School patronage

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is exactly the problem. The proportion of schools under Catholic patronage vastly exceeds the proportion of parents who want a Catholic education for their children. Nevertheless a Catholic education is still, far and away, the most popular and most desired model among parents.

Most parents have never been asked, actually.
The fact that the overwheming majority of schools are RCC makes it the default option, if not the only option. You can read nothing at all into the 'decision' of parents to send their children to an RCC school.

And this demand for Catholic education is pretty uniformly spread. It’s likely to be the case that, in almost every single school that is under Catholic patronage, Catholic patronage is the preferred model of a majority of the parents.

This is pure supposition on your part.

I can see that they would be seriously, seriously pissed off at being told “this is turning into a school that most of you won’t like. If you don’t like this you need to take your kids out and send them to one of these other schools”.

What's not to like about an ET?
Most self-proclaimed catholics don't go to church and don't believe in many or most of the main tenets of RCC faith. Do you really think they'll be the ones up in arms about their kids' school becoming an ET, where they can still prepare for the cultural catholic rituals if they want?
I can see the tiny minority of RCC ultras objecting all right, but most of them are too old to have schoolgoing kids...

Of course, this is a bit of a kick in the teeth if you want secular education for Sean or Mary; they’ll be finished the primary cycle before it’s available. So not a perfect solution by any means. Perhaps there are better solutions.

Many parents in a situation like mine are just resigned to the fact that there will be no real change in time for our kids (mine are 6 and 3.) Perhaps for their kids. Maybe.

If we think, as democrats and as secularists, that the Minister is accountable to the people for how he exercises his power to appoint school patrons, then it’s ludicrous to suggest that the church somehow has the responsiblity (or even the ability) to protect him from the consequences of what may, in the short term, be unpopular decisions.

Politics would be an easy job if one only ever had to make popular short-term decisions - but as we found out the hard way, that's no way to run a country.

Zamboni

recedite wrote: »

The basic problem is this; "no particular school has a majority in favour of a change in patronage" (this according to Quinn, and he should know)

Lets say there were 3 local schools, and each was under RCC control, and each had a two thirds majority who like it that way. That leaves a lot of disgruntled people.

The obvious solution is to divest one school. Pretty soon everyone will gravitate towards their preferred type of school, and then everyone will be happy in their own niche.

For a short time though, you have a two thirds majority in that one school campaigning against the change.
And a few local TD's who are quite happy to be seen in the media "helping out" if they think there might be a few votes in it for themselves.

As people keep saying, there is a real lack of leadership, from both the Minister and the Archbishop..

Careful now with that logic - it might catch on
It's easier to just complain about Ruairi Quinn than accept the sheer scale of the logistical efforts required for divestment and the resistance to change from parents on the ground.
Just because we all want change and there is demand for non-denominational education and human rights etcetera, etcetera doesn't mean everyone else will up with school bags and march to the other side of the village/town without kicking up stink.

Brian Shanahan

Zamboni wrote: »

It's easier to just complain about Ruairi Quinn than accept the sheer scale of the logistical efforts required for divestment and the resistance to change from parents on the ground.

What resistance. I know the vast majority of the parents and teachers at my old primary (a rural national school) would prefer if the ethos and managerial guidance at the school weren't so dependant on the whims of the incumbant PP. It'd make for a much more stable learning environment for the kids.

And this includes the small minority in the parish who'd be considered proper catholics by the church.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be honest, I’m more inclined to be critical of the Minister here. It’s not the Archbishop’s job to meet the demand for non-Catholic schools; it’s the Minister’s job. The Archbishop has signalled his willingness, even eagerness, to co-operate

But all the Archbishop has to do is pick a school and then give the order to the RC supporters there to "stand down". If they are genuine adherents, they will obey their Archbishop. If they are not genuine, then they don't really have a case. They are simply being traditionalist/conservative. That is no basis for standing in the way of somebody else's right to an indoctrination-free education.

Instead, he gives puts out vague media soundbytes to convey the impression that he is in favour of divesting "some schools" somewhere, maybe in the next ten years or so. So the faithful seem to asssume that if they kick up a fuss, they will be rewarded for their loyalty, and some other school will be divested instead.

From the RTE link a few posts back;

Dr Martin said the process will now take longer than anyone expected. He predicted that "within a decade" the Catholic church may be the patron on half of the approximately 500 primary schools currently under its control.

In an ideal situation, a five year lead-in period would probably be a fair way to go alright (especially if the notice had already been given a few years ago). What is more likely is that nothing will happen for the next couple of years, and then some school will get divested overnight without warning. As you said this was, and still is, a foreseeable problem. Yet nothing is being done to address it.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t see that there’s much more [Archbish Martin #1] can be asked to do. He hasn’t the authority to decide which schools will switch patronage; the patrons of all schools are appointed (and removed) by the Minister.

Well, it'd be polite to consult and such, but... I'm fairly confident that patronage isn't indentured servitude (bonded masterdom?), and that it's possible for him to resign from this position in some of the schools.

Nor is it his job (or, i suspect, within his power) to deliver compliant parents who will meekly accept the Minister’s decision.

I think a reasonable minimum would be making that that it isn't purely the minister's decision. This he's done already to an extent, but there's also the matter of making sure his suffragans are likewise (at least minimally) cooperative. He's the only bishop I've heard making even remotely positive noises about this sort of process, and at least formally, he's only speaking for the see of Dublin.

If we think, as democrats and as secularists, that the Minister is accountable to the people for how he exercises his power to appoint school patrons, then it’s ludicrous to suggest that the church somehow has the responsiblity (or even the ability) to protect him from the consequences of what may, in the short term, be unpopular decisions.

If "patronage" doesn't imply "responsibility", I don't know what it does. I think that implies at least a degree of responsibility for the "exit strategy".

I'm not sure what the best model for making the transition is. A single school with "multiple ethe" or more than one patron does sound like a recipe for confusion of command control. Two schools sharing a campus might make things clear in terms of lines of responsibility and decision-making, albeit likely at the cost of greater administration, duplication, and well, cost.

alaimacerc

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I know the vast majority of the parents and teachers at my old primary (a rural national school) would prefer if the ethos and managerial guidance at the school weren't so dependant on the whims of the incumbant PP. It'd make for a much more stable learning environment for the kids.

Meaning they'd favour... what ethos, exactly? They'd be gung ho for full-blown multi-denom near-to-secular-as-we-can-get-it religious-prepartion-out-of-curriculum-time ET-style? Or that they'd like a RCC-patron "lite", hypothetically producing everything they like about the present system, and none of the things they dislike -- whichever those are, in each individual case.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

Most parents have never been asked, actually.

The fact that the overwheming majority of schools are RCC makes it the default option, if not the only option. You can read nothing at all into the 'decision' of parents to send their children to an RCC school . . . This is pure supposition on your part.

No, it’s not.

I’m not basing what I say on the fact that most parents do in fact send their kids to Catholic schools. As you rightly point out, that reflects what choice is open to them, not what choice they would prefer.

What I say is based on surveys in which parents are asked to say what they would like. There have been a number of such surveys and they all show that Catholic patronage is, overwhelmingly, the most popular choice.

Even the Department’s own consultation, which gave rise to the present proposal to transfer schools out of Catholic patronage, points to this. It didn’t directly ask parents what patronage they would like, given their choice (mainly because we already know the answer to this question). But it did ask other relevant questions from which we can draw conculsions. Over the 38 districts surveyed, only 35% of respondents felt that a wider choice of patronage than was already available to them needed be offered, and only 25% said they would avail of a wider choice, if offered. This suggestes that the bulk of people were happy with the patronage situation as it stands in which , as we know, 95% of schools are Catholic.

Now, if only 25% of the people say they will avail of a new patronage option if offered, it’s a safe bet that the numbers who will in reality choose to do so would be considerable lower, either because the new patronage, when offered, is not actually the one they want (out of the 25% who wanted a new patronage option, only 13% wanted the new patronage option to be an ET, for example), or because faced with the reality of moving little Sean and disrupting his friendship and social group they might easily decide, on balance, not to.

Obviously these are overall figures for the 38 districts surveyed; there will be differences between various districts, and between various schools. But, equally obviously, these figures point strongly to the likelihood that in the great bulk of schools the majority of parents are satisified with the current patronage and would not change it, if they could.

That’s not an argument for not changing the patronage in any school. It’s an argument for being realistic about the difficulties you will encounter when you do try to change the patronage.

ninja900 wrote: »

What's not to like about an ET?

Most self-proclaimed catholics don't go to church and don't believe in many or most of the main tenets of RCC faith. Do you really think they'll be the ones up in arms about their kids' school becoming an ET, where they can still prepare for the cultural catholic rituals if they want?

I can see the tiny minority of RCC ultras objecting all right, but most of them are too old to have schoolgoing kids...

No offence, Ninja, but I think this is based on wishful thinking on your part.

There’s abundant evidence from other countries that significant numbers of people who have a choice of school types and who are not practising Catholics (or, frequently, even nominal Catholics) nevertheless choose Catholic schools for their kids. I don’t see why you would discount the possibility that Irish parents might make that choice too. It may be your view that a Catholic school is not an appropriate or likely choice for any parent who is not a devout and practising Catholic, but I see no evidence (or likelihood) that it’s a widely-held view among the parents who will actually be making the choices.

The fact that Quinn indicates that he’s receiving significant blowback on this suggests, and that he seems unprepared for it suggests (a) that many parents do not hold the views you wish they would and, possibly, (b) that Quinn may have shared your unrealistic expectations about what formally-Catholic-but-not-terribly-devout parents would want.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

But all the Archbishop has to do is pick a school and then give the order to the RC supporters there to "stand down". If they are genuine adherents, they will obey their Archbishop. If they are not genuine, then they don't really have a case. They are simply being traditionalist/conservative. That is no basis for standing in the way of somebody else's right to an indoctrination-free education.

That’s nonsense on a stick with chocolate on top, recedite. We know that archbishops cannot effectively order their flocks to refrain from contraception or pre-marital sex or even to come to mass on Sunday; what make you think for a minute that he can tell them to choose a non-Catholic school for their kids? And the notion that anybody who doesn’t instantly obey an archiepiscopal edict loses the moral right to choose the kind of education their child should have is not going to find much traction with people who think.

As for “standing in the way” of the right of other parents to choose the (non-Catholic) education they want for their children, the problem here is basically nimbyism. “Yes, of course ET schools [or whatever] should be available for parents who want them and, yes, of course at present there is a disgraceful lack of choice. But that must not be remedied by changing my child’s school into an ET school, since neither I nor a majority of the parents here want an ET school for our children”.

This is a much easier problem to identify than to solve. But the archbishop isn’t creating it and the archbishop can’t make it go away, and blaming the archbishop for this is deflecting responsiblity from where it primarily lies.

recedite wrote: »

Instead, he gives puts out vague media soundbytes to convey the impression that he is in favour of divesting "some schools" somewhere, maybe in the next ten years or so. So the faithful seem to asssume that if they kick up a fuss, they will be rewarded for their loyalty, and some other school will be divested instead.

Are you making this up as you go along? In the real world, far from trying to put things off for ten years, the archbishop has been complaining about the slow progress in transferring patronage. He has his own compelling reasons for wanting it to happen fairly quickly (briefly, an acute and accelerating shortage of clergy; providing managers to 95% of the primary schools is not exactly his top resource allocation priority). He can’t wait ten years. He may think it will be ten years before he has offloaded half of the schools he has, but the present project deals with just a tiny fraction of that amount, and if this project stalls then his longer-term objective is up sh*t creek.

And your hypothesis that people who kick up a fuss do so because they expect a “reward” for their “loyalty” in opposing the archbishop’s objectives is incoherent, and it overlooks the more obvious possibility that they’re kicking up a fuss because they oppose a change in patronage.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

what make you think for a minute that he can tell them to choose a non-Catholic school for their kids?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying he should tell the parents of X school that the patronage will be changing, and that they are free to either remain with the school, or to move their child to alternative local school Y where enhanced RC "faith formation" will be on offer. He should make a clear statement to explain that any such decision to change the patronage has been made in conjunction with Dept. of Education, has his full support, and is irreversible.

Peregrinus

How would that help? There's no reason to expect the parents meekly to accept this (nor any reason why they should, come to think of it). And the notion that if the parents don;t take this lying down their argument in relation to the school their kids are already in loses all merit doesn't stand up to examination.

(By the way, does anyone know if the Dept has yet identified particular schools whose patronage is to be changed?)

kylith

recedite wrote: »

From the RTE link a few posts back;In an ideal situation, a five year lead-in period would probably be a fair way to go alright (especially if the notice had already been given a few years ago). What is more likely is that nothing will happen for the next couple of years, and then some school will get divested overnight without warning. As you said this was, and still is, a foreseeable problem. Yet nothing is being done to address it.

I think that the only way this could be done is to divest gradually, starting with the new intake of students; from Snr. Infants up it would be business as usual, with the secular education being limited to the Jr. Infants class. I think that to just suddenly change would upset a lot of parents so a gradual switch would be best. It might annoy some parents with an older child in the religious stream and the younger one in secular, but you can't please everyone.

Banbh

If the right to opt-out of religious instruction was made clearer, maybe by Ministerial instruction, then the divestment would be less important and non-Catholic parents wouldn't have such a struggle. Removing Catholic propaganda from Irish and English would also help.
Ironically, the insistence by most elements of the Catholic Church, of keeping all 'their' schools will hasten their demise as, instead of well-trained believers, they will be getting more and more a la carte Catholics until the whole menu is abandoned.

Benny_Cake

Banbh wrote: »

Removing Catholic propaganda from Irish and English would also help.

There's Catholic propaganda in the Irish and English curriculum now?

lazygal

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There's Catholic propaganda in the Irish and English curriculum now?

Every subject in a faith school is infused with dogma. Counting saints. Saints as gaeilge. Saints in history and geography. Try reading the archdiocese education programme for primary schools.

Knasher

Peregrinus wrote: »

Now, if only 25% of the people say they will avail of a new patronage option if offered, it’s a safe bet that the numbers who will in reality choose to do so would be considerable lower, either because the new patronage, when offered, is not actually the one they want (out of the 25% who wanted a new patronage option, only 13% wanted the new patronage option to be an ET, for example), or because faced with the reality of moving little Sean and disrupting his friendship and social group they might easily decide, on balance, not to.

You could also argue that the parents factored in the disruption to Sean when answering if they would avail of the new patronage, and that 25% felt strongly enough on the issue (at least in theory) that they would. You could also argue that parents who are sending children to school for the first time wouldn't be burdened with particular decision and a higher percentage might vote against RCC schools.

As I understand it, only parents who currently have children in the school were polled, and one would expect such a poll to be heavily biased towards maintaining the status quo.

norrie rugger

Keep reminding parents that 2 hours a day (or whatever) is being devoted away from Irish, English, Maths (or a foreign language/science/history etc.)

Those are extra hours that their kids are at a disadvantage in comparison to schools with no religion taught.

lazygal

Not to mention time lost on trips to masses. Saw our Catholic school going to the church today and it took at least an hour and a half out of the day. Time that could be better used elsewhere.

Banbh

My young fella was required to memorise sentences in Irish that would come in handy if an essay on the new pope came up in the Leaving Cert. They were of the puke-making type. He stayed home for the follow-up class.

Benny_Cake

Banbh wrote: »

My young fella was required to memorise sentences in Irish that would come in handy if an essay on the new pope came up in the Leaving Cert. They were of the puke-making type. He stayed home for the follow-up class.

Is a student of Leaving Cert age likely to be indoctrinated by some essay tips? With the greatest respect, there are major issues with school patronage but this smacks of over sensitivity.

recedite

I'm sure you are aware Benny, that teachers are trained in the training colleges to integrate religion throughout the school day, weaving it into every subject.

Peregrinus wrote: »

How would that help? There's no reason to expect the parents meekly to accept this (nor any reason why they should, come to think of it). And the notion that if the parents don;t take this lying down their argument in relation to the school their kids are already in loses all merit doesn't stand up to examination.
(By the way, does anyone know if the Dept has yet identified particular schools whose patronage is to be changed?)

AFAIK the only one at an advanced stage was handed over recently, and is in Basin Lane, and it was a disused former Christian Bros. school which was closed years ago after the traditional clientele went elsewhere, and the supply of brothers had dried up anyway.

Why wouldn't parents accept a joint decision by Dept. of Ed. and the Patron body? What else would they do? This is free education we are talking about, not something the parents are funding privately outside of the public sector.
You may as well go into a public hospital and complain that you're not happy with the trolley and you don't like the look of the doctor, he doesn't look a like a good christian.

Banbh

over sensitivity

I most certainly am over-sensitive and with good reason. The rights of non-religious parents and pupils are ignored regularly. It is only through constant vigilance that we have any rights at all.
Here are some other cliches that are the enemies of change: 'Ah sure what harm', 'don't be making a fuss over nothing', 'why can't you just go alone with them' etc etc.
I'll accept theirs when they accept mine.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

What I say is based on surveys in which parents are asked to say what they would like. There have been a number of such surveys and they all show that Catholic patronage is, overwhelmingly, the most popular choice.

Ah, yes, those surveys -

- Only carried out in a very limited number of areas.
- Dept of Education completely failed to publicise them effectively.
- Those parents who do go to mass were 'encouraged' from the pulpit to make the 'right' choice.

As I said - Most parents have simply not been asked and will not be asked. They have no means of expressing their preference. I live in an area with no choice, no new schools to be built and no survey. There will be no change here.

In any case, this is a question of rights not numbers. My children have a constitutional right to education without indoctrination (and YES I will use that word, for that is what it is) and they have no means of having this right vindicated on their behalf.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

. . . In any case, this is a question of rights not numbers. My children have a constitutional right to education without indoctrination (and YES I will use that word, for that is what it is) and they have no means of having this right vindicated on their behalf.

I'll completely agree with your last point. You are being denied your rights with respect to your children's education.

And I'll go a bit further; the only practical way this can be remedied is for some schools to switch away from Catholic patronage to meet the demand for other models of education and patronage. And this must happen. And the Minister must make it happen.

All I'm saying is that there is a practical difficult which we should recognise; most of the parents in most of the schools which might be switched away from Catholic patronage actually and genuinely want Catholic patronage. Any strategy which fails to recognise this reality and work out how to deal with it is going to come unstuck. The belief that most parents in Catholic schools would prefer it, or would be equally happy, if those schools were not Catholic schools is deluded, wishful thinking.

marienbad

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'll completely agree with your last point. You are being denied your rights with respect to your children's education.

And I'll go a bit further; the only practical way this can be remedied is for some schools to switch away from Catholic patronage to meet the demand for other models of education and patronage. And this must happen. And the Minister must make it happen.

All I'm saying is that there is a practical difficult which we should recognise; most of the parents in most of the schools which might be switched away from Catholic patronage actually and genuinely want Catholic patronage. Any strategy which fails to recognise this reality and work out how to deal with it is going to come unstuck. The belief that most parents in Catholic schools would prefer it, or would be equally happy, if those schools were not Catholic schools is deluded, wishful thinking.

This all true Peregrinus , but this is a problem the can only be solved by making some people unhappy.

I have to say I don't blame the minister too much ,no matter what the archbishop may say the catholic opposition to any change is total and organised ( certainly in my area -Midwest) . So he is left with no choice to go on a softly softly step by step approach before he can wave the big stick.

I thing the recent European judgement may turn out to be the catalyst needed

Peregrinus

marienbad wrote: »

This all true Peregrinus , but this is a problem the can only be solved by making some people unhappy.

Yes.

marienbad wrote: »

I have to say I don't blame the minister too much ,no matter what the archbishop may say the catholic opposition to any change is total and organised ( certainly in my area -Midwest) . So he is left with no choice to go on a softly softly step by step approach before he can wave the big stick.

It may be “total” and “organised”, but I think we have to accept that it’s grassroots - it’s not being organised by the archbishop. The totality and organisation is the result of the strength of people’s feelings. And, if we’re honest their feelings are understandable. Any approach to the problem which is in denial about these realities is very unlikely to succeed.

marienbad wrote: »

I think the recent European judgement may turn out to be the catalyst needed

For the reasons I discuss in the thread devoted to the subejct, I wouldn’t be wildly optimistic.

My gut feeling is that some kind of compromise/transition arrangement is likely to be more productive. Engage with parents and find out their particular and detailed concerns, and see if those can be addressed. If it’s sacramental preparation, for example, maybe the school could be secularised but for a transitional period space (in the school/in the timetable) could be made available for preparation for those whose parents wanted it. Maybe some kind of external chaplaincy arrangement can be put in place for ministering to kids whose parents want it. We should be willing to think outside the box a bit. Yes, some odd compromises may result (a secular school with a chaplain?) but the messy compromise that actually works is going to be a hundred times more useful than the pure and pristine ideal which is never realised. Especially if it’s a transitional compromise, for the benefit of parents who already have kids in the school, but to be withdrawn when those kids graduate upwards.

Peregrinus

Knasher wrote: »

You could also argue that the parents factored in the disruption to Sean when answering if they would avail of the new patronage, and that 25% felt strongly enough on the issue (at least in theory) that they would. You could also argue that parents who are sending children to school for the first time wouldn't be burdened with particular decision and a higher percentage might vote against RCC schools.

You could argue both of those things, but in the end arguments are irrelevant; facts are all that matter. If 25% say that they would take up a new patronage option, if offered, we shouldn't be surprised if, when it actually is offered, less than 25% actually take it up. There are any number of reasons why this might be so. And I'd go a little bit further; common sense and ordinary experience suggest that it's more likely than not that less than 25% will take it up.

The 25% figure is pretty rubbery; what it is is 25% of the survey population saying they would avail of a new patronage option when they do not know what that new patronage option is going to be and when we know (from further questions in the survey) that the 25% includes people who want quite a variety of different patronage options - ET, An Foras Patrunachta, the VEC, even in some cases another church.

Knasher wrote: »

As I understand it, only parents who currently have children in the school were polled, and one would expect such a poll to be heavily biased towards maintaining the status quo.

No - parents of children in primary school or below primary school age. And, as you'd expect, the parents of the kids below primary school age expressed a greater willingness to take up a new option, because (unless they have older kids already in school) they haven't made a commitment or connection with any of the existing options.

For the record, 33% of the parents of preschool kids said they would take up the wider choice, if offered, but only 22% of the parents of school age kids. 25% is the proportion across both groups. But in both cases we must read this with the caveats already mentioned; principally that they didn't know what the new option would be.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Why wouldn't parents accept a joint decision by Dept. of Ed. and the Patron body? What else would they do? This is free education we are talking about, not something the parents are funding privately outside of the public sector.

Because this is the school they chose for their children? They chose it for a reason? They like it the way it is? They feel an engagment with it? They think that as major stakeholders in the school their views should carry some weight?

You may think that as the recipients of free education they should shut up and meekly accept whatever charity that the Minister in his wisdom doles out to them, but it shouldn't astonish you if they don't feel the same way.

Besides, look at how strongly people on this board who want a non-religious eduction for their children feel, and how they express themselves. Would you tell them that they should accept the joint decision of the Dept and the Bishop that a particular school should be Catholic, and that they should shut uip whinging? And if you did tell them that, would you expect them to comply? And if they feel strongly about this subject, why would parents wanting some other educational model feel less strongly, or be more biddable?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if they feel strongly about this subject, why would parents wanting some other educational model feel less strongly, or be more biddable?

Because they would still have a choice. A choice which many non-religious parents currently do not have.

gaynorvader

Stop them all, it's not a right to have the state pay for teaching your religion , but it is your right to have the state pay for your education free from indoctrination.

swampgas

Maybe if the RCC were serious about divesting some schools, they would be pro-actively setting up some Sunday schools or evening classes where children could be indoctrinated and prepared for sacraments. That way parents who do want their children brought up RCC would have the option of sending their kids to non-RCC schools. Can't see it happening though.