School patronage

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The fact that you chose to focus on the last line in that paragraph, doesn't negate the explanation that preceded it. Reading the whole paragraph shouldn't have led to you being confused really. If parents choose to enrol their children in a school, then it's reasonable for the school to assume that the parents would support the ethos of the school in the interests of their children's education. The fact that the assumption later turns out to be false, is contingent on the fact that the parent later makes it known that they do not support the ethos of the school. It's not the fault of the school, it's the responsibility of the parents.

Crazy thought: maybe parents send their children to schools with catholic ethos because there aren't other good options available...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I said - if parents have their own ulterior motives for enrolling their children in a particular school, that's their own business. They are expected to support the school community if they expect support from the school community.

Collective responsibility is admittedly more of an idealistic aspiration in modern times in an individualistic, liberal society though, and that comes with both it's benefits and it's drawbacks - more individual freedom, less of a feeling of having a responsibility or an obligation towards others in society.

This is a lot of waffle that doesn't seem to actually match what you've quoted.

If the majority of people supported catholic ethos in schools, then it follows that the majority of people would display some sort of correlation to the teachings of the catholic church. But this is not the case.
Maybe there's some sort of disconnect between the number of catholic ethos schools and the number of people who subscribe to catholic ideas....

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

Crazy thought: maybe parents send their children to schools with catholic ethos because there aren't other good options available...

It's a perfectly logical thought when you consider that parents will want to enrol their children in schools which they believe will provide the best educational opportunities for their children. That still doesn't negate the fact that it is reasonable for the school to assume that the reason they are enrolling their children in the school is because the parents support the ethos of the school. They may of course be proven wrong in making that assumption, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to have assumed the parents support the ethos of the school in the interests of their children's education in the first place.

This is a lot of waffle that doesn't seem to actually match what you've quoted.

If the majority of people supported catholic ethos in schools, then it follows that the majority of people would display some sort of correlation to the teachings of the catholic church. But this is not the case.
Maybe there's some sort of disconnect between the number of catholic ethos schools and the number of people who subscribe to catholic ideas....

Undoubtedly we're agreed there is a disconnect between the parents religious beliefs or lack thereof (I would suggest there's no connection in a lot of cases tbh), and the model of education they want for their children. That's what I mean when I suggest that in modern times in Irish society - people are more concerned with their individual freedoms, than they are concerned about their collective responsibility towards others in society. People are more concerned with doing what suits them, than doing what may in the best interests of society as a whole (according to some people).

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's a perfectly logical thought when you consider that parents will want to enrol their children in schools which they believe will provide the best educational opportunities for their children. That still doesn't negate the fact that it is reasonable for the school to assume that the reason they are enrolling their children in the school is because the parents support the ethos of the school. They may of course be proven wrong in making that assumption, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to have assumed the parents support the ethos of the school in the interests of their children's education in the first place.

But it is not reasonable to assume that since there are many many other factors that influence choice of school before ethos. And there is a lack of options, so most people have to choose to go use a catholic ethos school.

And it certainly is not reasonable to use that assumption in the way you do as if it's a solid basis for assuming the majority of people in Ireland are happy with the majority of schools being catholic ethos.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Undoubtedly we're agreed there is a disconnect between the parents religious beliefs or lack thereof (I would suggest there's no connection in a lot of cases tbh), and the model of education they want for their children. That's what I mean when I suggest that in modern times in Irish society - people are more concerned with their individual freedoms, than they are concerned about their collective responsibility towards others in society. People are more concerned with doing what suits them, than doing what may in the best interests of society as a whole (according to some people).

Then hey, we should provide a model of education that reflects reality rather than caters to an imagined majority of people who want catholic ethos schools.

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

But it is not reasonable to assume that since there are many many other factors that influence choice of school before ethos. And there is a lack of options, so most people have to choose to go use a catholic ethos school.

And it certainly is not reasonable to use that assumption in the way you do as if it's a solid basis for assuming the majority of people in Ireland are happy with the majority of schools being catholic ethos.

I can see we're not likely to come to any agreement on what are and aren't reasonable assumptions for a school to make on the basis that parents will choose to enrol their children in a particular school (and I wasn't particularly focused on religious ethos schools btw, I would apply the same assumptions of parents who choose to enrol their children in non-religious ethos schools, Muslim parents who choose to enrol their children in an ET school for example).

Then hey, we should provide a model of education that reflects reality rather than caters to an imagined majority of people who want catholic ethos schools.

Absolutely! However in order to do that, you would have to be able to demonstrate that your imagined majority is actually a reflection of reality. I don't agree that it is tbh. Certainly evidence from the Forum on Pluralism and Patronage suggests that parents want more choice in the models of education provided for in Irish society, but there is little evidence to suggest that they themselves would switch to an alternative model of education were one actually offered.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can see we're not likely to come to any agreement on what are and aren't reasonable assumptions for a school to make on the basis that parents will choose to enrol their children in a particular school (and I wasn't particularly focused on religious ethos schools btw, I would apply the same assumptions of parents who choose to enrol their children in non-religious ethos schools, Muslim parents who choose to enrol their children in an ET school for example).

Yes it will be unlikely as long as you keep pretending that there's equal choices available to everyone everywhere.

Most people care more about other factors, but their choices are limited, hence they bite the bullet and go to schools they don't necessarily agree with.
If you, or a school administrator is assuming that these people don't exist or that they are a tiny minority, then you guys are living in a very nice dream world.

If you don't assume that these people are a negligent factor, then your assumption is clearly not reasonable and it is a dangerous, disingenuous basis for your opinion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Absolutely! However in order to do that, you would have to be able to demonstrate that your imagined majority is actually a reflection of reality. I don't agree that it is tbh. Certainly evidence from the Forum on Pluralism and Patronage suggests that parents want more choice in the models of education provided for in Irish society, but there is little evidence to suggest that they themselves would switch to an alternative model of education were one actually offered.

So why should we continue to support a system that disproportionately favours a minority of people who want a catholic ethos?
Too hard to change it?

And what majority am I imagining exactly?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to several posters - there are several other workable options for their children's education.

No there aren't, and repeatedly saying the opposite isn't going to win you any arguments here.

Your reply still doesn't answer the question as to why you might feel parents who support the ethos of the school, should show consideration to those parents who do not support the ethos of the school?

I was not asked that question, so please don't imply I am dodging answering a question I was never asked.

Samaris

Regarding the "Asking the priest about Hinduism" crack, it was a joke. But if a child has to sit in a classroom being fed an absolute pack of nonsense as utter truth (actually, I was very good at those question and answer sessions - but it still wasn't the utter truth it was being presented as), then yes, it should be allowed to ask the priest why is it that his religion that he is teaching as truth IS the truth and why, say, Hinduism is obviously false.

As I said though, it tends to go down badly with the teacher once the priest has gone, because you can't be having children using critical reasoning skills if it manifests as indicating a lack of belief in what One Must Believe In Catholic Irish Schools. That is wrong, it's high-handed and it is an abuse of the concept of education to have people coming in to teach stuff that is absolutely unprovable (and often proven against) that cannot be questioned bar in the most careful, accepting (heh, "tolerant") way. Won't affect most children, they'll just accept or ignore it, but the ones that want to know -why- are the ones that are showing skills that ought to be encouraged in education, rather than an attitude in schools of that you can question some things, but questioning religious ethos will not be tolerated - but everyone must tolerate said religious ethos even if it conflicts with the very idea of education.

Maybe this has changed, but it's certainly how I recall it all. I never asked the Hinduism question specifically, btw, but I do remember students who asked difficult questions getting a hard time afterwards from the teachers or the principal.

magicbastarder

Humanist teacher loses case over Virgin Mary statue in school

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/humanist-teacher-loses-case-over-virgin-mary-statue-in-school-1.3196237

messy.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

Humanist teacher loses case over Virgin Mary statue in school

Looks like the teacher behaved like a complete plonker. If I were him/her, and if the statue was officially sanctioned, then I'd have approached the board; if it was unofficial, then probably easiest just set up a table for the flying spaghetti monster beside and see which one generates more laughs amongst the kids.

Samaris

Yeah, that was an stupid way to deal with his issues. Feel sorry for the caretaker - he might expect a certain amount of brattishness from the kids (although any principal or teacher worth their salt would sit on that thoroughly too), but he had no reason to expect to be attacked by an enraged humanist maths teacher!

Mind you, I could have done with removing one of the great big statues of Mournful Jesus Plus Insides that towered over the hallway of our school at one end. Its eyes followed you - suffer the little children to be thoroughly creeped out by Me. Certainly never occurred to me to physically attack the caretaker over it though.

recedite

The issue should have been handled differently, but I'd say it just "escalated quickly" at the time. One of those situations where tempers fray.

The adjudication officer's rulings seem very suspect to me;
No. 1 is a strawman...

I am satisfied that the placement of the May altar is a passive symbol which is not intended for the purpose of imposing or manifesting Catholic or Christian beliefs upon the complainant personally.

Hopefully the mini shrine was not set up just to provoke this one teacher. It would have been set up to promote/celebrate one particular religion generally (among all staff and students).




No. 2 is very dubious, as it seems to be upholding the state religion....

Mr Murphy also found that the presence of religious symbols such as the May altar is wholly legitimate, rational and proportionate to the object of the preservation of the Christian ethos within the CTI.
“I am satisfied that the actions of the complainant in attempting to remove the statute on the date in question served to undermine the religious ethos of the school,” Mr Murphy added.

Whereas from a quick look at the website (hopefully this is the right one), the college does not seem to be owned by a "christian" organisation. If it is owned by the state, or by local government, then it should be secular and should not be promoting Roman Catholicism.
From their mission statement, they aspire...

to bring students to an awareness of their identity in a multi-denominational, multi-racial, multi-cultural context

This whole argument should not have arisen, because there should have been a proper separation between church and state already in place.

Hotblack Desiato

Teacher was an idiot.

The adjudicator is a worse idiot for saying that the institution had a right to maintain its religious ethos. It's ETB and owned by the State.

matrim

What caused him so much offence that year? According to the article

30 year long tradition at the school of erecting it.

and

the teacher — employed at the school since 1994

So why is it now offensive when it didn't bother him enough to raise a complaint for the 20 odd years up to the incident.

recedite

Irreligious people getting more and more uppity these days?
There was a public outcry over religious ethos being imposed in the proposed relocated national maternity hospital recently, which might not have happened 30 years ago.

rainbow kirby

He was a bit of a knob, but why should an ETB school get to promote one religion over others? They aren't church run schools.

Bass Reeves

recedite wrote: »

The issue should have been handled differently, but I'd say it just "escalated quickly" at the time. One of those situations where tempers fray.

The humanist teacher was there 20+ years so I suppose that is rapid escalation. In reality he seems to have lost the plot this year for some reason.

recedite wrote: »

The adjudication officer's rulings seem very suspect to me;
No. 1 is a strawman...Hopefully the mini shrine was not set up just to provoke this one teacher. It would have been set up to promote/celebrate one particular religion generally (among all staff and students).

For what ever reason it was set up it seems that it was in operation for 20+ years. If the teacher had issue with it he should recorded his objections first of all to the principle and then the Board of Management

recedite wrote: »

No. 2 is very dubious, as it seems to be upholding the state religion....
Whereas from a quick look at the website (hopefully this is the right one), the college does not seem to be owned by a "christian" organisation. If it is owned by the state, or by local government, then it should be secular and should not be promoting Roman Catholicism.
From their mission statement, they aspire...

Why should a state school be completely secular. Would Christians/Catholics object if the feast of Ramadam and the Jewish passover were celebrated. I do not think so. The issue here is that a minority want that no religious celebration take place in any school

recedite wrote: »

This whole argument should not have arisen, because there should have been a proper separation between church and state already in place.

Proper separation in some eyes is the total removal of any religious ethos from any school that receives any sort of state funding. This ignores that Catholics, Protestant, Muslims, Jews etc all pay tax as well as humanists

recedite

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The humanist teacher was there 20+ years so I suppose that is rapid escalation. In reality he seems to have lost the plot this year for some reason.

I mean the row with the caretaker. I'm guessing it was all over very quickly and completely exaggerated by the school/caretaker/witness anyway, due to some internal politics that were brewing and we have not been told about. If you even grab hold of somebody during an argument, that is technically "assault".

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Why should a state school be completely secular. Would Christians/Catholics object if the feast of Ramadam and the Jewish passover were celebrated. I do not think so. The issue here is that a minority want that no religious celebration take place in any school

I very much doubt that this college has ever erected a Hindu shrine, or cancelled lunch breaks during Ramadan
A state school should not pander to any religion.
Unless, maybe, if it intends to pander to them all equally which is impossible.

BTW there are a few ETB schools which still have a dilute RC ethos. This because of a historical lease agreement going back to the time when the RC patron established them as "vocational" community schools, and before they were taken over by the ETB. Its an issue that would be addressed in an ideal world.. but there are so many other battles to fight.

This college does not appear to be one those though.

Hotblack Desiato

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Why should a state school be completely secular.

Because it's funded by taxes collected with the force of the law, not parish funds collected by force of peer pressure, shunning, public humiliation, bullying, etc.

It's funded by all citizens equally therefore must serve all citizens equally, and not pander to religion in enrolment or employment and not promote any particular religion above others.

This is all basic stuff to people who have actually bothered to consider the issues.

Would Christians/Catholics object if the feast of Ramadam and the Jewish passover were celebrated. I do not think so.

You'd have to ask them, but there are good odds that they indeed would object if it happened in their "catholic" state-funded school.

Proper separation in some eyes is the total removal of any religious ethos from any school that receives any sort of state funding. This ignores that Catholics, Protestant, Muslims, Jews etc all pay tax as well as humanists

Yes they all pay taxes, they should be treated exactly the same and none of them should get to impose religion upon others using state funds and state institutions.

BTW I'm non religious and not a humanist so do I exist in your world?

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

Irreligious people getting more and more uppity these days?
There was a public outcry over religious ethos being imposed in the proposed relocated national maternity hospital recently, which might not have happened 30 years ago.

And damn right it should, given what we've learned in about the role of religious institutions in education and medicine in that time.

God forbid the irreligious citizens of this State should have the right to be treated in accordance with best practice in medicine rather than by religious notions.

If the religious citizens want to be treated that way, fine, whatever, but to force it on everyone based on some crackpot religious ideas by some religious orders that showed themselves pretty brutal and cruel in the past (and have not paid for it and mostly appear to be trying to sweep it under the carpet) is rubbish.

Damn right the irreligious should get uppity, Mr Humanist Maths Teacher (who was one individual) aside. And it even sounds like he had some reason to be pissed off, given the school is very definitely NOT supposed to be Catholic ethos. No excuse for thumping the caretaker though.

recedite

Samaris wrote: »

..thumping the caretaker...

Not quite thumping. According to the newspaper...

The school said when the teacher was then asked to put back the statue and when he refused, the caretaker sought to retrieve it from him. It was then that the teacher pushed the caretaker backwards causing him to sustain a cut to his neck and bruising to his hand.

robindch

Kids spending two and a half times as much on religious education as they are on PE or science.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/pupils-more-time-on-religion-less-on-pe-science-36125568.html

The Indo wrote:

The relatively high amount of time devoted to religion in Irish primary schools, compared with science and PE, is highlighted in the report. Some 10pc of tuition time in Irish schools is spent on religion, ethics and moral education, twice the OECD average of 5pc and also well ahead of the EU average of 4pc. By contrast, Irish pupils spend 4pc of their class time on science, compared with 7pc in primary schools in the OECD and the EU. And while, internationally, primary pupils spend 9pc of their time on PE - 10pc across the EU - in Ireland, it is 4pc.

The whole issue of the time allocation for subjects in the primary curriculum is currently being considered by Government education advisors, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA). The NCCA has conducted a public consultation process on the matter and will issue a report in the next few months.

In terms of overall instruction time, Irish primary pupils receive 910 hours per year, third highest of 33 countries, while at junior cycle, Ireland's 918 hours tuition is 13th highest of 33. At second level, Ireland stands out for the amount of time it devotes to social studies, such as Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE) for junior cycle students, accounting for 17pc of the timetable, well ahead of the OECD average of 10pc.

Among the other findings of the OECD report is that primary teacher salaries in Ireland, after 15 years experience, are the sixth highest of 30 countries while second-level teachers rank 7th-8th, although the figures are based on pre-austerity era pay scales.

silverharp

^^

if its any consolation I think a lot of schools teach religion less than they say they do. I'd say there is a fair few winging it one 1 class a week.

My son has just gone into secondary and they have actually dropped Religion because they couldnt fit it in. I had a flick through the CSPE book and its mostly garbage but its only one class a week

Hotblack Desiato

Letter in IT from Education Equality:

Sir, – The wording of the census religion question "What is your religion?" is somewhat controversial. The CSO has undertaken to review this question in 2021, with the possible addition of a question on religious practice. The fact that over 468,000 of the population, or 9.8 per cent, chose "No religion" in last year's census in response to this question, in its current format, is evidence of a dramatic shift in religiosity in Irish society. The equivalent figure in 1981 was 1.1 per cent.

Furthermore, the fact that a large majority continue to state a religious affiliation on their census form should in no way be taken as a vote of confidence in the current system, with its religious barriers to education and religious discrimination within the classroom. The overwhelming support for marriage equality in the 2015 referendum, notwithstanding the 78.3 per cent who self-identify as Catholic, shows the danger of drawing such inferences.

The annual marriage statistics provide a much more useful barometer of religious practice within the relevant demographic. Here, the number of non-religious ceremonies increased by 859 per cent between 1996 and 2016, with more than one in three young couples in Ireland today now choosing to marry in a civil or humanist ceremony.

Since most children in Ireland continue to be born within marriage, we can reasonably infer that many Irish schoolchildren live in non-religious households. This has been borne out by surveys showing that one in four baptisms are pragmatic.

Human rights should never be a numbers game. However, the families facing religious discrimination in our schools are now too numerous to ignore. We need equal access to school, and equal respect during the school day, for every child – baptised or not. To fail to provide this is to fail us all. – Yours, etc,

DAVID GRAHAM,
Education Equality,
Malahide,
Co Dublin.

And some serious groupthink / delusion going on in catholic la-la-land:

Catholic secondary schools 'disappearing from the pitch', conference told

John Boyne, President of the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO), said "religous education has been part of the landscape in Irish education for a very, very long time"

So was corporal punishment...

and it should be borne in mind that in the 2016 census over 90 per of respondents said they "had religion".

THEY DID NO SUCH THING! STOP LYING!! :mad:

Dr Marie Griffin, chief executive of Ceist which manages 107 Catholic secondary schools [...] Last year’s census, which showed that over 78 per cent of Irish people claimed to be Catholic, demonstrated Ireland was "still a predominantly Catholic country," she said. It was the case that, when it came to schools "parents are still choosing the Catholic option where there is a choice."

Explains all the empty ETs :rolleyes:

There was "a need to retain Catholic second level schools as an option for parents", she said, "but there were none in Leitrim and many parts of Cork."

THERE ARE ETB SCHOOLS WHICH ARE OFFICIALLY CATHOLIC ETHOS, AND/OR ETB SCHOOLS WHICH ARE DE FACTO CATHOLIC ETHOS! STOP LYING!! :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

Said at the top of the hour on Pat Kenny on Newstalk that later the topic would be "is catholic ethos still appropriate for our schools"


It was NEVER appropriate to allow the education system to be taken over by religious bodies to be used and abused for their own ends.

Hotblack Desiato

State-run primary schools to drop faith formation in class time

State-run primary schools will no longer provide faith formation classes for Catholic students during the school day under new changes.

The move means it will be up to parishes and parents in these schools to organise sacramental preparation for children who are preparing for communion and confirmation.

It may also spark a wider debate over whether faith formation classes for other schools should be moved outside regular school hours.

At present, there are 12 community national schools across the State under the patronage of local Education and Training Boards with almost 4,000 students.

They were originally established almost a decade ago by the Department of Education as multi-denominational schools which allowed for religious instruction and sacramental preparation for Catholics.

The Church at the time warned that provision of faith formation for Catholic pupils was a "minimum non-negotiable requirement" for its support for the new school model.

However, Education and Training Boards (ETBs), which took over patronage of the schools in the past year, have now decided that religious instruction should take place outside normal school hours.

Michael Moriarty, general secretary of Education and Training Boards Ireland, said the move was aimed at ensuring all children are treated equally in school.

He said there were logistical problems in trying to accommodate sacramental preparation for some children and not for others.

"If everybody is to be treated equally, then belief instruction would have to be outside school time," he said.

It is planned that faith formation classes will be phased out of the school day in existing community national schools, while they will not be provided in new schools.

Catholic bishops are understood to have been consulted over the plans. Minister for Education Richard Bruton has welcomed the move.

"Clearly, it is line with good practice models..." he said. "The idea of a community national school is a clear multi-denominational school which welcomes all faiths and creates an environment where faith is respected, without any particular faith being promoted," he said. "This anticipated decision reflects the evolution of that model."

The existing approach, which often involved segregating children for religious instruction or sacramental preparation, had drawn criticism from some parents and school leaders.

Mr Moriarty said many community national schools have been moving away from this approach.

Good news! an acceptance of reality - the real question is why did they kowtow to the RCC over these schools in the first place - but better late than never I suppose.

Re the bolded part - I read a couple of months ago that many of these CNSs (there's only 12) were dropping the religious programme as they found it divisive and unworkable.

But then yer man has to ruin it by spouting this stuff:

He insisted that community national schools will continue to provide a "belief-nurturing" environment by allowing students to explore their faiths and beliefs. This, he said, would distinguish them from "secular schools".

"A unique feature of our model is the common belief-nurturing programme encourages pupils to engage with their families and belief communities to learn more about their own faith or secular beliefs," he said.

"What is considered a private aspect of the child’s life in some school types is brought into the public space in a community national school."

Has to get the dig in at ETs, and it's not the first time. They're the competition, I suppose :rolleyes:

It is NOT the role of the state to 'nurture' belief, it is the role of parents.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Has to get the dig in at ETs, and it's not the first time. They're the competition, I suppose :rolleyes:

It is NOT the role of the state to 'nurture' belief, it is the role of parents.

ETs exist more despite the Dept of Education than due to their assistance. That they's successful is no doubt a thorn in the side for many in the dept, which is a real shame.

recedite

That is very good news, and whether he calls it "evolution" or I call it "a U-turn", doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

I presume that dig was aimed at the ET schools, although he does not mention them by name, instead saying "secular schools". Which seems odd as surely the state/ local govt. is considered equally or more "secular" than any private organisation such as ET?
Anyway, lets not worry too much about that, and just put it down to Mr. Moriarty needing a little bit more evolution to his thought processes.

Hotblack Desiato

Our Taoiseach doesn't know who owns our education system.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-rules-out-referendum-on-ownership-of-water-system-1.3244471

"Privatising our public water services is like suggesting that somebody might want to privatise our national schools. It is impossible and absurd."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to bang my head off the wall until the pain stops.

recedite

I think he is being a bit of a cute hoor there, getting people used to the idea of a semi private Irish Water by making that comparison. There are a couple of unrelated examples of the state underwriting something which is run by a private interest. Schools, transport (Luas and private buses on many routes) even the banking system.
Its just playing around with words to a large extent.

Hotblack Desiato

Whoosh.

We own the Luas tracks and trams and can fire the operator if they're not up to scratch.

We own the small number of buses and routes tendered out in Dublin, ditto.

We don't own the vast majority of the schools we pay for, and can't turf out the operators even when caught systematically raping kids.


ETA: 'liberal' Leo appears profoundly tone-deaf on any issue where the views of the population and the RCC conflict, he waited almost until the marriage equality vote to come out, has on several occasions made plenty of anti-choice noises, now he is demonstrating himself completely ignorant of the massive problems that exist with ownership, control and indoctrination in our taxpayer funded education system.