School patronage

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

It would be a very fine line between these two. It could be both; some students being encouraged along by their parents. If we had non-denominational state schools, the situation would be clearer. Just say to them "do this stuff if you like, but keep it outside school".

Which would be fine, providing that they do the same thing with all non-religious outside groups. So, no posters allowed to do with the Vegetarian Society, Amnesty International, ISPCC, Action Cancer etc. Nothing except school activities. That would be a fair policy, and in accordance with a genuine secularism that neither discriminates against religion nor affords it any privileges.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

Which would be fine, providing that they do the same thing with all non-religious outside groups. So, no posters allowed to do with the Vegetarian Society, Amnesty International, ISPCC, Action Cancer etc. Nothing except school activities. That would be a fair policy, and in accordance with a genuine secularism that neither discriminates against religion nor affords it any privileges.

That would be a fair definition of "secular schools" alright, but If we had "non-denominational schools" the pupils might be expected to leave their religion at home.
Similarly, if we had "apolitical" schools then they might be expected to leave their politics at home, in which case Amnesty International posters would not be allowed.

Religion and politics can be contentious, divisive issues and therefore it is sometimes useful to exclude them in order to get on with the main business. For example in anti-discrimination laws religion and politics are usually specified, but people's attitudes to vegetarians, cancer charity supporters etc are not considered relevant.

This is all a bit academic though, because we don't have non-denominational schools, or any exact definition of what they might be.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

This is all a bit academic though, because we don't have non-denominational schools, or any exact definition of what they might be.

The outline from the National Secular Society in the UK goes a long way to forming one possible definition. The broad principles between the UK and Ireland are IMHO similar enough. I don't want to copy and paste a huge block of text over, but the following extract gives a good gist of it;

NSS UK wrote:

3. There should be a moratorium on the opening of any new publicly funded faith schools.

4. Government policy should ultimately move towards a truly inclusive secular education system in which religious organisations play no formal role in the state education system.

5. Religion should be approached in schools like politics: with neutrality, in a way that informs impartially and does not teach views.

6. Ultimately, no publicly funded school should be statutorily permitted, as they currently are, to promote a particular religious position or seek to inculcate pupils into a particular faith.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

The outline from the National Secular Society in the UK goes a long way to forming one possible definition. The broad principles between the UK and Ireland are IMHO similar enough. I don't want to copy and paste a huge block of text over, but the following extract gives a good gist of it;

That's a fine proposal for secular schools, but as Nick Park points out, banning religious literature as brought in by pupils/parents would be taking it a bit further.

If we were to extend to schools the basic kind of principles that might normally apply in the workplace, then certain additional restrictions would apply.
Any propaganda supporting a particular religion, race, gender, sexuality etc would be removed from the premises. I don't think that would be unreasonable.

However it does go beyond what is strictly "secular", and strays into what is actually social engineering. But in a good way, I think.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

That's a fine proposal for secular schools, but as Nick Park points out, banning religious literature as brought in by pupils/parents would be taking it a bit further.

If we were to extend to schools the basic kind of principles that might normally apply in the workplace, then certain additional restrictions would apply.
Any propaganda supporting a particular religion, race, gender, sexuality etc would be removed from the premises. I don't think that would be unreasonable.

However it does go beyond what is strictly "secular", and strays into what is actually social engineering. But in a good way, I think.

You're moving toward a French laïcité style of secularism there which goes a bit beyond 'freedom of and from religion' as espoused in the NSS link previously. Personally I'd have an issue with that in terms of freedom of religious expression and think it is healthier to recognise diversity than attempting to enforce uniformity.

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

Any propaganda supporting a particular religion, race, gender, sexuality etc would be removed from the premises. I don't think that would be unreasonable.

So, based on this, our local school would have to remove their rainbow flag, and take down the notice board that promotes the girl's hockey team.

Meanwhile we would single out one particular pastime that people might choose to participate in (religion) and treat it as a special category from other pastimes that people might choose to participate in.

Secular does not equal anti-religious. And a secular environment does not equate to one where any expression of religion is zealously purged. It simply means that religious activities are given the same freedom as non-religious activities. No special privileges. No special discrimination. (But I can fully understand the feelings of people who, having been subjected to religious privilege and the negative influence of Christendom, want to put the boot in and implement some unfair restrictions in retaliation).

smacl

I'd agree with Nick on this one. Suppressing expressions of diversity within the school environment is in my opinion both intolerant and unhelpful. Regardless of our varied stances in relation to religion, ethnicity, politics, gender, wealth, ability, etc... many differences and attendant prejudices exist in our communities and to my mind it makes far more sense to allow our kids explore them with an open mind rather than attempt to cover them up.

Of course this cuts both ways for religious and non-religious parents. For example, a number of Muslim children were recently withdrawn from the ET school my youngest attends as their parents were unhappy about LGBT equality being discussed within the curriculum. The price for exploring diversity is having everyone's beliefs open to question.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

I'd agree with Nick on this one. Suppressing expressions of diversity within the school environment is in my opinion both intolerant and unhelpful. Regardless of our varied stances in relation to religion, ethnicity, politics, gender, wealth, ability, etc... many differences and attendant prejudices exist in our communities and to my mind it makes far more sense to allow our kids explore them with an open mind rather than attempt to cover them up.

Of course this cuts both ways for religious and non-religious parents. For example, a number of Muslim children were recently withdrawn from the ET school my youngest attends as their parents were unhappy about LGBT equality being discussed within the curriculum. The price for exploring diversity is having everyone's beliefs open to question.

So long as there is a choice of school systems, ET schools wouldn't be for everybody

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

So long as there is a choice of school systems, ET schools wouldn't be for everybody

Thing is, from a practical point of view, most people don't have a choice and there only option is the local Catholic school. While ET would not be everyone's choice, if you're looking for a broadly secular education for your kids, it is the only choice for many people and not even a choice for very many more. For many parents the choice comes down to a rock or a hard place.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, from a practical point of view, most people don't have a choice and there only option is the local Catholic school. While ET would not be everyone's choice, if you're looking for a broadly secular education for your kids, it is the only choice for many people and not even a choice for very many more. For many parents the choice comes down to a rock or a hard place.

but it seemed like your school unnecessarily antagonised the muslim students? My kids school is multi dom and would be a liberal school but they don't have explicit lessons about diversity

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

but it seemed like your school unnecessarily antagonised the muslim students? My kids school is multi dom and would be a liberal school but they don't have explicit lessons about diversity

If teaching children that it is ok to be gay is unnecessarily antagonising people, then yes, they antagonised them and more power to their elbows. FWIW, it features on the SPHE curriculum and is taught in many schools,PDF link. I'm guessing if your kids are in a multi-dom school it is something they're already being taught.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

Secular does not equal anti-religious. And a secular environment does not equate to one where any expression of religion is zealously purged...

You must not have read my posts, because I specifically said that enforcing society's ideals (equality legislation etc.) goes beyond what is just secularism, and it becomes social engineering.

So, a question for you; Is it OK to keep putting your religious propaganda up on the office noticeboard if you are a civil servant? If not, why would it be OK in a non-denominational state school? (if such a thing existed)

recedite

smacl wrote: »

You're moving toward a French latI] style of secularism there which goes a bit beyond 'freedom of and from religion' as espoused in the NSS link previously. Personally I'd have an issue with that in terms of freedom of religious expression and think it is healthier to recognise diversity than attempting to enforce uniformity.

smacl wrote: »

If teaching children that it is ok to be gay is unnecessarily antagonising people, then yes, they antagonised them and more power to their elbows.

So you're fine with enforcing any worldview as long as it corresponds to your own?
This is why we really need to decide on what our society recognises as the basic values we want to support. Then support those values in state schools. Anything that falls outside that remit, whether religion, politics etc.. can be left outside the school door.
If people want to set up their own schools promoting different value systems, let them do that privately, and without any state funding.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

So you're fine with enforcing any worldview as long as it corresponds to your own?

I'm all for promoting a worldview that encapsulates human rights as laid out by the UN, so yes. I also have my own biases above and beyond that and have no problems pushing them either, pretty much same as everyone else. You seem keen on a lowest common denominator approach to schooling that avoids anything controversial, that's your bias, mine is contrary in that I believe anything that helps a student understand the world in which they live should be open to investigation. Note that if you want to exclude things like equality and politics you'd need to remove SPHE and CSPE from the curriculum. Insisting on uniformity in a traditional model of education is as biased as any other model. From what I gather, many forward thinking educators consider our current education model unfit for purpose in most respects. My bias would favour ET and Bridge21 which is secular, inclusive, technology based and largely ditches the rote and exam based learning of previous generations.

This is why we really need to decide on what our society recognises as the basic values we want to support. Then support those values in state schools. Anything that falls outside that remit, whether religion, politics etc.. can be left outside the school door.

By that logic, as a democratic society it would seem we largely make these decisions through our elected representatives and the experts they call on. While snails race past, this leaves us with the impression that the majority are largely happy with the status quo with small nods towards egalitarianism through the likes of SPHE and vague moans about the baptism barrier.

If people want to set up their own schools promoting different value systems, let them do that privately, and without any state funding.

If you look at the history of Educate Together, that's very close to what's being done, albeit with state funding. Perhaps if you have a large enough group looking for something closer to the French model, they could do something similar. Before you suggest that should become the standard model for all though you need to prove that such a model would be preferred by the vast majority of the citizenship.

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

You must not have read my posts, because I specifically said that enforcing society's ideals (equality legislation etc.) goes beyond what is just secularism, and it becomes social engineering.

So, a question for you; Is it OK to keep putting your religious propaganda up on the office noticeboard if you are a civil servant? If not, why would it be OK in a non-denominational state school? (if such a thing existed)

Oh, I did read your posts, but I chose to respond to them from a secularist perspective rather than a religious or anti-religious perspective.

As to the question about civil servants and religious propaganda. That depends on what we see as the basis of our society. In a secular society, the model that I advocate for, you should have the same freedom to put up religious propaganda as you have to put up any other kind of propaganda. So, if it's OK to put up posters advocating feminism, vegetarianism, repealing the 8th amendment, same-sex marriage, protest marches against racism etc, then it should also be OK to put up posters advertising religious events or campaigns. Equally, if no such posters are allowed, then neither should religious propaganda be allowed.

History shows that societies sometimes go on a pendulum swing from a place where religion is privileged, to a reactionary place where it is treated as a special case and is subjected to special restrictions or discrimination. If I were solely motivated by the desire to see my particular brand of religion grow, then that wouldn't worry me at all - it grows faster when people try to suppress it. But my desire to see a just and fair society leads me to advocate for a genuine secular approach instead.

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

If people want to set up their own schools promoting different value systems, let them do that privately, and without any state funding.

The problem with such a social engineering approach is that it can lead to an educational system that produces semi-literate children.

I used to be totally opposed to state funding of any religious schools. But then I reconsidered. A private organisation comes along and says, "Give us less money to what you would have spent on a new school, and let us run a school that excels in measurable educational criteria. The State can oversee us, forbid us from doing anything offensive to society, and if we don't meet your standards you can close us down." If they can demonstrate a track record, then it would be daft to turn them down if they happen to be religious.

This is what happens in the UK. In most areas there is an option of a religious school, but there are sufficient other options to ensure that nobody is forced by lack of alternatives to send their child to a religious school. And what happens? The religious schools often have long waiting lists (comprised for the most part of children of non-religious parents) because they actually provide a better quality of education for less investment from the State.

An ideal situation, in my view, is for the State to provide sufficient secular schools to meet demand for them. If private organisations wish to tender to run additional schools, then let them do so if they can provide better education for less expense to the taxpayer. In such a case, it shouldn't make any difference whether the private organisation is a church, a philanthropist's foundation, or a football club.

The bottom line is that that education should be geared to the needs of the child, not to your ideology or mine. Nobody should be coerced into attending a religious school through lack of choice, and religion should not be privileged above any other ideology in a State-funded educational system.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

If teaching children that it is ok to be gay is unnecessarily antagonising people, then yes, they antagonised them and more power to their elbows. FWIW, it features on the SPHE curriculum and is taught in many schools,PDF link. I'm guessing if your kids are in a multi-dom school it is something they're already being taught.

Ill ask junior if I get a chance but don't think his class did anything out of that manual, they only ever had a religious and ethics class and then that relationship group came in for a day in 5th and 6th class. There are a couple of muslims in his school but havnt heard of any stories of them fleeing the place.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

The bottom line is that that education should be geared to the needs of the child, not to your ideology or mine. Nobody should be coerced into attending a religious school through lack of choice, and religion should not be privileged above any other ideology in a State-funded educational system.

I'd go a bit further than that and say that a state funded school shouldn't be exclusive nor allowed prioritise one child over another on the basis of religion. So for example, given any secular school will be open to anyone regardless of religion, religious schools should be too. I'd also question whether their should be limits placed on any state-funded school in terms of being allowed to promote things such as racism, sexism and homophobia. So while the education should be child centred according to the preferences of the family, it should also prepare them to become members of the society they will later enter into.

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

Ill ask junior if I get a chance but don't think his class did anything out of that manual, they only ever had a religious and ethics class and then that relationship group came in for a day in 5th and 6th class. There are a couple of muslims in his school but havnt heard of any stories of them fleeing the place.

Mightn't have hit it yet. My youngest is 2nd year in secondary where these things are dealt with more explicitly. Could also be that like most kids, he doesn't much care either way. In primary, for example, my youngest used to refer to mindfulness classes as advanced thumb twiddling.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

So you're fine with enforcing any worldview as long as it corresponds to your own?
This is why we really need to decide on what our society recognises as the basic values we want to support. Then support those values in state schools. Anything that falls outside that remit, whether religion, politics etc.. can be left outside the school door.
If people want to set up their own schools promoting different value systems, let them do that privately, and without any state funding.

given the history of Irish education and the constitution I think you would always have to acknowledge that taxpayers fund schools through the government. At a minimum working families would deserve the right to have the option of a voucher to buy their own education if the state decided to take all non fee paying schools in a particular direction, they have paid their fees in their taxes.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

Mightn't have hit it yet. My youngest is 2nd year in secondary where these things are dealt with more explicitly. Could also be that like most kids, he doesn't much care either way. In primary, for example, my youngest used to refer to mindfulness classes as advanced thumb twiddling.

possibly, they know their own minds by secondary anyway and can understand the issues better.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

As to the question about civil servants and religious propaganda. That depends on what we see as the basis of our society. In a secular society, the model that I advocate for, you should have the same freedom to put up religious propaganda as you have to put up any other kind of propaganda. So, if it's OK to put up posters advocating feminism, vegetarianism, repealing the 8th amendment, same-sex marriage, protest marches against racism etc, then it should also be OK to put up posters advertising religious events or campaigns. Equally, if no such posters are allowed, then neither should religious propaganda be allowed.

You haven't really said which of the above is appropriate to a state workplace.
But to continue the analogy with state schools, one of the above would be a multi-denominational scenario, and the other would be a non-denominational scenario. I'm inclined to think the latter is more appropriate to a state facility.

Nick Park wrote: »

The problem with such a social engineering approach is that it can lead to an educational system that produces semi-literate children.
I used to be totally opposed to state funding of any religious schools. But then I reconsidered. A private organisation comes along and says, "Give us less money to what you would have spent on a new school, and let us run a school that excels in measurable educational criteria. The State can oversee us, forbid us from doing anything offensive to society, and if we don't meet your standards you can close us down." If they can demonstrate a track record, then it would be daft to turn them down if they happen to be religious.This is what happens in the UK.

You can have social engineering built into the curriculum whether the school is privately run or state run. For example, I would suggest that prior to the recent referendum it would have been OK to teach in a Christian or Islamic run school that same sex marriage was wrong. But at that time an ET school might well have promoted the notion that SSM was simply equality in action.
But following the referendum, it should no longer be allowed to teach that SSM is wrong. Even though the opinions/ethos of the various schools would not have changed.

You cite the UK as an example but they have had problems arising from Islamic radicalisation in some schools. They also have creationism being taught as valid science in other Christian evangelical schools, with money pouring in from the USA. Such "academy schools" may well excel at some other aspect eg maths, or perhaps have better discipline than most state schools. However, just because they are subsidised by private/foreign money, or they get good results in certain subjects, does not make them better schools. Nor does it mean there is no social engineering going on inside them... far from it.

You never see these kind of organisations tendering to collect the bins, on the basis that they are so much more efficient than a state run service. Funny, that.
I suppose controlling young minds is far more valuable to a religion than ensuring a more cost effective bin collection service for society.

expectationlost

so Equate is shutting down https://www.facebook.com/equateireland/posts/517796848590692 I think i did hear something about the one foundation that funded them shutting down its Daddy-Ryan-air's money that funding them.

their final self congratulatory report https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.wixstatic.com%2Fugd%2F08f4c2_bff0121ef29e4be7ad338dfb92828e5c.pdf&h=ATNJ4d29FbdiSi_4o9rF8YIsrmyk0qF8fKNTU6MDjetO5bng9OykwgkfNVDTvSGAMy6V_SjYQCDuAC9mMFB3UvZyHeZ53mo45_QjlhERiSeNNdcS2t7KqwGJhLFPL64dwgp5fMuR_wEGKKktCrBDUTcDthAHIHRBF-W_5QLZdRM36QsTzehm8ROUU1Bs0e3Jaaw9igwJ2QtVD30ji6pKUutdJk9ZYJiv_e9QIN99ep3EzaNx2Stam3EDlTGDHOw6yi5tBKrHcRnVcQXvBQJXL7ds3Cn0UDzfJ5Kk7w


will we need another billionaire to come along and create change in our society?

in educate together case it was chuck feeney and ryan http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/grants?q=educate+together&date-range-start=1982&date-range-end=2017&amount-start=0&amount-end=1000000000&regions%5B%5D=68&qtyresults=25&sort=grant_year_awarded%7CDESC

smacl

recedite wrote: »

You never see these kind of organisations tendering to collect the bins, on the basis that they are so much more efficient than a state run service. Funny, that.

With respect, lumping ET in with the RCC as 'these kind of organisations' is ludicrous by any standard. It is patently obvious that most major religions invest heavily in the battle for hearts and minds. The likes of ET is a stance taken by parents to avoid having our children be pawns in that battle. It is also a recognition that the state has neither the ability nor inclination to do any better. Sad, but there it is.

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

You haven't really said which of the above is appropriate to a state workplace.

Either might be appropriate. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of what proves helpful or distracting in a civil service department. I was simply responding to your question on the basis of what is appropriate in a secular society that cares about equality and fairness.

You never see these kind of organisations tendering to collect the bins, on the basis that they are so much more efficient than a state run service. Funny, that.
I suppose controlling young minds is far more valuable to a religion than ensuring a more cost effective bin collection service for society.

I think you'd need to be pretty ignorant of history to take such a view. The reason why religious organisations have run schools for centuries goes back to the simple fact that nobody else was doing so, and they moved to meet a need. Therefore they've built up a tradition of doing so - just like they founded universities, hospitals, homeless shelters etc.

In many parts of the world, church-run schools are the norm because the State is too corrupt or bankrupt to provide a decent secular educational system. Without churches, kids just wouldn't learn how to read and write. My outrage is caused by the fact that Ireland has the resources to provide a decent secular system.

But, whether you or I like it or not, there are still plenty of people who want religious organisations to provide such services because they think they'll do it better than the State.

We might as well start venting petty spite at Oxigen for sticking to what they're good at rather than feeding the homeless.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you'd need to be pretty ignorant of history to take such a view. The reason why religious organisations have run schools for centuries goes back to the simple fact that nobody else was doing so, and they moved to meet a need.

Historical document

The Commissioners, in 1812, recommended the appointment of a Board of this description to superintend a system of Education from which should be banished even the suspicion of proselytism, and which, admitting children of all religious persuasions, should not interfere with the peculiar tenets of any.
The Government of the day imagined that they had found a superintending body, acting upon a system such as was recommended, and intrusted the
distribution of the national grants to the care of the Kildare Street Society. His Majesty's present Government are of the opinion, that no private society, deriving a part, however small, of their annual income from private sources, and only made the channel of the munificence of the Legislature, without being subject to any direct responsibilities, could adequately and satisfactorily accomplish the end proposed...

Shortly after its institution, although the Society proposed and extended its operations
under the fostering care of the Legislature, this vital defect began to be noticed, and
the Roman Catholic clergy began to exert themselves with energy and success, against a system to which they were on principle opposed, and which they feared might lead in its results to proselytism, even although no such object were contemplated by its promoters. When this opposition arose, founded on such grounds, it soon became manifest that the system could not become one of National Education.

So the "vital defect" has been duplicated ever since, and unlike the French Laicite system which is based on the principles of a secular republic, we have continued to make religious organisations "the channel of the munificence of the Legislature, without being subject to any direct responsibilities".

Prior to these attempts in 1812 to introduce a fair primary education system, it was generally only the wealthy who were educated, and they paid for it privately.
There were also some attempts by various benefactors including individual wealthy patrons and various religiously motivated groups to run very basic part-time primary schools.
On balance though, history tells us that the main religious influence on education in this country was to thwart the introduction of the original "national schools" concept; a free multi-denominational primary education for all.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

The reason why religious organisations have run schools for centuries goes back to the simple fact that nobody else was doing so, and they moved to meet a need. Therefore they've built up a tradition of doing so - just like they founded universities, hospitals, homeless shelters etc.

You don't think having a plentiful source of young and fertile minds is also a major motivational factor for religious organisations here too? There's a bit more at play here than honest and unadulterated charity. The churches do seem rather reluctant to divest schools under their control even when the state is willing to provide an alternative.

Nick Park

recedite wrote: »

Historical document
So the "vital defect" has been duplicated ever since, and unlike the French Laicite system which is based on the principles of a secular republic, we have continued to make religious organisations "the channel of the munificence of the Legislature, without being subject to any direct responsibilities".

Prior to these attempts in 1812 to introduce a fair primary education system, it was generally only the wealthy who were educated, and they paid for it privately.
There were also some attempts by various benefactors including individual wealthy patrons and various religiously motivated groups to run very basic part-time primary schools.
On balance though, history tells us that the main religious influence on education in this country was to thwart the introduction of the original "national schools" concept; a free multi-denominational primary education for all.

You made a rather snide comment about religious organisations running schools rather than bin collections.

I pointed out that history shows us that the church has been running schools for many centuries all over the world. And that originally came about because a need existed that no-one else was meeting.

I'm not sure how a reference about something in Ireland in the 19th Century relates to that fact.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

You don't think having a plentiful source of young and fertile minds is also a major motivational factor for religious organisations here too? There's a bit more at play here than honest and unadulterated charity. The churches do seem rather reluctant to divest schools under their control even when the state is willing to provide an alternative.

I don't think it is a factor in why religious organisations have historically tended to run schools rather than empty bins.

Btw, I'm on the same side as you when it comes to the need for secular education in this country. But such common ground is harder to hold when people engage in pointless whataboutery. I guess that goes with the territory.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think it is a factor in why religious organisations have historically tended to run schools rather than empty bins

I don't know about the bins, but historically religious missions have followed aggressive imperial expansions and used education as a tool to bring new subjects into the flock.