School patronage

expectationlost

Obliq wrote: »

First off, that's unworkable. I am in just such a community - well, the overwhelming majority of kids in the school are RC, and there's under 50 in the school. The neighbouring village has a much more marginal percentage difference.

When I sent my kids to the local school, it was very uncommon for blow-ins to send their kids there, and the next village looked much better to most as there were more people there who hadn't had a rural upbringing and therefore they had more in common from the outset, not least that many were not religious.

Now, from a city perspective, it might be thought that the obvious thing to do is make the other village into a secular school (that's one common perspective) and abandon the more RCC school to the RC people. Fact is that I can see how unworkable the divide would be, especially in the way you suggest (through boycotting).

The small school in my village (that people were actually driving past to go to the other one) was losing out places to the overcrowded and divisively elitist school, but I wanted my kids to know the kids in this village and I wanted to know the people. Since then, my school has made a massive turn around in management and communication with parents over the last 10 years. More and more "blow-ins" are preferring to send the kids there as although the RCC influence remains, the attitude of the school towards staying alive in a tiny community, with the backing of the entire community is really attractive, as are the staff. It would be a crime against an entire area to boycott such a school.

Baby steps. That's all that can happen in these rural areas, if you plan on staying the rest of your life here (or a sizeable part of it). An integrated community means much more than the smaller issue of my kids (like so many in the country) sitting out religion class and the like. I mean, when people of other religions and none start to settle in an RCC based community, if we don't integrate then the cohesion of the community is screwed. By integration, I mean knowing everyone here having met them all at the school gates and the pub, at the PA meetings and at the pitch (just not in church).

I've been here 20 years, my kids have nearly left the primary school and I've only just approached the issue with the PA (there were some other issues with the school that were more important). You might be interested to know that it came as a big surprise to my friends that their faith formation during school hours is not on the curriculum. It also came as a complete head's up to realise that this is an issue that won't go away, is gaining traction and they're going to need a plan of action - one that they all suggested and agreed would be about inclusivity. I bolded the "friends" word because if I had boycotted them, I wouldn't have made any here.

As for your sentence above, I completely agree with you. However, let's go gently eh? These are my friends and I'll be putting that sentence in a much more diplomatic way

interesting post but this is why its so hard to see what going on I can't really follow it, i don't know what school your talking about, nobody will name names.

its impossible to follow it area by area, that why we need a dept of education steering things and creating policy at a regional and national level.

Obliq

expectationlost wrote: »

interesting post but this is why its so hard to see what going on I can't really follow it, i don't know what school your talking about, nobody will name names.

its impossible to follow it area by area, that why we need a dept of education steering things and creating policy at a regional and national level.

Well, that's true. It's no use the minister saying "it's the communities wat are standing in the way of progression" when to my knowledge there are no directives yet handed down to Boards of Management of these rural schools.

There's no need for me to name the school, or the area - this is common throughout the country with varying degrees of inclusivity and communication in all schools. Some schools have a massive divisiveness between BOM and PA, some have divisiveness between parents and PA (often the PA is made up almost exclusively by the "blow-ins", as small town politics often put off the locals from standing up to be counted). Some schools have no PA at all, and rely solely on the Parent's representative within the BOM. Some schools kowtow to the priest who heads up the BOM, some find him surprisingly accommodating. Most priests will take their lead from the relevant Bishop and will defer to him about any changes.

Unless some structure is offered from policy, most schools will have great difficulty even bringing this issue to the table, never mind actively bringing about changes that the parents may agree to.

expectationlost

Obliq wrote: »

Well, that's true. It's no use the minister saying "it's the communities wat are standing in the way of progression" when to my knowledge there are no directives yet handed down to Boards of Management of these rural schools.

There's no need for me to name the school, or the area - this is common throughout the country with varying degrees of inclusivity and communication in all schools.

im not really looking for your to name names but I do think you need named examples of something in order to suggest a policy, rather then having the minister of education wave vaguely at something and the bishop wave vaguely back.

Obliq

expectationlost wrote: »

im not really looking for your to name names but I do think you need real examples of something in order to implement a policy, rather then having the minister of education gesture at something and the bishop geture back.

Quite right, and I remember that last year the dept. of ed. was interested in hearing from schools who had managed to implement an inclusive policy towards all religions and none, although RCC. I am hoping my school will become an example, if only to strengthen it's position as one to keep open. It'll be a bit of a hill to climb though, even with such a good level of communication within the structure. The Bishop will be a good bit less accommodating than others (he's well known for it) and traditionally, people here haven't wanted me to approach him (re other issues).

The gestures between the powers that be are really only informing us of how much of a balancing act any policy will be.

recedite

Obliq wrote: »

I mean, when people of other religions and none start to settle in an RCC based community, if we don't integrate then the cohesion of the community is screwed. By integration, I mean knowing everyone here having met them all at the school gates and the pub, at the PA meetings and at the pitch (just not in church).

I am familiar with the kind of community you describe. The problem is that "integration" from their perspective means "to conform and to be gradually absorbed". If you don't go to mass, you miss out on all the general community announcements that are communicated to the priest by the community and then relayed to the congregation on a sunday morning. Usually the church has also "integrated" itself into the local community centre, GAA club and primary school.

Now when I say "boycott" I do not mean walking around with placards or doing anything hostile. I mean simply to work towards alternative community structures which are secular or neutral in their religious ethos. I fully realise that in a very small community, there won't be enough people to allow a second school to open. So I take your point that you may prefer to blend in with the existing local structures rather than travel to the next town and support some more like minded people there. And that is a perfectly valid choice. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the BOM in your local school will change its policies voluntarily. It is firmly under the control of the RCC. The fact that your kids have almost left the school and you are only just broaching the issue of the "attempted indoctrination" with them now indicates that nothing will change. How many like minded parents came before you experiencing the exact same circumstances, and thought that they had made some progress just before their kids left? And how many will come after you? The cycle just goes on and on, unless people make an effort to break it.

I'm all in favour of community cohesion, but it is unfair when the local shaman is placed at the centre of it, and full acceptance within the community requires submission to his religion.

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

I am familiar with the kind of community you describe. The problem is that "integration" from their perspective means "to conform and to be gradually absorbed". If you don't go to mass, you miss out on all the general community announcements that are communicated to the priest by the community and then relayed to the congregation on a sunday morning. Usually the church has also "integrated" itself into the local community centre, GAA club and primary school.

That's not true at all. Most people in my area welcome the broadening diversity of their population as they've got used to it. 20 years ago it was a different story, that's for sure, but you can't expect people to accept change unless they can actually see (over a period of time) how their traditional practices are causing any difficulties for their new friends and community members. It used to be the case that the parish newsletter was on a table to be picked up at mass, and nowhere else. Now we have a village newsletter in the shops. Give them a chance. People are nice.

Now when I say "boycott" I do not mean walking around with placards or doing anything hostile. I mean simply to work towards alternative community structures which are secular or neutral in their religious ethos. I fully realise that in a very small community, there won't be enough people to allow a second school to open. So I take your point that you may prefer to blend in with the existing local structures rather than travel to the next town and support some more like minded people there. And that is a perfectly valid choice. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the BOM in your local school will change its policies voluntarily. It is firmly under the control of the RCC. The fact that your kids have almost left the school and you are only just broaching the issue of the "attempted indoctrination" with them now indicates that nothing will change. How many like minded parents came before you experiencing the exact same circumstances, and thought that they had made some progress just before their kids left? And how many will come after you? The cycle just goes on and on, unless people make an effort to break it.

I'm all in favour of community cohesion, but it is unfair when the local shaman is placed at the centre of it, and full acceptance within the community requires submission to his religion.

No, no it doesn't. It means there were more important issues to deal with, such as the actual survival of a small school. How many like-minded parents came before me? Many (all, bar me moving their kids to the next school), and they made no progress because they were not me and perhaps the time wasn't right for the changes I brought about.

Anyone reading this from my area now will readily identify me, but I quickly helped set up a PA, became chairperson the following year and talked to people. A lot. I was Parent Rep on the BOM a few years later. The school has been transformed from the fairly parochial outlook it had, with massive communication/discipline problems and issues with parents taking their children out rather than speak up. The issue of religious domination was the least of our worries.

It's current outlook is totally child-centred, it has expanded it's premises (due to demand) with massive community support (in the first years I was chair, we raised and spent 25,000 on refurbishment) and the hard working and dedicated PA now consists of a broad spectrum of parents both local and blow-in, new and old. They have recently opened a suggestion box, which is where I shall be placing my carefully worded proposal, having fielded the response beforehand. As you don't know me, or how seriously I am taken, or how responsive the school/community is, you have made a number of assumptions there that don't hold water.

As a result of the changes that I helped (instigated, tbh) bring about, like-minded parents to myself are now coming to the school as it's reputation locally is fantastic, and they're staying and getting involved. I'm no longer on the PA at all (other commitments), but it has carried on with the level of communication I'd expect from any inclusive school. I have no doubt they'll tackle this (at their own speed) and will appreciate my input.

But yes, the local "shamen" is the issue here, which will require sensitivity and a diplomatic and reasoned approach, not an adversarial one. The school wouldn't have got to where it is without mediation, and that's what I'm good at (believe it or not ).

Edit: The timing is now right for this, as it's being bandied about at policy/church level and the BOM will be hit from all sides pretty soon - the dept. with a demand for a plan of action (hopefully) and the Bishop with a demand to dig the heels in (probably). The school will be well advised (by me) to tackle this before it does become adversarial.

recedite

I applaud all your efforts, and it sounds like they are lucky to have you there. All I'm saying is that if you intend to change the ethos of a school and its religious practices, from the inside, you will need;
(a) a majority of the parents onside, and
(b) agreement by the local priest and the church.
In a lot of cases this combination would be so difficult to achieve that people would be better off concentrating their efforts on trying to set up a brand new school elsewhere.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

I applaud all your efforts, and it sounds like they are lucky to have you there. All I'm saying is that if you intend to change the ethos of a school and its religious practices, from the inside, you will need;
(a) a majority of the parents onside, and
(b) agreement by the local priest and the church.
In a lot of cases this combination would be so difficult to achieve that people would be better off concentrating their efforts on trying to set up a brand new school elsewhere.

b) will be significantly harder than a). Most parents will listen to sense when you talk to them rationally, and to be honest most parents aren't really interested in "faith formation" anyway. But the priests know the only way they have left to get their hooks into the little Johnnies and Janes of this world is to indoctrinate them with their lies before they children develop the critical faculties to rubbish them.

recedite

Right, but the RCC have signalled their willingness to withdraw into a smaller number of schools, but with a stronger religious ethos. In that situation the indoctrination can take place unopposed, as it used to take place decades ago. That is why Diarmuid Martin has been making the noises recently.
This does not suit the majority of "religious" parents, who prefer a more "a la carte" approach to religion. They still want their local school to be nominally religious, but not too religious, and they won't give that up.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Right, but the RCC have signalled their willingness to withdraw into a smaller number of schools, but with a stronger religious ethos. In that situation the indoctrination can take place unopposed, as it used to take place decades ago. That is why Diarmuid Martin has been making the noises recently.
This does not suit the majority of "religious" parents, who prefer a more "a la carte" approach to religion. They still want their local school to be nominally religious, but not too religious, and they won't give that up.

Diarmuid Martin has been making the right noises but what about Bishop Leo O'Reilly who's in charge of education for the catholic church http://www.catholicbishops.ie/bishops/bishop-leo-oreilly/ don't think hes of the same mindset

Obliq

recedite wrote: »

I applaud all your efforts, and it sounds like they are lucky to have you there. All I'm saying is that if you intend to change the ethos of a school and its religious practices, from the inside, you will need;
(a) a majority of the parents onside, and
(b) agreement by the local priest and the church.
In a lot of cases this combination would be so difficult to achieve that people would be better off concentrating their efforts on trying to set up a brand new school elsewhere.

I'm not looking for a fully secular school here (well, I'd like it, but that's not realistic). A baby step in the right direction is to have all pupils treated fairly and equally whatever their religious beliefs even in an RCC school. That is something parents can get behind and the priest would have a hard time saying no to in the light of Diarmuid Martin's/dept. of ed. pronouncements. But I totally agree that in a lot of cases the existence of established communication problems will be a massive hindrance. Mediation is the only way forward - we had a fantastic mediator co-funded by the INTO and the CSPMA (I think).

recedite wrote: »

Right, but the RCC have signalled their willingness to withdraw into a smaller number of schools, but with a stronger religious ethos. In that situation the indoctrination can take place unopposed, as it used to take place decades ago. That is why Diarmuid Martin has been making the noises recently.

Which would be disastrous for small communities, and is why the least worst solution for now is to demand more inclusivity within an RCC school, while they keep their catholic ethos (albeit with a problematic timetabling and supervision problem).

This does not suit the majority of "religious" parents, who prefer a more "a la carte" approach to religion. They still want their local school to be nominally religious, but not too religious, and they won't give that up.

That's actually our strongest argument to parents. Obviously, the sacraments being taught outside of school will be the hardest sell to the parents, but the alternative being the separation of children around villages into more hardline v secular schools would be particularly unattractive to most, I reckon.

Banbh

We have been led a merry dance on the patronage issue by Diarmuid Martin and Ruairi Quinn. There will be no change - apart from the Catholic Church 'divesting' a couple of 'immigrant' schools in areas where its influence has been effectively lost.

The parents aren't going to rock the boat, even if they wanted to, and the State isn't going to say 'boo' to the Catholic Church, even with a Minister for Education who is nominally in favour a more pluralist system.

I am now of the opinion that the best tactic for us non-religious parents is to press for religion to be moved to the end of the school day.

Obliq

Banbh wrote: »

I am now of the opinion that the best tactic for us non-religious parents is to press for religion to be moved to the end of the school day.

I agree, but I'd rather that the non RC children were actually taught about other religions/none during religion class. I think it's totally unfair to expect non RC parents to collect their children early in order to facilitate the lack of supervision/sitting out classes. However, I see your point. It's possibly the only tactic we can win for now, and relatively easy from a policy directive point of view.

lazygal

I've said it before but the teaching unions also need to grow a pair on this one too. They effectively maintain a system where their members can be discriminated against and loose their jobs for not conforming to the 'ethos' of a school in the vast majority of state funded schools. Their members also actively or passively facilitate the indoctrination of the majority of the state's children on behalf of private enterprises. Yet not once have I heard a union leader flag the gross inequality of this system for the members of the unions. They're quick enough to whinge about pay and working conditions, yet they haven't uttered a peep on the repeal of the sections of the equality legislation allowing their members to be fired for being gay, or pregnant outside marriage, or not in line with other bits of ethos. Someone said it should be like the smoking ban. This isn't about the rights of children to be prepared for sacraments and indoctrinated in state funded schools. Rather, it is about the rights of professional state paid teachers to not have to have the sword of ethos hanging over their heads while doing their work.

expectationlost

lazygal wrote: »

I've said it before but the teaching unions also need to grow a pair on this one too. They effectively maintain a system where their members can be discriminated against and loose their jobs for not conforming to the 'ethos' of a school in the vast majority of state funded schools. Their members also actively or passively facilitate the indoctrination of the majority of the state's children on behalf of private enterprises. Yet not once have I heard a union leader flag the gross inequality of this system for the members of the unions. They're quick enough to whinge about pay and working conditions, yet they haven't uttered a peep on the repeal of the sections of the equality legislation allowing their members to be fired for being gay, or pregnant outside marriage, or not in line with other bits of ethos. Someone said it should be like the smoking ban. This isn't about the rights of children to be prepared for sacraments and indoctrinated in state funded schools. Rather, it is about the rights of professional state paid teachers to not have to have the sword of ethos hanging over their heads while doing their work.

*cough* http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/12/irish-gay-teachers-amendment-does-not-go-far-enough-to-protect-against-discrimination/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Pinknews+%28Pink+News%29

Sheila Nunan, head of INTO, told the Irish Independent: “Amending a bad law does not change it. Section 37.1 causes real anxiety to teachers whose family status, sexual orientation or gender identity may be perceived as being in conflict with (a school’s) ethos.
“People of non-faith and minority religious backgrounds, and LGBT people should not be deterred from taking up employment as teachers.”

lazygal

And what have the unions done to change the law? You can bet if there was a rule introduced tomorrow that every teacher had to have higher level maths to remain a teacher there'd be a mass walkout. I haven't heard a peep in terms of actual lobbying on this issue.

expectationlost

lazygal wrote: »

And what have the unions done to change the law? You can bet if there was a rule introduced tomorrow that every teacher had to have higher level maths to remain a teacher there'd be a mass walkout. I haven't heard a peep in terms of actual lobbying on this issue.

maybe cos you havn't looked lazy gal

INTO Submissions
Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2011

INTO submission in relation to a proposed amendment to Section 37.1 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 and 2011

Date: November 2013
http://www.into.ie/ROI/InfoforTeachers/TeacherSpecialInterestGroups/LesbianGayBisexualTransgenderTeachersGroup/Section371/INTOSubmissions/

no motion at 2014 congress afaic http://www.into.ie/ROI/NewsEvents/Conferences/AnnualCongress/AnnualCongress2014/

expectationlost

Representatives from the ASTI and TUI also addressed a briefing session on the Bill for Members in Leinster House and urged Members to support it.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2012/05/02/00007.asp


Campaign for equality
MAIRE MULCAHY on the ASTI’s long campaign for an overhaul of Section 37 of the Employment Equality Act.
http://www.asti.ie/uploads/media/Final_March_2013.pdf page 16

http://www.asti.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Events/Convention_2014/Motions_adopted_at_Convention_2014.pdf no motion passed on the issue in 2014

Hotblack Desiato

Interesting that they (appear to be, anyway) only looking at this from the LGBT angle. They are cowards, if they were really so concerned about LGBT rights they should have been protesting this 20 or 30 years ago, not now when full legal equality for gay people is just around the corner.

It seems forced indoctrination and having to have a religious certificate to get a teaching job in almost all primary schools is just fine with them.

expectationlost

ninja900 wrote: »

Interesting that they (appear to be, anyway) only looking at this from the LGBT angle.

*cough* http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/12/irish-gay-teachers-amendment-does-not-go-far-enough-to-protect-against-discrimination/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Pinknews+%28Pink+News%29

Sheila Nunan, head of INTO, told the Irish Independent: “Amending a bad law does not change it. Section 37.1 causes real anxiety to teachers whose family status, sexual orientation or gender identity may be perceived as being in conflict with (a school’s) ethos.
“People of non-faith and minority religious backgrounds, and LGBT people should not be deterred from taking up employment as teachers.”

which is why i quoted this particular statement above

expectationlost

ICTU Congress submission to Equality and Human Rights Commission on Section 37 of EEA http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/congress_submission_on_proposed_amendment_to_section_37.pdf

expectationlost

TUI

To wide support, delegate Patrick Hogan called on the Minister to immediately repeal section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts, which could allow a school to fire or refuse to hire an LGBT teacher if his or her sexual orientation was seen as conflicting with the school’s ethos. He said this has been promised by Mr Quinn since he took up office, but the pace of change was proving glacial.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/tui-signals-wage-claim-as-economy-recovers-1.1770478

Banbh

I agree with Lazygal that the teachers' unions need to 'grow a pair' - I presume that means a pair of ovaries. The teachers' unions are compliant in the whole Catholic Church/Dept of Education consensus.

They facilitate the indoctrination and the monopoly of the teacher-training colleges and fail to create a space for non-religious teachers to keep their jobs when they come out as non-religious.

There are one or two exceptions, fighting the good fight but until faced with a choice of going home an hour early or staying for the religious class, neither teachers or parents are going to face up to the issue.

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

*cough* http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/12/irish-gay-teachers-amendment-does-not-go-far-enough-to-protect-against-discrimination/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Pinknews+%28Pink+News%29


which is why i quoted this particular statement above

Oops overlooked that good. But the vast majority of media coverage here is exclusively on the LGBT angle. Interesting that that's a UK site.

But if primary schools are forced to hire non-religious teachers, can they still expect that teacher to instruct in religion?

Really the whole patronage system is a house of cards and it's looking decidedly shaky. Once you accept that equality legislation and human rights can be applied to it, the whole thing is at risk of crashing down.

Brian Shanahan

Banbh wrote: »

The parents aren't going to rock the boat, even if they wanted to, and the State isn't going to say 'boo' to the Catholic Church, even with a Minister for Education who is nominally in favour a more pluralist system.

I think the absolute best thing to do to get parents active in secularising education (out the country anyways) is to arrange for underage GAA training to be on at the same time as late mass on a Sunday. It's doing wonders in my home parish to turn parents against the local PP, as he's constantly harping on about the kids missing their mass, even though he's perfectly happy to rearrange mass times any week Tipp are playing in Croker (we're in Limerick by the way). A lot of parents are angry because he's taking such a hard line on it.

Philo Beddoe

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I think the absolute best thing to do to get parents active in secularising education (out the country anyways) is to arrange for underage GAA training to be on at the same time as late mass on a Sunday. It's doing wonders in my home parish to turn parents against the local PP, as he's constantly harping on about the kids missing their mass, even though he's perfectly happy to rearrange mass times any week Tipp are playing in Croker (we're in Limerick by the way). A lot of parents are angry because he's taking such a hard line on it.

Are you sure he's not just trying to undermine the future of Limerick hurling from the inside?

walrusgumble

Dave! wrote: »

I don't like this... For one thing, if the majority in an area say they want the Church to continue to run their schools, does the minority then continue to be disenfranchised? Or will a new school be built to accommodate them? (No...)

And I'm not sure that mob rule is the way to go either. So what if the majority in an area want Catholic schools? The principle that the State shouldn't be establishing schools that advance a particular religious (or indeed political, fiscal, etc.) view remains fair regardless of whether Maude Flanders wants to outsource her children's spiritual development.

So, you are completely happy however, that the minority get their way, and dictate to the majority?

"mob" rule? Eh, no democracy. Don't like it, I am sure that there is a more suitable school within a 2 hour radius.

Delirium

walrusgumble wrote: »

So, you are completely happy however, that the minority get their way, and dictate to the majority?

"mob" rule? Eh, no democracy. Don't like it, I am sure that there is a more suitable school within a 2 hour radius.

The outrage!! People demanding that children not be discriminated along religious lines. Outrage!! :eek::rolleyes:

Obliq

walrusgumble wrote: »

Don't like it, I am sure that there is a more suitable school within a 2 hour radius.

Oh gee, thanks. That'll suit the kids twice a day, eh? Nothing to be said for people being able to send their children to the community school in their own area, where they will get to know their neighbours and have respect for each other's beliefs, no?

walrusgumble

SW wrote: »

The outrage!! People demanding that children not be discriminated along religious lines. Outrage!! :eek::rolleyes:

So, you too prefer that the majority pander to the minority, even the minority are free to go elsewhere.............

Aren't the majority being discriminated against and their beliefs ignored, in favour of the minority? roll eyes


A right self righteous shower...........