers for their time teaching religion ... then parishes should be allowed divert funding contributions made by the parish for the school to paying for the teaching of religion there, instead.

Quote Citizens Information on School funding :-
"Funding of schools
Traditionally, the site for national schools was provided locally - either directly by the patron or as a result of local fundraising. There was also a local contribution to the building costs and the running costs. Changes were made over the years as multi-denominational schools and Gaelscoileanna were being built and did not have a 'local' funding base. New arrangements were introduced in 1999."

Hotblack Desiato

That's a load of nonsense J C, the churches do not contribute to the running cost of schools in Ireland and have not done so for many years.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's a load of nonsense J C, the churches do not contribute to the running cost of schools in Ireland and have not done so for many years.

Religious patrons, however, do and always have. As has been shown on this thread a number of times.

looksee

http://www.erst.ie/uploads/ESRI-Report-Summary-Booklet-Final-18th-October-2013.pdf

Have a look at the proportion paid by Patron/Trust in the charts on page 5 of this publication.

I have been unable to find any information about Patron contributions in primary schools. There is no mention here: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/types_primary_school.html
or here: https://www.cpsma.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CPSMA-Handbook-2016.pdf

If anyone can show any documented information I would be pleased to see it.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

http://www.erst.ie/uploads/ESRI-Report-Summary-Booklet-Final-18th-October-2013.pdf

Have a look at the proportion paid by Patron/Trust in the charts on page 5 of this publication.

You're right, it flies in the face of the notion that religious patrons don't contribute to the running costs of schools in Ireland. And in Voluntary Secondary Schools they seem bear a higher proportion of the cost too. If any doubt remains, the finding of the report that "The State provides denominational schools with two-thirds funding towards their base operating costs for the provision of secondary education within the free education
scheme." should make it clear enough.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

You're right, it flies in the face of the notion that religious patrons don't contribute to the running costs of schools in Ireland. And in Voluntary Secondary Schools they seem bear a higher proportion of the cost too. If any doubt remains, the finding of the report that "The State provides denominational schools with two-thirds funding towards their base operating costs for the provision of secondary education within the free education
scheme." should make it clear enough.

That does not establish that the balance is made up by the Patron; fees, voluntary contributions and fund raising do that.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

That does not establish that the balance is made up by the Patron; fees, voluntary contributions and fund raising do that.

Doesn't your graph show the proportion being paid by patrons? Obviously they're also responsible for raising the balance, sure, but there a part paid directly too. Isn't there?

looksee

The secondary school graph shows a contribution by the Patron (it appears to be about 1%), the primary school document does not specify what the contribution is, if any. There is a vague mention in other documents of the Church having provided land, but so did private benefactors (who are not patrons), as well as parental and state contributions. And of course the Church land was gifted to it in the first place by individuals and church offertories. I suppose we should really allocate these as contributions by God rather than the Church.

robindch

looksee wrote: »

There is a vague mention in other documents of the Church having provided land, but so did private benefactors (who are not patrons), as well as parental and state contributions. And of course the Church land was gifted to it in the first place by individuals and church offertories.

It's also well-known that the church used to organize collections for school lands and the like. And having collected sufficient cash, the church then bought the land and gave it to whatever trust was set up to acquire it.

I'm not aware of any land which was donated by the church in the sense of "donate" which the rest of us understand, though I'm sure it happened from time to time.

recedite

J C wrote: »

It would equally apply to paying teachers to teach non-religious subjects in church owned schools ... the only payment that could not be made is for teachers time teaching religion in these schools ... and in Ireland's case this would be more than matched by the funding put into church-run schools by their patrons ... so whichever way you look at it, the status quo is perfectly in line with the legal concept of freedom of religion.

I agree there is a certain logic to your argument. And if "the baptism barrier" is removed, thus making religious schools freely accessible to the general public, then your argument becomes much more powerful.

My own position is that a clear distinction needs to be made between what is privately owned and what is publicly owned. Once you do that, all the complications fall away.

For example a supermarket car park is open to the public, but is not publicly owned, therefore improvement works within it should not attract public funding.

Going back to the Lutheran playground case in the US, I think the original court decision was right, and the SC made the wrong call. Imagine that it was a playground in a McDonalds restaurant instead. Should they get public money for safety improvements? Its a tough call because child safety is at stake, but on balance I think no. They should instead be required (by health and safety legislation) to install the rubber surface at their own expense.
Perhaps the Mc Donalds lawyers are eyeing up the case at this very moment, and thinking "there has got to be public money in this for us".

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

The secondary school graph shows a contribution by the Patron (it appears to be about 1%), the primary school document does not specify what the contribution is, if any. There is a vague mention in other documents of the Church having provided land, but so did private benefactors (who are not patrons), as well as parental and state contributions. And of course the Church land was gifted to it in the first place by individuals and church offertories. I suppose we should really allocate these as contributions by God rather than the Church.

So not only does it tell us that religious patrons do indeed contribute to the running costs of schools in Ireland, it also tells us that the State pays substantially less for them as well; 70% in the case of denominational schools compared to 90% for ETBs and community/comprehensive schools. Additionally, we're told (without any need to look for vague mentions in other documents) that for the premises of the denomination schools (with the exception of four), "all capital costs were borne by the owners (religious orders, dioceses, private individuals) until 1964. Sites were provided by the religious order. 100% of capital costs are now borne by the State", which is not at all vague.

Now I wouldn't disagree that many of those religious orders and dioceses acquired the land and properties necessary in concert with the communities they intended them to serve, but I'd be dubious about characterising them as having been contributed by God myself, especially considering the forum. I'd simply say they were put to the purpose that those who paid for them intended in all likelihood.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Going back to the Lutheran playground case in the US, I think the original court decision was right, and the SC made the wrong call. Imagine that it was a playground in a McDonalds restaurant instead. Should they get public money for safety improvements?

We don't regard pushing fast food products at kids as a charitable purpose - but for some unfathomable reason, most western societies regard pushing religion on kids as a charitable endeavour.

Both are damaging to health

Bass Reeves

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We don't regard pushing fast food products at kids as a charitable purpose - but for some unfathomable reason, most western societies regard pushing religion on kids as a charitable endeavour.

Both are damaging to health

That is a huge statement please expand, please give support to you assertions.

Absolam

King Mob wrote: »

Can they provide the option of secular education to everyone? No, because their scope is limited.

I don't think they claim they can to be fair to them; they're just trying to do something to provide secular education whilst you're claiming doing things isn't viable.

King Mob wrote: »

You are avoiding the question again. I believe that yes, the UN did conclude that. You are simply being pedantic to avoid the issue. I am not sure if it's because you believe that the UN is wrong or if you're just fine with it being against human rights.

How about you provide us with a link to the UN concluding that the Irish system is a breach of human rights, and while you're at it one showing that I did disagree with the UN and various other bodies that conclude that the Irish system is a breach of human rights. Or admit you're making it up.... Then we can move on to discussing the UN Committees opinions.

King Mob wrote: »

But not everyone has equal opportunity. Some people are more privileged in some ways than others. It's not just a matter of hard work. Claiming otherwise is simply ignorant.

No not everyone has equal opportunity. In anything. That doesn't mean that being able to choose something, or to make an effort to get it, makes anyone privileged though.

King Mob wrote: »

Why would it matter to them that it's state funded if the important aspect is that it is religious? The idea I purpose offers them the option of religious schools (at least to the level by which you consider secular people have options). Are you claiming that they require it to be free? Then it's simply a matter of getting their religious order providing it for free, or the person likewise fund raising like you suggest people seeking secular education should.

Does it not matter to you that secular education be State funded? Because if it doesn't, then most of your arguments against viability seem to disappear.

King Mob wrote: »

But the part that confuses me is why you place so much importance on this group of people that insist on both it being religious and state funded. Why should their oddly specific requirements be so important as to trump all other requirements? Do you believe that the number of these people is somehow significant? Why are you concerned about these people being "denied" their optimum choice yet have no concern when secular people are likewise denied? Do you believe that these people are a significant proportion of the population or something?

You seem to be rather gliding past the fact that I said I think both religious and secular schools should be State funded. Why do you think that is?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, why would state funding be so important? And if it is important, then having secular schools that accept everyone allows for more, better funded, staffed and equipped schools that cater for more people than smaller, more expensive specifically segregated schools.

If it's not important, then we don't need to worry about the State funding secular schools. I think it's important that the State should fund schools that parents want... but I'm getting the impression that you think State funding should only be important for schools you want. Is that a fair assessment?

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, so then what's the issue? Anyone who requires religious education is covered by both this and by privately funded religious schools.

I quite literally said I've no objection to parents providing supplemental and religious education outside State funded education at all; I'm pretty sure lots of parents already do. it's what you quoted. What makes you think there's an issue?

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

Does it not matter to you that secular education be State funded?

I believe that education should be provided to all, free from religious interference.
If people wish to seek religious interference, then they are welcome to.

The system I propose allows for this either through private schools or through supplemental education.

I'm no longer interested in playing word games with you just so you can be contrarian.

Absolam

I believe that all should be free to provide such education as they wish, with the minimum interference and maximum support as is reasonable provided by the State. So I guess we can see why we differ.

seamus

Absolam wrote: »

I believe that all should be free to provide such education as they wish, with the minimum interference and maximum support as is reasonable provided by the State. So I guess we can see why we differ.

Do you believe it is perfectly reasonable for an institution in receipt of public money to discriminate on the basis of religion?

For example, do you believe that the Educate Together schools should be allowed to refuse school places to Catholic children? Should a Catholic school be allowed to discipline a Jewish child who refuses to listen to lessons on the new testament?

Which is really the core question here. Anything in relation to secular education or school ethoses flows as a natural consequence from this question.

Absolam

seamus wrote: »

Do you believe it is perfectly reasonable for an institution in receipt of public money to discriminate on the basis of religion? For example, do you believe that the Educate Together schools should be allowed to refuse school places to Catholic children? Should a Catholic school be allowed to discipline a Jewish child who refuses to listen to lessons on the new testament? Which is really the core question here. Anything in relation to secular education or school ethoses flows as a natural consequence from this question.

I agree that an institute in receipt of public money should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion if such discrimination is fundamentally necessary to its purpose, certainly. Your follow on questions are rather more on the polemicist side, and I disagree that anything in relation to secular education or school ethoses flows as a natural consequence from this question, but I can see that, if your starting position is you want to deny public money to anyone who favours religion, it would be an important starting point.

seamus

Absolam wrote: »

I agree that an institute in receipt of public money should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion if such discrimination is fundamentally necessary to its purpose, certainly.

So, yes is your answer.

So if the purpose of a school was to provide a strictly secular education, you agree that denying places to Catholic children is just fine, because there's always the risk they might start talking to other children about Jesus in the classroom.

And you can't have that in secular education.

That's cool, just checking how consistent you were.

mikhail

seamus wrote: »

So if the purpose of a school was to provide a strictly secular education, you agree that denying places to Catholic children is just fine, because there's always the risk they might start talking to other children about Jesus in the classroom.

Let's take that strawman to its logical conclusion. Surely all school children should be strapped down and gagged lest any non-approved information pollute the approved curriculum?

Why is it that so many religious people appear to be patholigically unable to distinguish the term secular from atheist?