School patronage

Peregrinus

Cherrymount41 wrote: »

Hi
I’m totally jumping in here because I googled ETB and Diocesan Advisor and this page was thrown up so I joined.
Anyway I’ve found out that the DA is visiting my kid’s ETB school soon to “inspect” it. I presumed because it was multi-denominational school it was not under the RCC. What do you think?

"Multi-denominational" doesn't mean non-denominational. The RCC is a denomination. Representatives of other denominations may also be involved with the school; that's pretty much what "multi-denominational" means.

recedite

ETB policy seems to vary according to the locality.
Ask the school principal what the story is.

https://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2017/10/etb-legal-duty-school-ethos/

Hotblack Desiato

US companies seek removal of Ireland's school 'baptism barrier'

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

US companies seek removal of Ireland's school 'baptism barrier'

based on the submissions listed below here https://www.education.ie/en/Parents/Information/School-Enrolment/Role-of-Religion-in-School-Admissions.html

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

based on the submissions listed below here https://www.education.ie/en/Parents/Information/School-Enrolment/Role-of-Religion-in-School-Admissions.html

One year on, and still nothing. I wonder what they did with all those submissions.

I hope that people will respond positively and constructively to my invitation to this Forum, and participate in the event... blah blah blah....

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

One year on, and still nothing. I wonder what they did with all those submissions.

They were gathered in preparation for the Forum on the Role of Religion in Primary School Admissions, which was held in May 2017. You can google for news reports of that event.

Following the forum, Richard Bruton appeared before the Oireachtas Select Committee on Education and Skills, which was considering the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2016 which will deal, unsurprisingly, with the law on school admissions. He told that Committee that he proposed to bring forward legislation which would bar the use of religion as an admission criterion in state-funded schools, but with an exception for schools under minority religious patronage.

Not much has happened since then. The Education (Admission to Schools) Bill has made no further progress through the Oireachtas; my guess is that this is because the Department are preparing amendments to the Bill to give effect to the Minister's new policy, which in due course the Minister will table for debate in the Oireachtas.

This will be a sensitive matter, since on the face of it the proposed law will be discriminatory on the grounds of religion - Protestant, Jewish, etc schools will be allowed to adopt religion as an admission criterion, but Catholic schools will not. So the amendments will be drafted with some care and, I imagine, the Attorney-General's department will be involved on the Constitutional issues as well as the Dept of Education.

The Irish Times report that Hotblack links to says that "Legislation providing for the changes is due to be debated in the Oireachtas shortly", so maybe the preparation of the amendments is nearly complete.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

This will be a sensitive matter, since on the face of it the proposed law will be discriminatory on the grounds of religion.

Hopefully not quite as sensitive as the x-case, which legislation took 22 years to produce.

While Bruton's proposal is, on the face of it, discriminatory and unconstitutional, I doubt that the majority of submission proposals were.

My submission suggested that no religious discrimination should be allowed in state funded schools. Very simple, and entirely constitutional. Admittedly that would create problems for a society that wished to maintain a segregated school system though, with minority religions having their own separate state funded schools. Maintaining religious segregation without also having religious discrimination is going to be very tricky indeed, if not impossible, from a constitutional point of view.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Hopefully not quite as sensitive as the x-case, which legislation took 22 years to produce.

While Bruton's proposal is, on the face of it, discriminatory and unconstitutional, I doubt that the majority of submission proposals were.

My submission suggested that no religious discrimination should be allowed in state funded schools. Very simple, and entirely constitutional . . .

It may not be quite as constitutional as you think. Parents have a constitutional right to provide for the religious education of their children (Art 42.1) in schools recognised or established by the state (Art 42.2) and the state's provision for free primary education has to have regard to this right (Art 42.4). Parents from minority religions could probably make a good case that to achieve the critical mass necessary to result in a viable school with a minority religions character, they need to be able to prefer applicants of the minority religion concerned.

(And that, I suspect, will be the constitutional argument for making special accommodations for minority schools. It's long-established that this form of posititive discrimination for minority religions is in principle constitutionally permissible; I forget the name of the case which settled this but it involved a challenge to regulations which restricted the opening hours of meat shops, but contained an exemption for kosher butchers.)

recedite

That was the Superquinn case, but I think not being compelled to work on your holy day is a completely different kettle of fish. Or basket of pretzels.

Any religious group is of course free to set up their own school with a religious ethos, and of course the school should then get full state recognition.

You won't find anything in the constitution requiring the state to fund it though. Especially when the admission policy excludes or restricts certain citizens of the state on no other grounds than their family religion.

recedite

Only a tiny number of state funded (but religiously operated) schools have been divested to the secular patron ET.

But now it appears that where parents have been given the choice, they are too quick to abandon the religious patrons.
In order to protect the church-run schools, Dept. of Education has instructed that some new ET schools must be hobbled by restricting their intake to only half a class per year.
That should put a stop to their gallop!

Multi-denominational schools which opened under the Government’s process to divest patronage of Catholic schools say they are being forced to turn away large numbers of junior infants because of what they say are new restrictions on their pupil-intake...

Hotblack Desiato

In the case of any school applying to expand its intake, the department examines school size in order to preserve a balance among all schools in an area and to ensure that one school is not expanding at the expense of another.

So much for 'parental choice' eh!!

If one form of schooling is becoming more popular then it's tough luck on the others - or at least it should be.

Seems Marlborough St is still the city centre office of the Archbishop :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

Remeber that school where the Christian Brothers were selling off the playing fields? Things have escalated a bit. The BOM is suing ERST, and ERST is seeking to remove the BOM, but can't do that without the approval of the Minister for Education...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/clonkeen-college-board-faces-axe-over-playing-fields-row-1.3368905

The board of management of Clonkeen College in south Dublin has been told it will be dissolved over its resistance to a controversial plan by the Christian Brothers to sell the school’s playing fields.

The congregation sparked controversy last year when it emerged it had decided to sell 7.5 acres of pitches at the Deansgrange school for a sum reported to be in the region of €18 million.

The Edmund Rice Schools Trust (ERST), the patron body for the school, has confirmed it is seeking to dissolve the board on the basis of “poor governance” and its involvement in a legal action seeking to halt the sale.

Any move to dissolve the board, however, will require the approval of Minister for Education Richard Bruton.

A spokeswoman for Mr Bruton said she was not in a position to comment on the issue on Thursday night.

The school’s board of management told parents it was “stunned and shocked” to be informed by the trust that it would be dissolved unless it disassociated itself from the legal action and accepted an offer from the Christian Brothers.

Board members say they were told at a meeting on December 18th that unless they agreed to these terms within 48 hours, the trust would begin the process of dissolving the board.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/parents-teachers-back-school-in-row-with-christian-brothers-1.3375595

Parents, teachers and pupils at a Catholic secondary school in south Dublin have criticised its patron, the Edmund Rice Schools Trust (ERST), over plans to sell off playing fields used by the school.

Minister for Education Richard Bruton faces questions in the D on Thursday on the continuing dispute between Clonkeen College and ERST over the proposed sale of 7.5 acres of school land to a developer for a reported €18 million.

At a press conference in the school on Wednesday, parents’ association spokeswoman Susan McKenzie said families were “utterly dismayed by the trust’s actions,” which, she said, “appear to be a very deliberate act to frustrate the activities of the board of management in seeking to retain the playing fields ...We have no confidence the ERST are acting in our best interests”.

Teacher Jim Byrne said staff were “in no doubt that ERST has failed to meet its duty to Clonkeen College”.

recedite

I have a feeling that ministerial approval is more of a rubber stamp process than anything else. I doubt the minister would refuse.

Interesting breakdown there of how the cash is to be divvied out....

It has been reported that, as part of the land sale, about €10 million of the money would go to the redress scheme for victims of historical institutional abuse, while the ERST would receive €4 million and the school would get €1.3 million.

evolving_doors

On what grounds would the minister dissolve a board?
I'd presume they are fulfilling their educational remit and acting in the best interests of the students... parents are happy with the board too going by reports.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Interesting breakdown there of how the cash is to be divvied out....

Very interesting!

In discussing the redress scheme and associated indemnity agreement before on this board, we've noticed that the assets that are supposed to fund the religious orders' financial contributions are mostly currently employed in other socially useful purposes, and that realising the assets in order to fund the compensation scheme is going to impose knock-on costs on the state elsewhere.

This seems like an instance of that. If the land is sold by the ERST to fund a contribution to the redress scheme (or if the land is seized by the state and then sold to fund the redress scheme, as some have advocated) the school ends up without playing fields. Either the operations of the school are degraded as a result, or the state has to fund the purchase of other playing fields (if any are available).

recedite

evolving_doors wrote: »

On what grounds would the minister dissolve a board?

Because the owner of the school has requested it. I think the minister would need to have a very good reason to refuse.
A bit like when the taoiseach goes to the president to request him to dissolve the govt. Its a foregone conclusion that the president will say yes.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

In discussing the redress scheme and associated indemnity agreement before on this board, we've noticed that the assets that are supposed to fund the religious orders' financial contributions are mostly currently employed in other socially useful purposes, and that realising the assets in order to fund the compensation scheme is going to impose knock-on costs on the state elsewhere.

The €10M will go back to the state, because the state is already out of pocket from the redress scheme. Some of it could be used to build new schools, or upgrade those operating out of pre-fabs.

Land in south Dublin is just too valuable to have in grass; that is the reality of this situation. If the parents of these kids were paying huge fees for the luxury of having private playing fields adjacent to the school, they could keep the pitches. But they are not.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Because the owner of the school has requested it. I think the minister would need to have a very good reason to refuse.
A bit like when the taoiseach goes to the president to request him to dissolve the govt. Its a foregone conclusion that the president will say yes.

The two situations are not the same. Under the Constitution, the President's powers must, except in very limited circumstances, be exercised on the advice of the Government. Spefically with regard to dissolve Dail Eireann, the President must act on the advice of the Taoiseach, except in the case where the Taoiseach has himself lost the confidence of the Dail, when the President may exercise his own discretion.

There are no similar provisions in the Education Act. Under section 16, a patron can dissolve a board of management "subject to the consent of the Minister". There would be no point in putting in a requirement for Ministerial consent if the Minister was required or expected to do what the patron wants. It's clear that the intention is for the Minister to exercise his own judgment.

The patron can't dissolve the board on a whim; they can only do on the basis that they are "satisfied that the functions of [the] board are not being effectively discharged". The board will undoubtedly say to the Minister that the fact that they are in disagreement/dispute with the patron does not mean that their functions are not being effectively discharged.

However, the Act doesn't require the Minister to be satisfied that the board's functions are not being discharged; only the patron has to be satisfied about that. The Minister can make a decision to give or withhold his consent useing whatever criteria seem proper to him.

recedite wrote: »

The €10M will go back to the state, because the state is already out of pocket from the redress scheme. Some of it could be used to build new schools, or upgrade those operating out of pre-fabs.

True. But in that case the State would still be out of pocket for the redress scheme. Resources would have been redeployed within the education system from one school to other schools, which may be a good thing to do, but it has nothing to do with funding compensation for abuse victims.

recedite wrote: »

Land in south Dublin is just too valuable to have in grass; that is the reality of this situation. If the parents of these kids were paying huge fees for the luxury of having private playing fields adjacent to the school, they could keep the pitches. But they are not.

Which is the consideration that in the end may decide the issue. The state doesn't own these fields, and can't simply seize them. If they let the sale go ahead, they get a payment of 10 million under the indemnity agreement (which, NB, I'm guessing is not going to be used to build new schools or upgrade existing ones; it will be treated as a contribution towards the costs of the redress scheme, and not earmarked for education). Therefore, it's in the interests of the state to let the sale go ahead. Therefore, perhaps, the state is unlikely to side with the BoM in their dispute with the patron.

evolving_doors

If the BOM is dissolved who would they put in as a new BOM... it would be strange to have a BOM without a principal and the usual reps.
Is a school allowed to continue to function without a BOM?

Peregrinus

evolving_doors wrote: »

If the BOM is dissolved who would they put in as a new BOM... it would be strange to have a BOM without a principal and the usual reps.
Is a school allowed to continue to function without a BOM?

If the BoM is dissolved, in the short term the patron appoints "any person or body of persons" to perform the functions of the board. In effect, whoever is appointed acts as an interim board. The patron needs the approval of the Minister for the appointees.

Within six months (or longer, if the patron thinks appropriate and the Minister consents) the patron is to appoint a new board to take over. The interim arrnagements come to an end when this happens.

There are rules, conventions, etc about how boards of management should be made up; these don't apply to the people appointed to act on an interim basis, but they will apply to the new board.

I can't say whether its practical to think of a new board that doesn't include the principal. If it's not practical, then either the principal and the patron are going to have to kiss and make up, or the principal is going to have to think about whether he wouldn't be happier in another school, or the patron is going to have to ask the Minister to consent to the continuation of the interim arrangements until one of these things happens.

With other reps, similar considerations apply, except there is the added flexibility that the new reps can be different people, unburdened by anything done in relation to the row over the land. Still, awkward.

All -in-all, very messy. But once the land has been sold, there's no getting it back, and the principal and the various bodies represented may feel there's no merit in refusing to take places on the new board. Nothing can be achieved, and it will only damage the school further.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they let the sale go ahead, they get a payment of 10 million under the indemnity agreement (which, NB, I'm guessing is not going to be used to build new schools or upgrade existing ones; it will be treated as a contribution towards the costs of the redress scheme, and not earmarked for education).

I think most, or all, of the Redress payments have already been paid out at this stage. So the way I am looking at it, any money that trickles in from the religious orders in future (or their successor trust funds) becomes available to the exchequer for general use. Its simply payback for what the state already paid out. On that note, I think we are "lucky" to be getting it, seeing as the Christian Brothers and several other orders had already tied up their assets in trust funds. I'm not sure what the back story to that is, maybe the CB order gave the instruction as an act of atonement, or maybe the legal eagles forced the trust fund to pay up.

IMO the school is doing well to get a €1.3M sweetener for itself. I can think of other schools more deserving of some extra money. They should just take the money and run.

This is all reminiscent of that boys primary school in Ballyfermot that wanted to keep their playing fields, whereas the trust wanted to amalgamate them with the girls school (which had none) so that the boys school building could be sold, along with the pitches.
Parents had a row with the patron, but at the same time they still wanted to keep their loyalty to the same RC "ethos". So a low-key sort of row :pac:

Its all a bit strange for those of us on the outside, looking in. Its like seeing an uppity child getting a slap from their parent. All you can really do is watch.

evolving_doors

I could see why the school is annoyed. Especially if they were given certain assurances.
I know of another school who's green space (about 250m surrounding radius ) was sold off by the dwindling religious order/patron.
They're practically hemmed in by housing estate now, to the extent they can see residents take a shower while in the classroom (avert yeer eyes ladies:o).
School didn't get a penny from the sale, no-one from the new estate sends their kids there. School is dying on its feet.
But that's progress I suppose. It changes a school though.

Hotblack Desiato

Expect a lot more of these sort of BOM/patron rows in the future, I think. Especially as it is getting harder and harder to find warm bodies willing to unquestioningly do the will of the parish priest / order / bishop.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I think most, or all, of the Redress payments have already been paid out at this stage. So the way I am looking at it, any money that trickles in from the religious orders in future (or their successor trust funds) becomes available to the exchequer for general use. Its simply payback for what the state already paid out . . .

Yes, I agree. But there's no particular reason to expect the money received from this particular transaction to be earmarked for additional educational expenditure. Or indeed for additional expenditure at all; they could simply use it to reduce the borrowing requirement. Somewhere on some public finances balance sheet there's presumably an asset called something like "money due under the indemnity agreement" and when they receive this 10 million they'll write that asset down by 10 million. Cash in hand will go up by 10 million. They can then use the cash to buy more educational assets, or repay debt, or lower taxes (or raise them by less than they would otherwise have done), or anything else.

recedite wrote: »

On that note, I think we are "lucky" to be getting it, seeing as the Christian Brothers and several other orders had already tied up their assets in trust funds. I'm not sure what the back story to that is, maybe the CB order gave the instruction as an act of atonement, or maybe the legal eagles forced the trust fund to pay up.

Don't know the exact history here, but at one point I seem to recall that the Christian Brothers were talking to the State about transferring lands to a state-controlled trust for educational use, and seeking to have that transfer treated as a part-satisfaction of its commitments under the indemnity agreement. The state wasn't keen (which tends to confirm my suspicion that, whatever they get under the indemnity agreement, they don't intend to use it for educational purposes). But - I'm speculating now - there may have been a deal that the land would be transferred to the ERST on terms that, if it ever ceased to be used for educational purposes, it would be used to reduce the debt due under the indemnity agreement.

If I'm right, there's Buckley's chance of the state siding with the BoM in this dispute.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Expect a lot more of these sort of BOM/patron rows in the future, I think. Especially as it is getting harder and harder to find warm bodies willing to unquestioningly do the will of the parish priest / order / bishop.

Which may have the ironic result that Boards of Management obstruct efforts to get religious orders to comply with their obligations in respect of financing the redress scheme.

Hotblack Desiato

Perhaps, but the duty of the BOM is to the school, and not the bizarre arrangements Michael Woods and Bertie Ahern landed us with.

expectationlost

ministers says he'll do surveys for school choice https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-to-ask-for-parents-views-on-catholic-church-control-of-schools-827024.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-their-say-on-whether-local-school-should-stay-catholic-36580424.html

this are the ones to run by the etb, who are one of the contenders...
https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Corporate-Reports/Strategy-Statement/action-plan-for-education-2018.pdf

and as ever what has numbers got to do with fairness?

papers saying that the minister wants to lease schools off the church rather then try to buy (or take them) and there will be no strings attached?

Odhinn

expectationlost wrote: »

ministers says he'll do surveys for school choice https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-to-ask-for-parents-views-on-catholic-church-control-of-schools-827024.html https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-their-say-on-whether-local-school-should-stay-catholic-36580424.html

this are the ones to run by the etb, who are one of the contenders...
https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Corporate-Reports/Strategy-Statement/action-plan-for-education-2018.pdf

and as ever what has numbers got to do with fairness?

papers saying that the minister wants to lease schools off the church rather then try to buy (or take them) and there will be no strings attached?

Vote will keep them "catholic", in the 'dump them at the door and let the school take care of it' sense I'd say. Depressing, but the usual from our nation of hypocrites.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

ministers says he'll do surveys for school choice https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-to-ask-for-parents-views-on-catholic-church-control-of-schools-827024.html

Good quote from that article; "We need to see more action and less spin from Minister Bruton".

And from this article we learn the correct lingo. Divestment, it seems, is a dead duck..
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-their-say-on-whether-local-school-should-stay-catholic-36580424.html

The new approach to offering parents greater school choice is called 'reconfiguration', and was announced by Mr Bruton a year ago.
It differs from the earlier divestment process in that it is parents of pre-school children who are being canvassed, rather than parents of existing pupils in Catholic schools being asked their views about their school's future.
Reconfiguration also involves a financial "sweetener" for the Church, with proposals to lease schools from the bishops rather than getting embroiled in the legally complicated process of property transfers.

The duck is dead, long live the duck.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Good quote from that article; "We need to see more action and less spin from Minister Bruton".

And from this article we learn the correct lingo. Divestment, it seems, is a dead duck..
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-their-say-on-whether-local-school-should-stay-catholic-36580424.html


The duck is dead, long live the duck.

I liked action plan man, but indo
Parents get vote to take schools out of control of the Church really?