School patronage

Banbh

Good point Swampgas. Is the Bishop or any other part of the Church concession taking any steps to put their post-divestment alternative into place?

I suspect there will only be movement when the pay-master (us) threatens to reduce funding.

I Heart Internet

swampgas wrote: »

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.

I'm 100% supportive of parishes running sunday schools and classes - for kids AND adults.

But what you've outlined above isn't really what's envisaged and one does not necessarily mean the other.

The RCC is looking to divest patronage of SOME schools where there are several RCC schools in an area. The intention is that catholics could then send their kids to catholic ethos schools and people who want alternatives have them.

My point, I guess, is that Sunday Schools are not necessary for divestment.

I Heart Internet

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.

Sounds like an Irish teacher handing out useful exam tips to me. I'm sure the teacher in question would have translated something a bit more critical of the new Pope if your son asked.

What kind of "puke-making" stuff? The type of media froth doing the rounds now (Time/Rolling Stone, etc)?

If the Irish teacher also gave out a few sentences on other topical events, like the Winter Olypics, that's not gonna turn your kid into a downhill skier.

Banbh

The Irish teacher in question is also the 'religion' teacher and of course he deals with other subjects. He also helped them with an essay on Religion Today, in case it come up in the Leaving.

My point is the constant pressure on non-religious kids to conform, to accept religion. Religion plays no part in his life - on in the lives of his nominally-Catholic classmates. With just a couple of months to go he has the wisdom to see what is irrelevant and vote with his feet, skip these classes and study at home.

Me? I'm delighted.

I Heart Internet

Banbh wrote: »

The Irish teacher in question is also the 'religion' teacher and of course he deals with other subjects. He also helped them with an essay on Religion Today, in case it come up in the Leaving.

My point is the constant pressure on non-religious kids to conform, to accept religion. Religion plays no part in his life - on in the lives of his nominally-Catholic classmates. With just a couple of months to go he has the wisdom to see what is irrelevant and vote with his feet, skip these classes and study at home.

Me? I'm delighted.

What if the exam asks him to write an essay on "Religion Today"? It could be useful stuff.

In my day it was "Daoine Oige Na Linne Seo" (sp?) - "Young People Today". We lerned a lot of vocab and phrases around "na drugai" etc. I didn't take offence from it. Teachers try to cover as much possibilities as possible so that whatever comes up, students can write a half decent essay. You'd be surprised how easy it is to shoe-horn Pope Francis or religion into an essay on something else if you need to add a few hundred words.

Banbh

I do take offence. But then somebody has to or nothing would ever change.

Brian Shanahan

alaimacerc wrote: »

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?

Secular, the teachers to a woman hate the fact that they have to spend so much time indoctrinating the vast majority of their students (even the committed catlicks think that's properly a job for the priest), and the majority of the parents frankly don't give a **** about religion, as evidenced by the fact they (the majority) don't take their children to mass (well also by the fact that talking to any parent I know on how the school is run, they tell me that they want a secular education for their kids, they'd be pretty happy teaching their kids religion {or not} themselves).

Edit: sorry for late reply, lack of internets first, then lack of electricity.

alaimacerc

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

the majority of the parents frankly don't give a **** about religion, as evidenced by the fact they (the majority) don't take their children to mass

That's somewhat encouraging, at least. Here's hoping. I must admit I'm a but cynical about the "apathetic majority". They might give out now about RCC patronage, but I wonder if they might not be roused to conservative nimbyism if push came to shove.

Edit: sorry for late reply, lack of internets first, then lack of electricity.

Ouch! Storm D gecha?

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If the Irish teacher also gave out a few sentences on other topical events, like the Winter Olypics, that's not gonna turn your kid into a downhill skier.

Snerk.

Given the late-breaking "mote in they neighbour's eye" outrage in the West about Russian homophobia, a few sentences on the Sochi Olympics might attract the attention of Iona...

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The RCC is looking to divest patronage of SOME schools where there are several RCC schools in an area. The intention is that catholics could then send their kids to catholic ethos schools and people who want alternatives have them.

My point, I guess, is that Sunday Schools are not necessary for divestment.

They're not necessarily necessary, but they're not necessarily not necessary either. There may well be parents who do want 'Catholic religious formation', but that don't want it done on school curriculum time. On the basis that if they live in a religiously mixed area they might consider that a mixed community school is healthier, or that they can't want Catholic Maths, Catholic English, etc, as part of the "package".

However, that's likely moot, as the non-Catholics are going to be the ones keenest to leave, the soonest. Until that's well underway, I don't seriously expect the RCC (or any of the other churches, indeed) to bother their arses to make any other provision.

alaimacerc

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 strength of feelings likely falls on (some reasonable approximation to) a bell curve, and there's likely to be a large group in the middle that doesn't feel particularly strongly either way, for one thing.

I do agree with your point elsewhere that such apparent apathy might turn quickly with nimbyism, if roused. And that the enlightened compromise is to make provision for "mixed mode" ethos, especially transitionally.

Brian Shanahan

alaimacerc wrote: »

Ouch! Storm D gecha?

Arse end of it. We were fine until Friday when the power went early in the morning.

Peregrinus

ninja900 wrote: »

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

They've already made a choice, and organised their own lives, and their children's, on the basis of the choice they made. You should expect them to be seriously, seriously pissed if that choice is now withdrawn.

I'm not saying we shouldn't reassign school patronage; we should. I'm just saying that we should recognise and a great many people are going to feel badly done by when this happens, and not entirely without justification. And approaches to this that attempt to see it as the outcome of some conspiracy by sinister right-wing forces, or who think the problem will go away if you just Speak Loudly and Firmly to the parents concerned and Explain Things Clearly At An Age-Appropriate Level, are not very realistic.

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

Because strength of feelings likely falls on (some reasonable approximation to) a bell curve, and there's likely to be a large group in the middle that doesn't feel particularly strongly either way, for one thing.

I think it's probably true that, of those who want Catholic patronage, there is a bell-curve of strength of feeling on the subject. Similarly, of those who want ET patronage, there is a bell-curve of strength of feeling.

The thing is, though, in most (all?) of the schools that might be transferred, the Catholic bell is, all in all, a considerably bigger bell. At every point along the strength-of-feeling curve, there will probably be more Catholic-patronage fans than ET-patronage fans. That's a reality we have to cope with.

If you want to draw a different curve, with "strongly favours Catholic patronage" at one end and "strongly favours ET patronage at the other then, yes, that too will be a bell-curve. But it won't be a symmetrical bell-curve; the high point will not be in the middle where people are equally accepting of both patronages. We know from a variety of surveys and studies that the numbers with a prefererence for Catholic patronage considerably exceed the numbers with a preference for ET patronage. The median parent, therefore, is likelyto be on the Catholic side of this graph.




I do agree with your point elsewhere that such apparent apathy might turn quickly with nimbyism, if roused. And that the enlightened compromise is to make provision for "mixed mode" ethos, especially transitionally.[/QUOTE]

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The thing is, though, in most (all?) of the schools that might be transferred, the Catholic bell is, all in all, a considerably bigger bell. At every point along the strength-of-feeling curve, there will probably be more Catholic-patronage fans than ET-patronage fans. That's a reality we have to cope with..

You may be familiar with the history of Alabama's Governor Wallace whose infamous "stand in the schoolhouse door" to stop black students enrolling at Alabama University ended in failure.

The interesting point is that Wallace was only enforcing the state laws, and the democratically expressed wishes of the white majority. He had the state police to back him up, and for a while he had the Alabama National Guard.

President Kennedy then federalised the Alabama National Guard and sent in US federal marshals to override Wallaces policemen.
Kennedy was enforcing the constitutional rights of the minority, as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and the federal Republic.

Now, if we change a few references in your quote above, it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to a Wallace speech;

The democrat wrote:

The thing is, though, in most (all?) of the schools that might be integrated, the White bell is, all in all, a considerably bigger bell. At every point along the strength-of-feeling curve, there will probably be more Whites-only fans than integrated education fans. That's a reality we have to cope with..

Peregrinus

In my own defence, I have to say that my position is not at all analogous to Wallaces's. I'm pointing out that, in most schools which are to be transferred to new patrons, the transfer is likely to be unpopular with most of the parents. But I am not saying that, because of that, the transfer should not happen. On the contrary, I've said explicitly, more than once, that it should. My point is just that a strategy for effecting the transfer, if it is to succeed, has to address the reality that the transfer will be unpopular with parents. Wallace, by contrast, sought to block integration.

If the worst comes to the worst, could we transfer by the equivalent of federalising the National Guard? I.e, just going ahead and damn the opposition? Yes, we could, but I don't think that's the best outcome. And here's why:

The consultation undertaken by the Department sought to identify school districts in which there was sufficient demand to justify transferring one school to new patronage. "Sufficient demand" was defined, basically, as enough parents saying that they would take up the new option to result in a school of with least the minimum enrollment considered viable.

Setting the threshold of demand at the lowest possible level has the result of maximising the number of districts in which the need to transfer a school would be recognised, and I think that was a wise approach. But the flip side of this is that the viability of the transferred schools is pretty marginal. It crucially depends either on all the people who said they would take up the new option actually doing so or some of the people who didn't want to take up a new option nevertheless leaving their kids in the school under the new patronage arrangements. To be blunt, if some of the parents who said they wanted the new option don't take it up, and the parents who want to stay with Catholic patronage take their kids elsewhere, we end up with a school which is unviable. And of course that will put the kibosh on any thought of transferring more schools to non-Catholic patronage.

I've argued above that not all of the parents who expressed an interest in the new patronage option will, when the time comes, actually take it up, for a variety of practical reasons - the new school, although in their district, is inconveniently far away, little Johnny is happy where he is, etc, etc. My guess is that the Deparment reckoned that those parents would be more or less balanced by parents in the school concerned who didn't express an interest in new patronage neverhtheless deciding to leave their kids there, for similar reasons.

But the more sturm und drang there is over the switch in patronage, the more blood on the walls, the more there is a perception of something being rammed through, the less likely it is that parents who don't want the new patronage will choose to stay. For that reason it's important that the change happen with at least the assent of as many as possible in the school community; that everybody feels their concerns have been listened to and taken account of, and that as much as possible has been done to accommodate their concerns. Hence a bit of negotiation, compromise, transitional arrangements to ensure the school remains viable while a body of students who actually want non-religious patronage can be built up may be a very sound idea.

robindch

The protestant parents of a kid in a gaelscoil have been awarded 750 euro because they were "discriminated" against.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/parents-of-coi-pupil-awarded-750-over-son-s-discrimination-1.1694724

Anybody got a copy of the judgement? On a quick reading, this makes no sense since this kind of nonsense is exactly what the "Equality" Act permits.

Irish Times wrote:

Parents who complained of less-favourable treatment shown to their son by a Gaelscoil have been awarded €750 by the Equality Tribunal. The mother and father complained on behalf of the boy that he was discriminated against by the National School on religious grounds in contravention of Equal Status legislation. They claimed he received unfair treatment as he was of Church of Ireland faith and a majority of other pupils were of the Catholic faith.

The school informed the parents initially that the school was Interdenominational in ethos but that only Catholic and Church of Ireland faiths would be taught. They alleged that their son remained in class while a considerable amount of time was spent preparing Catholic children for First Communion. They later questioned why Catholic religious instruction was being offered and were told by the principal that as both faiths are 95 per cent the same, the education offered would be sufficient for both.

Their son did not attend the First Communion ceremony and the parents allege their son was treated less favourably by the school as a result and treated as if he had done something wrong. The boy did not attend Confirmation for the Catholic pupils at a later date and they alleged that the principal again treated their son less favourably though not in the same manner as before. In its written submission the school defended its ethos and practices and contradicted some of the claims made by the parents concerning the principal.

On the day of the hearing the chair of the board of management made an unreserved apology in relation to the alleged behaviour of the principal. The tribunal found that the boy had been treated less favourably and accepted the parents had produced prima facie evidence of discrimination. Its judgment records the fact that the parents’ daughter is also attending the school and no issues have arisen in relation to her treatment.

The tribunal awarded the sum of €750 to the parents and the school was ordered to review its policies and procedures to ensure they are in line with the provisions of the Equal Status Acts and that a notice to this effect is placed in a prominent position within the school.

gaynorvader

robindch wrote: »

The protestant parents of a kid in a gaelscoil have been awarded 750 euro because they were "discriminated" against.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/parents-of-coi-pupil-awarded-750-over-son-s-discrimination-1.1694724

Anybody got a copy of the judgement? On a quick reading, this makes no sense since this kind of nonsense is exactly what the "Equality" Act permits.

Only 750 quid?

recedite

Here's the full report and the reasoning involved in the decision.

Basically, the school principal seems to have been a complete pr**k about imposing his or her religion. He/she was caught out not because of religious discrimination in the admissions policy, or because of unwanted indoctrination, which are both allowed under our current "equality" legislation.
It was because the children who attended the first communion (outside school) were rewarded back at school with free homework passes, while those who did not attend were made to stand against a wall and given "angry looks". This then progressed to "bullying and exclusion of their children whereby he would greet the child beside their child in a friendly manner and he would completely ignore their children".

A few other interesting aspects to this case;

1. The Principal is now on "administrative leave." Whats that? A long holiday on full pay? Happy days for this bullying religious zealot :mad:

2. In another episode at the school, when some deceased person had left money to the school in their will, the Principal apparently formed a mini-committee with the two local priests, RC and COI, which committee decided to spend the money on elaborate crosses and prayer books to be put on prominent display in special cabinets.

3. The principal felt that those children who attended the Saturday morning communion should be rewarded, because they had missed out on other activities such as swimming lessons.
He does not feel the need to explain why religious observance is more important than knowing how to swim. Lets hope that if he ever finds himself in difficulty in the water, that there is a qualified lifeguard watching over him and not just somebody on the beach praying for his deliverance.

4. There was another child in the same class who did not attend the communion, and presumably this child was neither RC nor COI. The parents can presumably ask for their €750 now.

5. The chairperson of the BOM stated to the Equality Officer that...

the school has changed its procedures and pupils are not obliged to attend rehearsals for the sacraments. If a pupil does not want to avail of the sacraments, s/he is facilitated to remain in the school and engage in reading or other project work which is supervised in another class.

Although this seems to be only because they were rattled by the Equality Tribunal investigation and wanted to impress, rather than actually being compelled to do it.

All in all, I'd say this is a good result. It will make other school principals and BOMs think a bit more carefully about their existing policies.

recedite

BTW I say our "current" equality legislation because IMO when the State pays for a faith school to practice "faith formation" or religious indoctrination during school hours, and where there is no provision of an alternative local school with a secular ethos, it violates protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights; at the end of this document

Protocols

1. Enforcement of certain Rights and Freedoms not included in Section I of the Convention

The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the Council of Europe,
Being resolved to take steps to ensure the collective enforcement of certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in Section I of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4th November, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Convention'),
Have agreed as follows.....
ARTICLE 2

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.

And secondly the legislation is repugnant to the Constitution of Ireland, which does allow the State to give "reasonable aid" in support of the private faith schools ("private and corporate educational initiative") which are practicing the faith formation, but only in situations where parental choice exists;

Article 42
1. The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3. 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
5. In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

And when the State produces "equality" legislation that allows priority to be given in the admission policy (in a school it is funding) for the members of one particular religious group, it violates the Constitution;

Personal Rights
Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

Its just a matter of time (and money) IMO before the exemption granted to faith schools from normal equality legislation under the current equal status act legislation is cracked wide open and consigned to the dustbin of history.

Banbh

Great post Recedite. You've given me a glimmer of hope. Do you know if anyone is taking legal action, so I can send them a few euro?

recedite

I think only Michael Nugent has the qualities required for this great quest.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want to draw a different curve, with "strongly favours Catholic patronage" at one end and "strongly favours ET patronage at the other then, yes, that too will be a bell-curve.

No, that's the curve I meant in the first instance.

But it won't be a symmetrical bell-curve; the high point will not be in the middle where people are equally accepting of both patronages.

If it's not symmetrical, it's not much of a bell curve. But let's not bandy skew and kurtosis of of normal distributions, I think I get your point. The mean person is likely on the "Catholic" side -- or perhaps more accurately the "nimbyist opposition to any sort of change" one -- but not very far over. It will make a difference whether the hierarchy are mostly silent in their "support" for this process, and allegedly fulminating against it in sermons at the "grass roots" level.

expectationlost

In accordance with the provisions of the Acts, I award the sum of €750 in respect of the effects of the discriminatory treatment.

http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/en/Cases/2014/January/DEC-S2014-001.html

is there a limit of the amount of compensation

(2) The maximum amount which may be ordered by the Director by way of compensation under subsection (1)(a) shall be the maximum amount that could be awarded by the District Court in civil cases in contract.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0008/sec0027.html#sec27

not more than €6,350

http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/pagecurrent/10646F81427562D480256DA9004139B7?opendocument

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

If it's not symmetrical, it's not much of a bell curve. But let's not bandy skew and kurtosis of of normal distributions, I think I get your point. The mean person is likely on the "Catholic" side -- or perhaps more accurately the "nimbyist opposition to any sort of change" one -- but not very far over. It will make a difference whether the hierarchy are mostly silent in their "support" for this process, and allegedly fulminating against it in sermons at the "grass roots" level.

Um. I think your views that the mean person will be "not very far" from the centre, and that the mean is affected more by nimbyism than by a preference for Catholic patronage may both be the product more of wishful thinking that of actually considering the evidence.

The evidence we have is that lots of people do actively want Catholic patronage - in most places, far more than the number of people who actively want any other kind (or even all other kinds) of patronage. Even the Department's own consultation on this, which really only focussed on the preferences of those who wanted a change, showed that (a) most parents were happy with the status quo, and (b) most of them had a preference for Catholic patronage. The notion that there's a huge groundswell of (a) demand for secular patronage, or (b) dissatisfaction with Catholic patronage which is being concealed and held back by the rigidities of the system is just not borne out by any evidence. Yes, there is certainly much more demand for non-Catholic patronage than there are non-Catholic places available, but in almost all areas it's still a minority demand, and the preference for Catholic patronage exceeds it, and therefore the odds are than in any particular school a switch away from Catholic patronage will be contrary to the wishes of the majority of the parents. And I see no evidence at all that this is becuase of the "silence" of the bishop, or because of any bishop "fulminating" about this in sermons.

(In fact, I see no evidence at all that any bishop has preached against this. Unsupported allegations and assumptions, yes. Evidence, or even colourable detail, no.)

Peregrinus

Expectationlost: €750 is pretty modest compensation compared to what is possible, or to what is commonly awarded. And the judgment gives no clue as to what considerations influenced the Equality Officer in arriving at that amount. But couple of possibilities occur to me:

- Neither the child nor the parents suffered any financial loss, so a substantial financial award wasn't needed to compensate them for that.

- Possibly - a wild guess on my part - the claimants made it clear that they weren't looking for money, but an acknowledgement of injustice and a commitment to change.

- In the course of the proceedings the school representatives had accepted the justice of the parents' complaint, had apologised, and had already changed some procedures and undertaken processes to review and change others, and the Equality Officer accepted that this was happening.

In other words, I don't think the modest compensation awarded means that the Equality Officer thought the harm done was trivial. I think it means that the redress needed was not primarily financial.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fact, I see no evidence at all that any bishop has preached against this.

I didn't say that. I thought I was rather explicit in saying that all-but-one-bishop were silent in what you were representing as their "support" for this process. There have been claims that PPs are opposing such, in this very thread. I have no evidence either way as to the truth of these. (Though googling in a half-hearted attempt at finding some, top hit is... Clare Bishop opposing disvesting any of "his" schools. Who'd have thunk it.)

Banbh

Maybe non-religious parents should also make complaints to the Equality Tribunal. From what I read here nearly all of us have similar tales of discrimination to tell.

Being obliged to attend Mass and other religious services, being obliged to sit in a religious instruction class, being obliged to attend where 'preparation' for religious ceremonies are going on, being obliged to watch videos of an explicitly religious nature...

Peregrinus

Banbh wrote: »

Maybe non-religious parents should also make complaints to the Equality Tribunal. From what I read here nearly all of us have similar tales of discrimination to tell.

Being obliged to attend Mass and other religious services, being obliged to sit in a religious instruction class, being obliged to attend where 'preparation' for religious ceremonies are going on, being obliged to watch videos of an explicitly religious nature...

Perhaps, yes, more parents should make complaints to the Equality Tribunal.

In this particular case the school wasn't under Catholic patronage (it was under the patronage of An Foras Patrunachta, which is a secular body) and it was explicitly multidenominational.

But most of the problems that you are thinking of arise in schools which are under Catholic patronage (mainly because nearly all schools are under Catholic patronage). There is an exception in the Equal Status Act to cover the case of schools which seek to maintain a particular religious ethos. We need a test case to establish whether that exception would protect a Catholic school which behaved as the AFP school in this case behaved.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that it would not. The exception allows religious schools to take religion into account in their admission decisions. But once a student is admitted, he has the same protection against discrimination as every other student, regardless of his religion, or lack of it. So if he was punished for not participating in sacramental preparation, or not attending church services, or whatever, I can't see that the school would have any defence.

Banbh

Very informative. In our case, and as a result of vigilant parenting, most discrimination was dealt with as it arose but there are those who have had more serious complaints both here and on the Atheist Ireland forum, (when it was running). I hope there will be more such cases.