School patronage

expectationlost

i suppose we can't blame the chairman of ET for saying we need more ET schools, but the original writer and the coutnry needs more non-religious schools not just more ET schools, and why do we need more private (but not private ) schools, make em state schools.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

Kind of ironic that atheists and agnostics will continue to be martyrs for their own cause, of ethics and morality, while faith schools will continue to ignore such considerations.

Religion is anti-morality as far as I can make out.

iguana

kylith wrote: »

I'd be livid if I had to send my child to a Catholic school because the local ET was full of Catholics.

I get this viewpoint and a part of me agrees with it as the whole schools set-up is so unfair to non-RCC in this country. However ET schools aren't just different from Catholic schools in that they are multi-d. ET schools don't have uniforms, students call teachers by their first names, classes are often smaller sizes, there is a (probably accurate) perception that they are more child centred than the national schools. Should RCC families be denied the option of offering their children what they believe is a nicer learning environment just because the schools they really don't want their children to be in share a religion with them?

Regardless of my (lack of) religious beliefs I find myself quite unwilling to dress my son in a mini-suit at 4 years of age and send him out to learn from someone who won't allow him to call them by their name. I just find it too bloody preposterous and do not believe it creates a good environment for real learning. I can see why RCC families want their children to go to ET schools and while it is infuriating that non-RCC (and non-CoI) children so often fail to get school places, it's also not the fault of the RCC parents who want their children to benefit from a slightly less structured school environment.

expectationlost

the new malahide school announced as part of 'divestment' is going to have to share with the swords ET school http://www.herald.ie/news/new-school-delayed-for-at-least-one-more-year-30090138.html

notafanofbanbh

Banbh wrote: »

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.

Preaching to the choir sister!
I just hope things will speed up soon

lazygal

http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/discrimination-in-education-1.1728262


Jim Stack says there's nothing wrong with discrimination.

kuro_man

That is, a small number of non-Catholic schools are viable, and will be provided by the State. No one, and certainly not the Catholic Church, has a problem with this. I am sorry that some citizens, in areas where demand for non-denominational education is low, cannot be accommodated, but it seems a bit extreme to infer from this that we are somehow failing as a republic. If the demand is there, this State will provide the bulk of the funding for schools that are non-denominational, faith-based or language-based. Is that not how a liberal democracy should work?

Actually, Jim, that exactly how it shouldn't work. Or perhaps he'd like non-catholics to give up their seat on the bus if a catholic wanted it?

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

the new malahide school announced as part of 'divestment' is going to have to share with the swords ET school http://www.herald.ie/news/new-school-delayed-for-at-least-one-more-year-30090138.html

It says in the article;

Ultimately, we hope to have a brand new school building in Malahide," he added. "The location has yet to be decided and will be a matter for the Department of Education."
He said the plan was to open one junior infants class in the Holywell school in September, but the number of classes would depend on the level of applications over the next few weeks.

And who is going to send their child to a school "whose location is yet to be decided"?
This is how the odds are stacked against the ET schools. Its not "divestment" at all. Its a significant "barrier to entry" that has been erected to stop them gaining pupils at the expense of existing local faith schools.

expectationlost

Two Catholic schools involved in landmark amalgamation to make room for Educuate Together http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/martin-welcomes-diversity-in-school-patronage-1.1745996

basin lane, that only took what ten years?

Delirium

Poll: Baptism and School Places over on Parent.ie

According to the current results, 4% of voters children were refused a place until the child was baptised.

Mark Hamill

SW wrote: »

Poll: Baptism and School Places over on Parent.ie

According to the current results, 4% of voters children were refused a place until the child was baptised.

According to those results ~20% of parents baptised specifically because it was their faith.
Then you have ~25% baptising because they felt they had to, ~6% baptising but not caring about having to do it for school entry, ~4% baptising because they actually had to and ~2.5% baptising, but it not end up being a factor.
So that's 20% of parents baptising for actual religious reasons vs nearly 40% of parents baptising purely for school admissions. :mad:

Obliq

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to those results ~20% of parents baptised specifically because it was their faith.
Then you have ~25% baptising because they felt they had to, ~6% baptising but not caring about having to do it for school entry, ~4% baptising because they actually had to and ~2.5% baptising, but it not end up being a factor.
So that's 20% of parents baptising for actual religious reasons vs nearly 40% of parents baptising purely for school admissions. :mad:

There's also a 20% "other", which I had to tick as there was no option for "No, but they got a place in a RCC school".

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

There's also a 20% "other", which I had to tick as there was no option for "No, but they got a place in a RCC school".

Yes, I'd have to say that the poll is fairly badly constructed. Not only is there no category for the (fairly significant) group to which Obliq belongs, but also several of the other categories overlap. It's entirely possible that someone would baptise their child for religious reasons, but also knowing that it was essential to get into the school of their choice, and none of this might bother them; which category are they supposed to tick? The poll also doesn't distinguish between parents who baptised to get into the particular school they wanted, and those who felt they had to baptise to get into the only feasible school. And there's no category for people who baptised their children but sent them to a non-Catholic school, which we know is quite a large group.

Knasher

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/louise-okeeffe-ruling-shows-irelands-school-patronage-system-is-unworkable-1394165-Apr2014/

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's entirely possible that someone would baptise their child for religious reasons, but also knowing that it was essential to get into the school of their choice, and none of this might bother them; which category are they supposed to tick?

Too obvious to tick the category labelled "I baptised my child because it's part of my faith"?

Peregrinus wrote: »

And there's no category for people who baptised their children but sent them to a non-Catholic school, which we know is quite a large group.

Again, too obvious to tick the category labelled "I baptised my child because it's part of my faith"? Also, considering the minority of non-Catholic schools, I don't see how we know that is a large group?

The poll is not very well constructed (and its an anonymous internet poll, so the results we do have are not very reliable), but it still gives a strong indication, imo, that most who baptise, do so for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

Hotblack Desiato

Ticked 'No, they went to or are going to a school of a religion other than Catholic'

Which sounds fine and dandy, but it's a CoI school so indoctrination is still enmeshed throughout the curriculum.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Too obvious to tick the category labelled "I baptised my child because it's part of my faith"?

Well, they could tick that category. Or they could tick the “felt I had no choice” box. Or the “not bothered” box. Or they could tick the “other” box, and add an explanation. Or not add an explanation. Or they could just not tick any box, on the basis that they see no point in participating in a survey that requires them to categorise themselves in a way so simplistic as to be misleading.

We’ve no idea how they do deal with the dilemma, and that alone is enough to make the survey pretty useless.

The fact that “other” is one of the most popular options chose - significantly more popular than the majority of the specific options - in fact is in itself a pretty strong indicator that the categories are not terribly well adapted to how people see their situation.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The poll is not very well constructed (and its an anonymous internet poll, so the results we do have are not very reliable), but it still gives a strong indication, imo, that most who baptise, do so for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs.

I think you should have stopped after the word “reliable”, Mark! If you were advancing the thesis that most people who baptise do so for reasons unconnected with their beliefs, and you offered this poll as evidence, you would be met with justified derision. This poll isn’t a “pretty strong indicator” of that, or anything else. It’s not designed to be, and it’s not intended to be. (The purpose of these polls is to cement a sense of identification between website visitors and the website. The results of the poll are irrelevant for that purpose, so no thought goes into poll design. As we can see very clearly in this case.)

If you actually wanted to measure how many people who baptised their children are motivated by religious beliefs to do so, first of all you’d need to rethink the options offered. This poll is really only interested in the connection between baptism and school admission; it appears not to have occurred to the designers that people might baptise for any other reason (because the child’s other parent is religious, for example, or because of wider family expectations, or because while not religious themselves they see value in a religious upbringing, or because they value baptism as a rite of passage, or for other cultural reasons). And the second thing you’d have to do is to allow people to tick all the reasons that apply, not just one reason, because the reality is that most people’s decisions about baptism are influenced by a number of independent considerations. And the third thing you’d have to do is not use a self-selected group of participants. Within those constraints, you could identify the percentage of baptisers who do not tick any reason connected with religion.

But until you do that (or someone does it for you) and you find 50% or more of baptisers tick no box connected with religious belief, you haven’t any evidence in support of the thesis that “most who baptise, do so for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs”. This poll is not a substitute for credible evidence.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, they could tick that category. Or they could tick ...

Your hypothetical was "someone would baptise their child for religious reasons, but also knowing that it was essential to get into the school of their choice, and none of this might bother them". If they were baptising for religious reasons, and they aren't bothered by it being essential for school, then "I baptised my child because it's part of my faith" is clearly the box to tick under that situation.

Peregrinus wrote: »

(because the child’s other parent is religious, for example, or because of wider family expectations, or because while not religious themselves they see value in a religious upbringing, or because they value baptism as a rite of passage, or for other cultural reasons).

If one parent is religious then the "I baptised my child because it's part of my faith" would apply. If family expectations were the reasons, then it would fall under "other". The number of people who would baptise into a religion different from their own is minuscule. And the people who do so purely for cultural reasons would choose "I baptised my child because it's part of my faith", because those people never recognise that they are only doing it for cultural reasons.

Look, the poll options are fairly simplistic, and more interesting results could have been observed if some better thought-out options where given. But the vast majority of people would fit into the options given, as long as someone doesn't go out of their way to over-think their situations.

Peregrinus

The vast majority of people would not bother to complete the poll, Mark, and I note that the results page gives us the percentage of respondents who picked each option, but it doesn't give us the percentage of visitors to the page who did not respond, which I think would be a telling statistic. Your assertion that people who fall into several categories would automatically pick the one that refers to religions is unsupported by any argument. Your suggestion that people would profess their spouse's religious beliefs as their own is just bizarre, but you are forced into it to avoid conceding the obvious point; the absence of a category for "I baptised my child because other family members wanted it and I deferred to them" is yet another flaw in this poll.

We both know that an internet poll of this kind is not intended as serious data-gathering exercise, and certainly cannot be treated as such. Your attempt to call it in aid of your thesis, far from creating the impression that you have credible evidence, creates the impression that you have none, because if you did you certainly wouldn't be relying on this.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The vast majority of people would not bother to complete the poll, Mark, and I note that the results page gives us the percentage of respondents who picked each option, but it doesn't give us the percentage of visitors to the page who did not respond, which I think would be a telling statistic.

Not really, I visited the page and I don't even have kids.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your assertion that people who fall into several categories would automatically pick the one that refers to religions is unsupported by any argument. Your suggestion that people would profess their spouse's religious beliefs as their own is just bizarre, but you are forced into it to avoid conceding the obvious point; the absence of a category for "I baptised my child because other family members wanted it and I deferred to them" is yet another flaw in this poll.

If someone baptised because it was their religious belief to (as your own example asserted) then them also knowing it would be necessary for school entrance is irrelevant - the reason they baptised is because of their faith so that is clearly the box they would tick.

Unless you want to assert that each parent should respond to the poll individually (thereby pointlessly doubling all the results), the box "I baptised my child because it's part of my faith" covers both or either parent wanting baptism for faith reasons. Admittedly, wording it as "I baptised my child because it's part of my and/or my partner's faith" may make it a bit clearer.

The option of baptising because of cultural or other familial influences, while an interesting observation, would still clearly fall under "other".

As I said already, the vast majority of people would fit into the options given, as long as someone doesn't go out of their way to over-think their situations.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We both know that an internet poll of this kind is not intended as serious data-gathering exercise, and certainly cannot be treated as such. Your attempt to call it in aid of your thesis, far from creating the impression that you have credible evidence, creates the impression that you have none, because if you did you certainly wouldn't be relying on this.

I am well aware how unreliable web polls are in terms of evidence. However, in the absence of any other evidence (and I'm all ears if you have any actual evidence), I see no reason to completely ignore it.

Peregrinus

The fact that reliable evidence is desirable doesn't mean that reliable evidence exists, or has been compiled. I think we should ignore this poll because it's not reliable evidence; its probative value is negligible. Your claim that it is a "strong indication" tells me more about your critical standards, and your willingness to assess evidence according to how well it fits the conclusion you want to draw rather than according to it's intrinsic credibility, than it does about the validity of your thesis.

As for me producing evidence, why? I'm not making any claim. I'm just making a critical evaluation of your claim. The onus to produce evidence in support of your claim is on you.

Turtwig

"Hey did you hear about this new drug? We conducted a shoddy clinical trial that suggests it's possibly safe but as you FDA* guys have no evidence from other trials you can't reject this trial. "

Thankfully that's not the way things works. That poll, while interesting, is too flawed to be held as a bastion in support or opposition to any thesis.

*EMA for you Euro lovers

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that reliable evidence is desirable doesn't mean that reliable evidence exists, or has been compiled. I think we should ignore this poll because it's not reliable evidence; its probative value is negligible. Your claim that it is a "strong indication" tells me more about your critical standards, and your willingness to assess evidence according to how well it fits the conclusion you want to draw rather than according to it's intrinsic credibility, than it does about the validity of your thesis.

As for me producing evidence, why? I'm not making any claim. I'm just making a critical evaluation of your claim. The onus to produce evidence in support of your claim is on you.

Hypotheses come from unreliable evidence, some observation or idea that needs testing to become a theory. I am claiming that the poll makes for a strong hypothesis (it is clear what it is saying and how we can test it properly) and am completely open to testing with any reliable evidence, hence me asking for some.

Bloe Joggs

In the case of my sister, she goes to a Presbyterian church now and sends her kids to an educate-together school since she's lucky enough to have one nearby but she still insists on doing all the communion, comfirmation rituals etc. So it's like she'd rather not send her kids to a catholic school because the idea scares her but still feels enough internal guilt to make sure they at least have a fighting chance of not ending up in hell. That is the kind of grip the RC still has my friends and how it really operates on the unconscious level. It will take generations to fix that.

Peregrinus

Does your sister agree with your assessment of her motivation, or would she offer a different account?

Bloe Joggs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does your sister agree with your assessment of her motivation, or would she offer a different account?

Rhetorical question of course.

When someone's been indoctrinated, they're hardly going to be consciously aware of that fact.

Peregrinus

Why not? Does indoctrination come with a side-order of amnesia?

Bloe Joggs

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why not? Does indoctrination come with a side-order of amnesia?

That's how indoctrination works. You flood someone with bs at an early enough age for long enough and it resides permanently in the brain. If you still consciously believe it, then you can hardly acknowledge that it was something you were indoctrinated in, otherwise you wouldn't believe it, realising you did believe it originally because of indoctrination. That's basic logic pal.

On the unconscious level, it's more complicated and old habits really do die hard. The church has evolved to take advantage of that.

I'm not going to play semantic tennis on this.

Peregrinus

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

That's how indoctrination works. You flood someone with bs at an early enough age for long enough and it resides permanently in the brain. If you still consciously believe it, then you can hardly acknowledge that it was something you were indoctrinated in, otherwise you wouldn't believe it, realising you did believe it originally because of indoctrination.

No. But you would believe it.


So, if you claim that your sister was indoctrinated to believe that it was necessary for her children to go through first communion and confirmation to avoid damnation, then she would in fact believe that it it was necessary for her children to go through first communion and confirmation to avoid damnation. And if we asked her why she was putting her children through first communion and confirmation, she would reply that it was necessary etc etc. She might not know that she was indoctrinated into that particular belief, but she would know that she held that belief. That’s how indoctrination works.

Yet you admit that, if we asked her why she was putting her children through first communion and confirmation, she would offer a different reason. That is not consistent with her having been indoctrinated into the belief that you say she has been indoctrinated into.

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

I'm not going to play semantic tennis on this.

Translation: “If my claims are challenged, I’m not going to defend them. And I’m trying to present this as a virtue.”

Bloe Joggs

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. But you would believe it.


So, if you claim that your sister was indoctrinated to believe that it was necessary for her children to go through first communion and confirmation to avoid damnation, then she would in fact believe that it it was necessary for her children to go through first communion and confirmation to avoid damnation. And if we asked her why she was putting her children through first communion and confirmation, she would reply that it was necessary etc etc. She might not know that she was indoctrinated into that particular belief, but she would know that she held that belief. That’s how indoctrination works.

Yet you admit that, if we asked her why she was putting her children through first communion and confirmation, she would offer a different reason. That is not consistent with her having been indoctrinated into the belief that you say she has been indoctrinated into.


Translation: “If my claims are challenged, I’m not going to defend them. And I’m trying to present this as a virtue.”

You quite conveniently left out the other bit.

As many psychologists will tell you, the underlying reasons for things buried in the deep unconscious don't manifest themselves outwardly in the same way. Presenting the idea of hell to kids, quite graphically as I remember it, can leave a deep mark which can manifest itself in any number of neuroses later on in life.