School patronage

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

so that school in Louth everyone withdrew from

Was that mentioned here before? A search for Faughart didn't return anything useful (The "A Smelly Avensis" thread was a good read though )

recedite

alaimacerc wrote: »

2+2 = 4, man.

Your extras are in practice going to be, I think, very heavily redundant with the authoritarianism one in particular. How many religiousist, libertarian nationalists do you know?

Plenty like these in the USA, though I can't say I know them personally.
Not sure what your little maths lesson is all about, but I can confirm that the answer to your sum is indeed 4.
The original simplistic 2D diagram was designed and used by people like you. There is only one virtuous green coloured corner of the square to be in, and there is a smug comfortable feeling to being in it. That's not real life though.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

If we take the above chart, and add two more axis in a separate dimension (make it a 3D diagram) you will get my meaning.
The extra axis would be the Nationalist/Internationalist axis and the Religious/Secularist axis.

Well. if we're being pricky about maths, adding two more axes actually makes your 2d diagram a 4d hypercube and not the easiest to visualise. You could add as many axes as you like in a similar manner but all you achieve is to show that pigeon-holing people who are all ultimately unique is a pointless exercise. Even as simple 2d chart the exercise is deeply flawed as those with varied views across the entire spectrum of left / right, authoritarian / liberal end up in the same position as those with centrist views on everything. i.e. statistical means are pretty meaningless without looking at standard deviations and scatter.

AndrewJRenko

expectationlost wrote: »

so that school in Louth everyone withdrew from is being opened up as a CNS https://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Releases/Minister_Bruton_Announces_Multi-Denominational_School_for_Faughart_Co_Louth.html Papers report a deal with the bishop https://merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Releases/Joint_Statement_from_the_Department_of_Education_and_Skills_and_the_Archbishop_of_Armagh_regarding_Scoil_Naisunta_Bhrigdhe_Faughart_Co_Louth.html

Does this mean new management and BoM?

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Well. if we're being pricky about maths, adding two more axes actually makes...... scatter.

Agreed, you can never have too many axes.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Agreed, you can never have too many axes

Was thinking more of plural of axis rather than what you're trying to grind there, but either works

Hotblack Desiato

A CoI primary tried to link ranking on the admission list to attendance at church and participation in the parish. The principal resigned.

Principal resigns from Greystones school over admissions row

However, principal Eileen Jackson has resigned from St Patrick’s National School in Greystones, Co Wicklow, on the basis that it appears to be taking a “new direction” by making admission to State-funded education a “collateral benefit of parochial engagement”.

The school’s admissions policy states that priority access will be given to children who are “accustomed members” of the Church of Ireland parish of Greystones.

Admissions on this basis require the signature of the rector, who signs off whether the child is an active member of the parish.

Ms Jackson, who has been principal of St Patrick’s National School in Greystones for more than 20 years, informed parents in an email that she felt the Church of Ireland ethos required it to embrace diversity given the church’s “core values of freedom of conscience, tolerance and inclusivity”.

The article also says the DoE agreed last year to allow the school to have one more teacher (and, presumably, expand their intake a bit while still reducing the pupil-teacher ratio) but the BoM turned this down. Is it becase any increased intake would not be protestants?



Schools face ban on linking admissions to church attendance

Minority faith schools will not be allowed to rank children on the basis of how often they attend church services in their admission policies, under new laws due to come into force next year.

The use of “parochial engagement” in prioritising school admissions has sparked controversy following the resignation of a Church of Ireland primary school principal last week.

Principal Eileen Jackson resigned from St Patrick’s National School in Greystones, Co Wicklow, on the basis that the school was making admission to State-funded education a “collateral benefit” of involvement in the parish.

The Department of Education has confirmed minority faith schools will continue to be permitted to give priority enrolment to children on the basis of religion under new admission laws.

However, a spokesman said schools will not be permitted to rank these students “on the basis of the extent to which the child or his or her family are involved in local religious activities”.

The measures are contained in the School Admissions Act, which was signed into law last week. It is due to come into force for children starting school in the 2019-2020 academic year.

The Act provides for parents to give evidence – such as a baptismal certificate – of the child’s membership of a minority religion. The school will be allowed to take account of this only.

Another source of controversy at the school involved a decision by the board of management to turn down an extra teacher the school was entitled to for the coming academic year.

Some parents claim the move was to prevent school numbers growing and potentially diluting its Church of Ireland ethos.

However, an education source said the board of management’s concerns focused on whether the school had the space to cope with extra pupil numbers.

Well surely DoE would not sanction another teacher if there was not the space for another classroom?


Crazy that we are writing laws about this sort of thing in a state-funded education system. Certain religious discrimination is fine but other religious discrimination is not! DoE don't get it (and don't want to get it) and Bruton is again picking the easy, no or minimal change, option.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A CoI primary tried to link ranking on the admission list to attendance at church and participation in the parish. The principal resigned.

Principal resigns from Greystones school over admissions row



The article also says the DoE agreed last year to allow the school to have one more teacher (and, presumably, expand their intake a bit while still reducing the pupil-teacher ratio) but the BoM turned this down. Is it becase any increased intake would not be protestants?



Schools face ban on linking admissions to church attendance





Well surely DoE would not sanction another teacher if there was not the space for another classroom?


Crazy that we are writing laws about this sort of thing in a state-funded education system. Certain religious discrimination is fine but other religious discrimination is not! DoE don't get it (and don't want to get it) and Bruton is again picking the easy, no or minimal change, option.

so the suspicion is that the BOM is trying to keep the school mostly COI, but it does accept non COI, but what would the problem be with ranking professed COI members by their activity in the Church.

is this a mini version of the larger problem of people pretending to be more religious then they really are to get into a school, but is there also such a problem with lack of alternative choice, I mean if they not really hardcore COI they can go to other multi-dom or ET school if there is some around? (how big is the catchment area for this COI school?)

expectationlost

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does this mean new management and BoM?

one would hope I think they principal wasn't running the school well at all.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Certain religious discrimination is fine but other religious discrimination is not! DoE don't get it (and don't want to get it) and Bruton is again picking the easy, no or minimal change, option.

Not just religious, language based too. Gaelscoileanna have retained the right to deny children access to schools based on language proficiency and their parents' commitment to the language. So we have religious and language based discrimination going hand in hand in some schools, where they won't be able to deny you a place if you're not Catholic but they will if you haven't learned the language to their requirements before junior infants or your parents don't speak it. It's like the State wants to have quasi-Christian schools as the vast majority with a few even more segregated schools in the mix just for a wee bit of diversity.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

Not just religious, language based too. Gaelscoileanna have retained the right to deny children access to schools based on language proficiency and their parents' commitment to the language. So we have religious and language based discrimination going hand in hand in some schools, where they won't be able to deny you a place if you're not Catholic but they will if you haven't learned the language to their requirements before junior infants or your parents don't speak it. It's like the State wants to have quasi-Christian schools as the vast majority with a few even more segregated schools in the mix just for a wee bit of diversity.

Well, hold on. Let's think this through for a moment.

The position in most CofI schools is that Protestant applicants get preference, but there are more places than Protestant applicants. The result is that (a) all the Protestant applicants get admitted, plus (b) some of the non-Protestant applicants (based, perhaps, on other criteria, like proximity to the school).

Right. If we now refine the admission policy so that only practising Protestant applicants get preference, then the pool of preferred applicants is smaller, and so the number of places available to the non-preferred applicants is greater. This improves the situation of non-preferred applicants; more of them will secure a place in the school.

Or am I missing something?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right. If we now refine the admission policy so that only practising Protestant applicants get preference, then the pool of preferred applicants is smaller, and so the number of places available to the non-preferred applicants is greater. This improves the situation of non-preferred applicants; more of them will secure a place in the school.
Or am I missing something?

You are missing the all important fact that state funding and state assets are being used (abused) as a very effective recruitment vehicle for a private religious organisation.


So although the primary school in question also discriminated in the past between "nominal" CoI members, other protestants, and the wider RC population, the change is that it has now started to use actual church attendance as the primary discriminatory factor.
This reflects the fact that we now live in a society in which a large number of people do not regularly attend any church, and there are increasing numbers of people from mixed religious backgrounds.


Also I think its worth pointing out that two other external factors have contributed to this new policy.
1)The COI gained control of a brand new "state of the art" secondary school just up the road, entirely built with public money on public land.
They gained control of this state asset on the basis of a narrowly won vote, in which their campaign promise was that they would never introduce religious discrimination. The vote itself was carried out in a half hazard way with votes collected by campaigners and sent in to Dept of Ed.

DoE noted that some parents supportng the COI "patronage" had voted more than once, and discounted those obviously fraudulent votes.


The Admission policy for 2019 (already closed as the school is fully subscribed) for the secondary school can be seen here. As promised, Category I gave first priority equally to all primary schools in the (secular) local catchment area. St Patrick’s NS Greystones is only one of the 8 listed. In the second year of operation the BOM retrospectively introduced a Category Zero ahead of Cat 1 which would prioritize the kids of staff members.
In following years the concept of "active parish affiliation" was slipped in, as was the concept of "parish" catchment areas.


Emboldened by the successful introduction of religious discrimination in this 100% state owned secondary school, it seems the local rector/BOM is now tightening up with similar policies in the parish-owned primary school.


2) Legislation currently being promoted by Minister Bruton in the Dail would prohibit this kind of thing in catholic schools, but allow it in protestant schools. This also seems to have emboldened the primary school BOM in their actions.

i think theres a very negative spin being put on it here tbh folks

you have to have provision for minority faith members, or do you dispute even that? (and im p far along the secularist belief line myself, just not dawkins level)

within the school planning area the strategy is to provide a balance of parental-preference evidenced school places, but to set bulwarks in place against this becoming a majority rules end result for each individual school

without even taking into account where we're starting out from (expecting an embedded infrastructure to be righted overnight, or in only two or three school planning cycles, seems a bit naive tbh) the trend is undeniably in favour of power moving away from religious-biased instruction and admission towards educate together.

within that trend (which is only going to get stronger) you are reaching for something to complain about if the main criticism is that the govt is being cautious.

FG have been pretty clear and ambitious in their actions for setting in place a transparent system imo. Im sure other parties would be quicker about it, im not sure that would necessarily be a better approach

recedite

Deleted User wrote: »

..you have to have provision for minority faith members, or do you dispute even that?

I do dispute that, yes, when it comes to public funding.
Is there any fundamental reason that CoI members, or Muslims, should be provided with their own segregated state funded education, but a school that prioritises black people should not?


The reason is that we historically had state funding for various RC educational institutions, but we never had state funding of schools for white people.

Historic discrimination often leads to modern "positive" discrimination. The best cure is to dump it all.

waterfaerie

Deleted User wrote: »

you have to have provision for minority faith members

Absolutely, but it shouldn't be funded by the rest of us. If the religious schools were private or funded by their own churches they could discriminate all they wanted and everyone else could access public education without having to deal with this nonsense. The same should apply for all religions, minority or not.

evolving_doors

Deleted User wrote: »

....
you have to have provision for minority faith members,...

Why's that?

lads lads lads

im one of ye, i havent my card on me but I promise

but srsly the arrowing in on that one hardly-controversial statement (which i paid fair attn to softening later by pointing out the historical and social context ie we are starting from a given point in a matter of social infrastructure, in what i thought was a reasonable post) from all three responses doesn't speak well for the forum imo. should i not have disavowed dawkins or something?

taxpayers money goes towards everything.

i dont think that secular education gets to pokerface a "but religion is like race you cant favour any one individual example on that basis" without acknowledging that the inherited infrastructure i) has been set up along those lines ii) is changing rapidly iii) still has to cater for demand that does tbf exist and iv) that secularism is itself an ethos

at least lets not pretend that arguing that flatly for it based on where we're actually coming from isnt a sign of.......ideology over practicality

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

taxpayers money goes towards everything.

Taxpayers' money goes towards health, and some hospitals have a religious "ethos", but we wouldn't tolerate a system where a catholic got bumped up the waiting list to get into Vincent's, or a protestant into Tallaght (former Adelaide.)

without acknowledging that the inherited infrastructure i) has been set up along those lines

appeal to tradition

ii) is changing rapidly

it really isn't.

iii) still has to cater for demand that does tbf exist

I'm sure there'd be a demand for traveller-free or immigrant-free schools from some people, that doesn't mean we should tolerate that sort of discrimination never mind fund it and enshrine it in law.

iv) that secularism is itself an ethos

Nonsense. Secularism is not irreligion or anti-religion, it doesn't matter how many times the RC church deliberately lies that it is.

at least lets not pretend that arguing that flatly for it based on where we're actually coming from isnt a sign of.......ideology over practicality

Practicality? It's very impractical to have a system needlessly balkanised upon gender and religious lines, this leads to massive waste of resources and smaller less well equipped schools with poorer subject choices - never mind the adverse societal effects of such segregation.

smacl

Deleted User wrote: »

lads lads lads

im one of ye, i havent my card on me but I promise

but srsly the arrowing in on that one hardly-controversial statement (which i paid fair attn to softening later by pointing out the historical and social context ie we are starting from a given point in a matter of social infrastructure, in what i thought was a reasonable post) from all three responses doesn't speak well for the forum imo. should i not have disavowed dawkins or something?

taxpayers money goes towards everything.

i dont think that secular education gets to pokerface a "but religion is like race you cant favour any one individual example on that basis" without acknowledging that the inherited infrastructure i) has been set up along those lines ii) is changing rapidly iii) still has to cater for demand that does tbf exist and iv) that secularism is itself an ethos

at least lets not pretend that arguing that flatly for it based on where we're actually coming from isnt a sign of.......ideology over practicality

While historical background and practical impediments may make the current status quo understandable that doesn't make it acceptable or reasonable. I think religion is comparable to race when it comes to discrimination, and we've certainly seen the ugly face of sectarianism in this country over the years. As a democracy where the will of the people has run contrary to that of the church in the last couple of referendums, it is high time we actually asked the people how they'd like their taxes spent on education rather than simply running with a model that seems increasingly unsatisfactory to many.

And Dawkins certainly isn't treated like some sacred cow around here, as illustrated by this post.

hmm

lookit we'll leave it there.

Wicklow Will

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, hold on. Let's think this through for a moment.

The position in most CofI schools is that Protestant applicants get preference, but there are more places than Protestant applicants. The result is that (a) all the Protestant applicants get admitted, plus (b) some of the non-Protestant applicants (based, perhaps, on other criteria, like proximity to the school).

Right. If we now refine the admission policy so that only practising Protestant applicants get preference, then the pool of preferred applicants is smaller, and so the number of places available to the non-preferred applicants is greater. This improves the situation of non-preferred applicants; more of them will secure a place in the school.

Or am I missing something?

Yes, what is happening in some, albeit rare, instances e.g. St Patricks NS, Greystones (over which the Principal resigned in protest) is that the BOM can deliberately try to reduce the pupil numbers (hence refusal of an extra teacher) to reflect the potential number of Protestant children requiring places to ensure that the number of non-Protestant children attending is kept to the absolute minimum. This is both morally wrong - the school is funded from the exchequer and primary school places are lamentably scarce in the Greystones area due to huge population increase in the area, as well as being retrograde thinking when it comes to sociological integration of children, which is to be advocated to encourage a future population in which religious and cultural differences are considered non-threatening as people become more informed.

Wicklow Will

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, hold on. Let's think this through for a moment.

The position in most CofI schools is that Protestant applicants get preference, but there are more places than Protestant applicants. The result is that (a) all the Protestant applicants get admitted, plus (b) some of the non-Protestant applicants (based, perhaps, on other criteria, like proximity to the school).

Right. If we now refine the admission policy so that only practising Protestant applicants get preference, then the pool of preferred applicants is smaller, and so the number of places available to the non-preferred applicants is greater. This improves the situation of non-preferred applicants; more of them will secure a place in the school.

Or am I missing something?

Yes, what is happening in some, albeit rare, instances e.g. St Patricks NS, Greystones (over which the Principal resigned in protest) is that the BOM can deliberately try to reduce the pupil numbers (hence refusal of an extra teacher) to reflect the potential number of Protestant children requiring places. This is to try and ensure that the number of non-Protestant children attending is kept to the absolute minimum. This is both morally wrong - the school is funded from the exchequer - and primary school places are lamentably scarce in the Greystones area due to huge population increase in the area, as well as being retrograde thinking when it comes to sociological integration of children, which is to be advocated to encourage a future population in which religious and cultural differences are considered non-threatening as people become more informed.

realitykeeper

Before talking about subsidizing protestant schools, there is another issue to consider. The Irish never did a Mugabe on taking our land back so surely the protestant land "owners" should be paying a mortgage instead of tax to the Irish government on behalf of the Irish people. Also, since the time of they plantations they never paid rent on the land they occupied, instead they charged rent on land they did not own. Surely now is the time to demand they repay the rent they changed the Irish for Irish land and pay the rent on the land they kept exclusively for themselves, together with interest due (adjusted for inflation since the 19th and earlier centuries) and late payment charges.

Is it proper to fund their schools before those payments are received in full? As for other non Catholics of every hue, don`t they have any countries of their own? And, as for the lapsed Catholics, were the Christian Brother too lenient on them? Perhaps they needed the blackguardism battered out of them more thoroughly.

Peregrinus

Um, where to start? I think I'll start by ignoring trolling.

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

Before talking about subsidizing protestant schools, there is another issue to consider. The Irish never did a Mugabe on taking our land back so surely the protestant land "owners" should be paying a mortgage instead of tax to the Irish government on behalf of the Irish people. Also, since the time of they plantations they never paid rent on the land they occupied, instead they charged rent on land they did not own. Surely now is the time to demand they repay the rent they changed the Irish for Irish land and pay the rent on the land they kept exclusively for themselves, together with interest due (adjusted for inflation since the 19th and earlier centuries) and late payment charges.

Is it proper to fund their schools before those payments are received in full? As for other non Catholics of every hue, don`t they have any countries of their own? And, as for the lapsed Catholics, were the Christian Brother too lenient on them? Perhaps they needed the blackguardism battered out of them more thoroughly.

You are an advocate of little children being beaten.

I'll say no more.

recedite

Well, I think realitykeeper's post is a good example justifying the historical need to protect minorities (eg protestants) from a particular kind of RCC controlled education system which was bankrolled by the state. Imagine a protestant child, perhaps the only one in the class, attending a school in which realitykeeper is the history teacher or the school principal. And I'm sure in the not too distant past there were many Christian Brother's schools with staff just like that.
However, the solution that we need nowadays is different. We need to stop perpetuating a system that requires minorities to be protected from state education.

robindch

Mod:

realitykeeper wrote: »

And, as for the lapsed Catholics, were the Christian Brother too lenient on them? Perhaps they needed the blackguardism battered out of them more thoroughly.

A+A is a forum intended for the reality-based discussion of issues related to religion, science and related topics in a respectful, rational fashion. It's hard to know whether this post here constitutes trolling or whether it is your genuine opinion - your comments on this and similar topics in other forums suggests the latter. In either case, it contributes nothing to the discussion or the aim of A+A. Further off-forum postings may be subject to more stringent moderator action.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Well, I think realitykeeper's post is a good example justifying the historical need to protect children from a particular kind of RCC controlled education system which was bankrolled by the state.

FYP. For what it's worth, the reason my father ended up as an atheist was due to getting battered by the Christian brothers for that most heinous crime of being left handed. My wife tells similar stories about her treatment by the nuns. A miserable bunch of sadists by all accounts who didn't actually need much reason to abuse children other than idle whim.

Wicklow Will

realitykeeper wrote: »

Before talking about subsidizing protestant schools, there is another issue to consider. The Irish never did a Mugabe on taking our land back so surely the protestant land "owners" should be paying a mortgage instead of tax to the Irish government on behalf of the Irish people. Also, since the time of they plantations they never paid rent on the land they occupied, instead they charged rent on land they did not own. Surely now is the time to demand they repay the rent they changed the Irish for Irish land and pay the rent on the land they kept exclusively for themselves, together with interest due (adjusted for inflation since the 19th and earlier centuries) and late payment charges.

Is it proper to fund their schools before those payments are received in full? As for other non Catholics of every hue, don`t they have any countries of their own? And, as for the lapsed Catholics, were the Christian Brother too lenient on them? Perhaps they needed the blackguardism battered out of them more thoroughly.

Oh, please, if you can’t say anything sensible just stay quiet in the corner, child. As the old saying goes ‘better to keep your mouth shut and appear a fool rather than speak and confirm it!’

Wicklow Will

recedite wrote: »

Well, I think realitykeeper's post is a good example justifying the historical need to protect minorities (eg protestants) from a particular kind of RCC controlled education system which was bankrolled by the state. Imagine a protestant child, perhaps the only one in the class, attending a school in which realitykeeper is the history teacher or the school principal. And I'm sure in the not too distant past there were many Christian Brother's schools with staff just like that.
However, the solution that we need nowadays is different. We need to stop perpetuating a system that requires minorities to be protected from state education.

Totally agree ‘recedite’ as a member of the CoI, I attended a Community College where my history teacher was a biased, anti-English, nationalist who made my time and that of the other Protestant pupil in her class, hell!