School patronage

Bannasidhe

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm surprised because without trying all of the schools I've (and anyone I know) have experience of have very little religious influence. Religion as a subject never been taken seriously.

Yet many in this thread, (who I have assume would tried it) seem to managed to find schools with a level of religious fanaticism that wouldn't be out of place 70 yrs ago.

That's what's surprising.

My son is an Agnostic. He, himself, was never baptised but was raised to know the basic beliefs of the major religions.
Until the age of 9 he attended secular schools in the UK - these were literally the local national schools for our catchment area.
Then we moved to Ireland - and eventually we moved house so he could move school as the vice principle of our local national school was the worst kind of little Irelander to be Irish is to be Catholic bigot and he took it out on my son.
In the school he moved to they were rather impressed that his mother played rugby as Donal Linehan had been a pupil there fado fado. The principle there felt religion was a personal matter.
Son went to a COI/multidenom secondary school.

His daughter first encountered religion aged 4 in her local school when she had to colour in "holymarymotherofgod" - in fact all the colouring in was religiously themed. Neither of her parents are religious - yet had no choice in their daughter being exposed to a religious belief they do not hold in her local State funded national school.

Fanaticism is insisting the majority of schools are under the control of one religion but paid for by all taxpayer.
Ireland does not have a State religion - the UK does.
Yet National Schools in the UK are secular and Irish ones are not.

There should be zero religious influence in a State school.
Every. single. Child. should be equal when in a State funded school and all their beliefs/lack of beliefs respected equally. That is impossible when a school has to follow the ethos of one religion.

Flinty997

Bannasidhe wrote: »

.... in fact all the colouring in was religiously themed. ....

I just scanned through my own kids drawings out of about 30 I have to hand, one is religious (Xmas scene), the others are of space, nature, animals, family, events.

I know these are Anecdotal examples. But its strange that I with zero effort found a school that doesn't do this. Yet someone opposed to religion ended in a school that does do that.

My only experience of the church interfering in this school, was they played with the admission policies, catchment areas, to make it more inclusive, with quota like system for other faiths, and no faiths. Which is fine except it displaced locals and siblings, and increased traffic, as locals are forced to drive out of the area to get school places.

Geuze

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

About 95% of Irish primary schools are "really, really religious"

They are not very religious at all, compared to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasa


Although the patron may be a church, the actual day-to-day activity is not very religious.

Bannasidhe

Flinty997 wrote: »

I just scanned through my own kids drawings out of about 30 I have to hand, one is religious (Xmas scene), the others are of space, nature, animals, family, events.

I know these are Anecdotal examples. But its strange that I with zero effort found a school that doesn't do this. Yet someone opposed to religion ended in a school that does do that.

You are failing to see the point.
Your children's school might take a hands off approach to religion under it's current administration (although this could change with a new Principle) but this is not everyone's experience.

And yes, those who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to be free of religion might be more attuned to when that right is not only being being denied - why are any of the pictures 'religious' - why isn't that religion Islam or Hindi or Shamanism?- they are also funding it via their taxes.

The question you should be asking is why is any State funded national school being allowed to endorse one particular religion.
And that goes for all religions.

All State funded schools should be 100% secular.
If parents wish their children instructed in a particular religion either pay full fees for a faith based school (I personally wouldn't have an issue with grants being available) or send them to faith based classes as an extra curricular activity.

Flinty997

I agree state schools should be secular.

Its still weird that someone without even trying can find schools, with minimal if any religious involvement, and do it repeatedly.
While those, who want no involvement with religion, seem to get their kids into schools with the most extreme religious pressure.

Treppen

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

By secondary most kids have seen through the big lie

Primary school is the bone of contention. A shade under 90% of primary schools remain under RCC control, even if one accepts the census figure of 78% catholic that is way off (and of course many of that 78% are no longer parents of children of school-going age)

The most relevant stat, according to me , is that fewer than half of marriages in Ireland now take place in any church at all (never mind an RCC one) and it's hard to imagine that couples who actively choose a non-catholic marriage would desire a catholic education for their kids.

I thought that too, until I started teaching. Especially in fee-charging schools I presume where battle lines are drawn, maybe not as overt, but it's definitely another form of networking where you can define "who is one of us".
Plus the whole charities network thing is a means to an end.
You'll recall where enda got tough and closed the Irish embassy in the Vatican. Probably wasn't long before they realised the global network they were cutting off , but anyway, back open again.... https://www.dfa.ie/irish-embassy/holy-see/ambassador/

So big lie or not, you gotta know how your bread is buttered.

Treppen

Flinty997 wrote: »

I agree state schools should be secular.

Its still weird that someone without even trying can find schools, with minimal if any religious involvement, and do it repeatedly.
While those, who want no involvement with religion, seem to get their kids into schools with the most extreme religious pressure.

How do these schools with minimal religious involvement present themselves for you to find them?

Flinty997

Treppen wrote: »

How do these schools with minimal religious involvement present themselves for you to find them?

Research and networking.

I think a better question is how do others manage to find schools with such high religious involvement. Considering it's completely at odds with trends in society in general. Are there incentives for teachers and headmasters to promote religion.

Bannasidhe

Flinty997 wrote: »

I agree state schools should be secular.

Its still weird that someone without even trying can find schools, with minimal if any religious involvement, and do it repeatedly.
While those, who want no involvement with religion, seem to get their kids into schools with the most extreme religious pressure.

Ah stop now.
It's hardly a 1000 atheists in here saying our child was in a school run by the Spanish Inquisition.

It's various people saying "my child(ren) encountered religious indoctrination to xxxx degree in their local taxpayer funded national school. We do not want our child(ren) to receive any religious indoctrination whatsoever as is our right under the Constitution but the State is giving us no choice".

I would suggest you don't a) don't see it because b) you don't really 'get' why it's an issue.

By way of explaining - imagine your friend has a peanut allergy.

There is only one place they can eat. They have to pay a compulsory subscription to fund that place.

That place serves peanuts but assure your friend they cater for 'non-peanut customers'.
5% of their customers have peanut allergies and this figure is growing every year. An unknown number of customers get a minor reaction to peanuts but stay silent as this is the only place they can eat.
You friend has to eat alone at a separate table, but in the main dining area.

Would you consider your friend being hyper aware of the presence of peanuts to be weird?
Believe they should shrug off an occasional peanut?

Oh but peanuts allergies can lead to death you say, not a fair comparison.

Well, the collusion of Church and State in this country lead to thousands of deaths, it's victims are still seeking justice, and to see it continue is a slap in the face those people, and to anyone who believes all citizens of a republic should be equal.
Shrugging it off allows the collusion of Church and State to continue.
Public apathy is the friend of the status quo.

Flinty997

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah stop now.
It's hardly a 1000 atheists in here saying our child was in a school run by the Spanish Inquisition.

It's various people saying "my child(ren) encountered religious indoctrination to xxxx degree in their local taxpayer funded national school. We do not want our child(ren) to receive any religious indoctrination whatsoever as is our right under the Constitution but the State is giving us no choice".

I would suggest you don't a) don't see it because b) you don't really 'get' why it's an issue.

.....

Pretty much are.

So you need to look for evidence not based an anecdotal stories. Well if the curriculum and materials are saturated with religious indoctrination that would be easy to substantiate. You'd could look through a child schoolwork and school books.

In some of the other threads people could point to a staff membership in religious groups or boards of management being dominated by members of such organisations. There you have clear links. We also have the issue around hospital ownership at the moment.

Ultimately if religious indoctrination was as widespread as is claimed here. RC wouldn't be evaporating from society as it is. You wouldn't need nut analogies either.

Bannasidhe

Flinty997 wrote: »

Pretty much are.

So you need to look for evidence not based an anecdotal stories. Well if the curriculum and materials are saturated with religious indoctrination that would be easy to substantiate. You'd could look through a child schoolwork and school books.

In some of the other threads people could point to a staff membership in religious groups or boards of management being dominated by members of such organisations. There you have clear links. We also have the issue around hospital ownership at the moment.

Ultimately if religious indoctrination was as widespread as is claimed here. RC wouldn't be evaporating from society as it is. You wouldn't need nut analogies either.

Just over 90% of primary schools and 50% of secondary schools are under the patronage of the Roman Catholic Church - fact.
These schools are obliged to implement the ethos of the Roman Catholic Church - fact.

How exactly do you think these schools fulfill this obligation?

Flinty997

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just over 90% of primary schools and 50% of secondary schools are under the patronage of the Roman Catholic Church - fact.
These schools are bound to implement the ethos of the Roman Catholic Church - fact.

How exactly do you think these schools fulfill this obligation?

Whatever their obligations. The fact the vast majority leaving the school system have no involvement, engagement or association with religion. Implies they are either very bad at teaching it. Or just not doing it.

That's not too say that patronage should be ignored. Religion should be detached from education. Definitely.

Bannasidhe

Flinty997 wrote: »

Whatever their obligations. The fact the vast majority leaving the school system have no involvement, engagement or association with religion. Implies they are either very bad at teaching it. Or just not doing it.

That's not too say that patronage should be ignored. Religion should be detached from education. Definitely.

Sweetest divine (pardon the pun)

The vast majority of schools are under an obligation to act/teach according to the ethos of the Roman Catholic Church.

The extent to which they do so is decided by the Principle and board of management but they ALL have to fulfil that obligation.

How many of them 'do' Communion? Yup. All of them.
What has Communion got to do with their education?
Absolutely nothing.

Confirmation - yup, that too.

Baby Jesus Xmas play?
School prayers?
Visiting clergy?
Scheduled time set aside for the teaching of religion - and no, it is not comparative studies - it is the Romans Catholic Church is the one true faith. They cannot teach otherwise as that is the ethos.

You are looking for proof that such things take place and then make a statement like "the vast majority leaving the school system have no involvement, engagement or association with religion" without any proof.

The census returns say you are incorrect - the majority still tick the RCC box. I would call that an 'involvement'.

In 2016 the proportion of Roman Catholics increased steadily from 75.5 per cent for those aged less than one, to 83.5 per cent for 11 year olds. It then falls with increasing age to reach a low of 60.5 per cent for 27 year olds before steadily rising to reach a peak for 82 year olds at 91.9 per cent.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp8iter/p8iter/p8rrc/

Flinty997

Bannasidhe wrote: »

....
The census returns say you are incorrect - the majority still tick the RCC box. I would call that an 'involvement'....

Last time the pope rocked up for mass 1.3 million turned up. This time 130k.

Ticking boxes on a census isn't involvement.

Bannasidhe

Flinty997 wrote: »

Last time the pope rocked up for mass 1.3 million turned up. This time 130k.

Ticking boxes on a census isn't involvement.

Yes.
It is.

It is also what informs planning decisions.
If people are not involved why tick the I am involved box when there is an I am not involved box available?
Answer : Because they were 'raised Catholic' - and the majority of the instruction took place in school.

You were looking for proof of other's statements and quibbled when you didn't get it.
You then made an unsupported statement and when proof is supplied showing you are incorrect you are quibbling with the proof.

You are coming across as not exactly consistent.

Flinty997

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes.
It is.

It is also what informs planning decisions.
If people are not involved why tick the I am involved box when there is an I am not involved box available?
Answer : Because they were 'raised Catholic' - and the majority of the instruction took place in school.

You were looking for proof of other's statements and quibbled when you didn't get it.
You then made an unsupported statement and when proof is supplied showing you are incorrect you are quibbling with the proof.

You are coming across as not exactly consistent.

Well you have to ask why are they demolishing large churches and selling them off for apartments if there is large regular involvement in religion.

Very hard to argue, that no one wants religion in schools, if you keep promoting meaningless census figures, and involvement in one off events like communion, to promote that everyone wants religion in schools. You are doing their snake oil PR for them with that argument.

The church has pretty admitted that attendance at communion and similar events are mostly treated as one day events, and religion takes a backseat even with these.

Communions and Confirmations are not a “one day ‘school event’ organised in a local church,” the leader of the Catholic Church in Dublin has warned parents and schools.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/communion-is-not-a-one-day-event-catholic-archbishop-of-dublin-says-as-he-criticises-sidelining-of-religion-on-school-curriculum-40423446.html

Realizing this, they've counted with the "Flourish" programme which is so out of touch with society its laughable.
It will be interesting how many reject it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholic-primary-school-will-not-teach-bishops-flourish-rse-resource-1.4592192

Treppen

Flinty997 wrote: »

Research and networking.

I think a better question is how do others manage to find schools with such high religious involvement. Considering it's completely at odds with trends in society in general. Are there incentives for teachers and headmasters to promote religion.

There is very little promotion in the teaching profession, so to get on the next step AP2 (assistant principal) or AP1 you have to interview. In many schools it's not uncommon to be asked how you promote the ethos.

Principal job its Par for the course
https://stannesschool.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CEIST-Principal-Application-Form-St.-annes-Secondary-School-Tipperary-Town.docx&ved=2ahUKEwjGsM7C6LnxAhX3ShUIHdxFCkcQFjAEegQIGhAC&usg=AOvVaw3OIcMawaEuBAyCx-AIaAHN

Flinty997

Thanks for that. Hardly hiding it under a bushel though are they. Even the crest is religious.

But in researching this, I found this interesting case...

https://atheist.ie/2017/09/tipperary-etb-christian-ethos/

Treppen

Flinty997 wrote: »

Thanks for that. Hardly hiding it under a bushel though are they. Even the crest is religious.

But in researching this, I found this interesting case...

https://atheist.ie/2017/09/tipperary-etb-christian-ethos/

That's par for the course for AP/deputy/principal interviews for schools in the CEIST or Le Cheile trusteeship, which is nearly 200 schools in Ireland. So sorry guess it would be nearly 2,000+ teachers.
They're the 2 main ones I'm familiar with anyway. You'll have solo religious orders who aren't part of a trusteeship so I'd imagine they'll protect their ethos themselves too.

I didn't select that school for any particular reason btw, just a random search.

Flinty997

Well I found another job advert but it was an educate together : ) then I checked out our own school and there is almost zero mention of region on it. So I was thinking maybe it's ETBs but then came across that story which was interesting in a load of different ways.

Treppen

Flinty997 wrote: »

Well I found another job advert but it was an educate together : ) then I checked out our own school and there is almost zero mention of region on it. So I was thinking maybe it's ETBs but then came across that story which was interesting in a load of different ways.

Why did the computer science teacher bring the case to WRC, Was it because the school was going all out on Roman Catholic when the patron said it was Christian?

Flinty997

Don't know. Theres more here, but it doesn't answer that.

https://atheist.ie/2017/09/tipperary-etb-human-rights/

I would assume to highlight the issues listed above. .

Hotblack Desiato

6 wrote: »

They are literally teaching something they think themselves think is make believe.

Nonetheless, they are teaching it, and religious ethos schools are exempt from employment equality law. And the new Fluorish RSE programme that is being introduced has a very strong fundamentalist catholic flavour to it.

The horse has bolted with the baptism barrier gone. Its slow moving, but communion and conformations will be eventually moved to out of hours, and become an opt-in part of a child's upbringing. Then watch communions and confirmations fall off a cliff.

Your last sentence is the reason the RCC will resist any change in religious instruction and sacramental preparation in schools as long as they possibly can.

Hotblack Desiato

Geuze wrote: »

They are not very religious at all, compared to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasa

Do you think Ireland should be comparinig itself to the likes of Saudi Arabia, or to developed first world countries?

Although the patron may be a church, the actual day-to-day activity is not very religious.

That depends on the school and largely on the principal's own level of religious conviction.

But crosses on the wall, prayers every day, etc. are hardly "not very religious" are they?

Hotblack Desiato

Treppen wrote: »

Plus the whole charities network thing is a means to an end.
You'll recall where enda got tough and closed the Irish embassy in the Vatican. Probably wasn't long before they realised the global network they were cutting off , but anyway, back open again.... https://www.dfa.ie/irish-embassy/holy-see/ambassador/

So big lie or not, you gotta know how your bread is buttered.

Don't really know what you mean here. What disadvantage or harm exactly did closing the Vatican embassy cause to the Irish state? We retained an ambassador to the Holy See during that time btw, they just resided in Dublin and flew over as required. But the idea of giving the status of a state to a church is entirely ridiculous and wrong as they have abused diplomatic privilege when it suited them, and used the Vatican as an extradition-free place where abuse suspects could hide.

Flinty997 wrote: »

Well you have to ask why are they demolishing large churches and selling them off for apartments if there is large regular involvement in religion.

I am aware of one RC church in the entire country which is being demolished, and it's going to be replaced albeit with a much smaller one. Cappagh Road, Finglas West. That hangar-like monstrosity was a monument to Archbishop McQuaid's ego - what is it with authoritarian males and needlessly massive buildings, anyway?

The church has pretty admitted that attendance at communion and similar events are mostly treated as one day events, and religion takes a backseat even with these.

Nonetheless pupils are made to spend many many hours in school preparing for these events, time when they should be learning.

Realizing this, they've counted with the "Flourish" programme which is so out of touch with society its laughable.

It is, but it's not a religious instruction syllabus, it's relationships and sexuality education.

We need to legislate that children receive evidence based RSE, whether they're in a religious ethos school or not.

AndrewJRenko

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The census returns say you are incorrect - the majority still tick the RCC box. I would call that an 'involvement'.

Try counting the number with enough involvement to show up for Mass on the average Sunday morning, and you won't be dealing with a majority.

Treppen

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Try counting the number with enough involvement to show up for Mass on the average Sunday morning, and you won't be dealing with a majority.

Aye but they govt. will take their cue from the CSO rather than doing tallys outside churches.

Hence the whole "we must offer choice" and "parents have a choice to go elsewhere" fairytale.

Bannasidhe

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Try counting the number with enough involvement to show up for Mass on the average Sunday morning, and you won't be dealing with a majority.

Sadly infrastructure and funding is not decided by having someone stand outside churches on a Sunday morning - or even Saturday night which I have observed seems to be the big going to Mass day - with a clicky counter. It's decided by the compulsory questionnaire sent out to every household every 5 years.
And on that questionnaire it asks what religion (if any) people are - I don't recall it asking how observant any one is.

Personally I think if a system similar to Germany where those who profess to have a religion are obliged to pay a "support your religion tax" we'd soon see far less ticking of I'm a Roman Catholic box on the census.

But for now we have people educated in Catholic ethos State funded schools (many of which required baptism until very recently), growing up to tick the I am a Catholic box even though they are not only non-observant, they continually break the tenets of their professed religion. And this means in the box ticking exercise the majority are 'Roman Catholic' and that is what the bean counters go on.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sadly infrastructure and funding is not decided by having someone stand outside churches on a Sunday morning - or even Saturday night which I have observed seems to be the big going to Mass day - with a clicky counter. It's decided by the compulsory questionnaire sent out to every household every 5 years.
And on that questionnaire it asks what religion (if any) people are - I don't recall it asking how observant any one is.

Personally I think if a system similar to Germany where those who profess to have a religion are obliged to pay a "support your religion tax" we'd soon see far less ticking of I'm a Roman Catholic box on the census.

But for now we have people educated in Catholic ethos State funded schools (many of which required baptism until very recently), growing up to tick the I am a Catholic box even though they are not only non-observant, they continually break the tenets of their professed religion. And this means in the box ticking exercise the majority are 'Roman Catholic' and that is what the bean counters go on.

Amazingly enough, school patronage decisions are much more influenced by consulting parents of school age children about what kind of school they want than by either census results or mass attendance surveys. That is, after all, the relevant data.

As for the church tax, far, far more Germans tick the box and pay the church tax (61%) than actually go to church every Sunday (estimated 5-6%). And I think this is broadly true in most or all countries which have a similar church tax. People who choose church attendance as a proxy for genuine religious affiliation usually do so because church attendance is low and this give them the result they want. Having a second objective measure of affiliation might not yield the result they want.

Which underlines the point already made - you can't project whether people will want to send their children to church schools based on whether they attend church or not, or what box they tick on the census form, or even whether they pay a church tax. You have to ask them what kind of schools they want to send their children to.

Bannasidhe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Amazingly enough, school patronage decisions are much more influenced by consulting parents of school age children about what kind of school they want than by either census results or mass attendance surveys. That is, after all, the relevant data.

As for the church tax, far, far more Germans tick the box and pay the church tax (61%) than actually go to church every Sunday (estimated 5-6%). And I think this is broadly true in most or all countries which have a similar church tax. People who choose church attendance as a proxy for genuine religious affiliation usually do so because church attendance is low and this give them the result they want. Having a second objective measure of affiliation might not yield the result they want.

Which underlines the point already made - you can't project whether people will want to send their children to church schools based on whether they attend church or not, or what box they tick on the census form, or even whether they pay a church tax. You have to ask them what kind of schools they want to send their children to.

However when the prevailing system has for generations created a link between education and religion people who have come through that system are preconditioned to think there isn't an alternative. They vote to keep the status quo.

We saw something similar during the MarRef campaign. It was frankly shocking how many people believed that to be a) legally married it had to happen in a Church and b) could not comprehend that the religious aspect of the marriage ceremony has zero legal standing - that the marriage occurred in the vestry with the priest acting as a Registrar. In this instance people did not vote to keep the status quo - but an awful lot of energy was spent explaining to people that the church part is not required.
We need to explain to people that in education the religion part is not required - but it's difficult to do that when the majority are educated in a system that intertwines the two.