School patronage

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

The State doesn't facilitate freedom of association; it guarantees your right to freedom of association.

To suggest this is some sort of hard-and-fast distinction applicable to education rests on twin fallacious assumptions. Firstly, that "rights" are necessarily always and only "negative rights". This is a popular theory among people who've consumed too many Heinlein or Rand books in their impressionable youths, but isn't one that Bunreacht na hÉireann would long sustain. Secondly, this is an area in which the state itself is the principal actor. To suggest that the state on the one hand purports to grant a "right", but on the other is completely free to act inconsistently with it, is hardly consistent.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

You're just spillting hairs now. Anyone has the right to freedom of disassociation as a constitutional right. Schools are absolutely being facilitated in making freedom of association of faiths easier at the expense of children of different backgrounds. Why is our system, which discriminates against and indoctrinates children, appropriate? Why are you so willing to defend it?

No, I'm pointing out trying to fight for a 'right' you don't actually have isn't really going to go very far. But if you'd like to point where the Constitution explicitly states you have the right to freedom of disassociation, I'll withdraw my point. If you're inferring you have that right from what actually is stated in the Constitution, then until you've tested it before a Court, your inference is an opinion.
I can see you're trying to combine the various elements of what we've been discussing to try and make your point, but just ending up with nonsense. When you talk about 'freedom of association of faiths' what are you talking about? What schools make this thing easier at what expense to children of what backgrounds? Why should they not do so? And how does the State facilitate those schools? How do you feel the system discriminates against children? Do you think this discrimination is illegal, and if so, what law does it break? Why do you feel the system indoctrinates children, rather than schools?
I'm not defending the State doing these things; frankly I don't believe the State does.

I agree that your children have a right to an education, in a state school that is as convenient to you as is reasonably practicable, and I agree you have a right to determine their faith formation. I agree that is unconstitutional to force your children to be educated in a religion without your consent. I agree that it is not appropriate for the state to pay for religious education. I don't agree that the state is obliged to protect your children from any exposure to religion. I don't agree that a religious ethos in a school amounts to indoctrination, or even that religious education amounts to indoctrination. I believe the State should operate a secular school system, I believe that people should be entitled to decide what faith formation is given to their children.

Principled argument aside, from a real world perspective, I can see that the State avoided the financial burden of building an education infrastructure by allowing the religious orders to build one, and we now pay for that by having a majority of religious ethos schools instead of secular ones. It's also obvious that you can have what you want if you're prepared to pay for it; if catholic parents are prepared to pay to build catholic schools (as they did), and muslim parents are prepared to pay to build Islamic schools, then I honestly have less sympathy for secular parents who aren't prepared to make the same commitments, regardless of whether they should have to make those commitments (and I acknowledge, they shouldn't). When you then try to insist on your childrens right to disassociation, or that schools are being facilitated by the State in making freedom of association of faiths easier at the expense of children of different backgrounds, all you're doing is making a mockery of what should be a simple cause. The High Court has to enforce your Constitutional rights, your local TD is there to bring your legitimate grievances before the Dail. But bury these things under specious nonsense and you get nowhere.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I didn't say a law preventing the free thinker from using the park , I said a hypothetical bylaw providing for a separate seating area for muslims. If the free thinker refused to comply with a request by the park keeper to leave the muslim seating area, then that would be a breach of the peace.

That's why I said "A by law preventing people from using a park based on their religion would be illegal on discrimination grounds". If someone is prevented from using the seating area because that are not Muslim, they are being illegally discriminated against on religious grounds.
And again, to be arrrested for breach of the peace, he would have to breach the peace. Bearing in mind that 'Breach of the Peace' isn't actually something you can be arrested for; it's a catchall term for Public Order offences, one of which is what he would actually have to be charged with. Failure to comply with an instruction from a park keeper (who is not, it should be noted, a member of An Garda Siochana) is not likely to be sufficient cause for an arrest by a Guard.

Bloe Joggs

Absolam wrote: »

No, I'm pointing out trying to fight for a 'right' you don't actually have isn't really going to go very far. But if you'd like to point where the Constitution explicitly states you have the right to freedom of disassociation, I'll withdraw my point. If you're inferring you have that right from what actually is stated in the Constitution, then until you've tested it before a Court, your inference is an opinion.
I can see you're trying to combine the various elements of what we've been discussing to try and make your point, but just ending up with nonsense. When you talk about 'freedom of association of faiths' what are you talking about? What schools make this thing easier at what expense to children of what backgrounds? Why should they not do so? And how does the State facilitate those schools? How do you feel the system discriminates against children? Do you think this discrimination is illegal, and if so, what law does it break? Why do you feel the system indoctrinates children, rather than schools?
I'm not defending the State doing these things; frankly I don't believe the State does.
I believe the State should operate a secular school system, I believe that people should be entitled to decide what faith formation is given to their children. I can see that the State avoided the financial burden of building an education infrastructure by allowing the religious orders to build one, and we now pay for that by having a majority of religious ethos schools instead of secular ones. It's also obvious that you can have what you want if you're prepared to pay for it; if catholic parents are prepared to pay to build catholic schools (as they did), and muslim parents are prepared to pay to build Islamic schools, then I honestly have less sympathy for secular parents who aren't prepared to make the same commitments, regardless of whether they should have to make those commitments (and I acknowledge, they shouldn't). When you then try to insist on your childrens right to disassociation, or that schools are being facilitated by the State in making freedom of association of faiths easier at the expense of children of different backgrounds, all you're doing is making a mockery of what should be a simple cause. The High Court has to enforce your Constitutional rights, your local TD is there to bring your legitimate grievances before the Dail. But bury these things under specious nonsense and you get nowhere.

There's the constitution, then there's the UNHRC. Maybe the government doesn't think it needs to pay any attention to it but they have done precisely nothing since attention was explicitly drawn to the lack of provision of a state funded secular education system a number of years ago. Giving the finger to that particular body is nothing to be proud of and I wonder what they'll have to say for themselves next time round, conveniently show them a copy of the constitution?

Bloe Joggs

It's obvious that the only way this will get done is for ordinary citizens to take it to Europe or the UN. Problem is that costs money, money some such as absolam might say would be better spent on getting those secular schools set up. In this case I believe you can't forgo the bigger principle at stake. Under universal principles, as pointed out to the Irish Government by the United Nations Human Rights Council, every child is entitled to a state funded education with no underlying mandatory religious ethos, the norm in most of the western world.

This idea that we have to give no belief in any religious faith a name, secularism, has obscured the reality of what we're talking about. We're simply talking about an education free from religious dogma, secularism is not another religion. That's why we can't look at the problem in the same way minority faiths in this country have had to tackle their issues and self funded their schools to a certain degree. Secularists are not another "group" looking for equal status to catholics in schools, we're simply pointing out the universal right to dogma free education, which trumps that of the constitution, at least in principle.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Allegedly.

Given the fact that it has already been tested in the Supreme Court (Crowley v Ireland 1980), it is not allegedly, but in fact and in law.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, if we're going to split hairs -- and experience tells me that we most certainly are -- the federal constitution is most definitely part of "federal law". That the federal legislature is not directly superior to the states (as is the case with "devolved bodies" elsewhwere) is a different, narrower point.

I never said federal law wasn't legal, nor that it was or was not superior to state law; only that the individual States are indeed sovereign and capable of passing and enforcing legislation.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Oh, the very title "Montgomery City Ordinance" contains certain subtle clues within it that it is in fact not "state law" at all, so this discourse is entirely besides the point.

Ah. You must have made up the bit where I said it was a State Law; I said that the US State governments enshrined segregation in law, and enforced the law. I specifically said that Rosa Parks was arrested for violating Montgomery City Ordinance, Chapter 6, Section 11. I never said she was arrested for breaking State Law, just the law. And a city ordinance is a law.

alaimacerc wrote: »

To suggest this is some sort of hard-and-fast distinction applicable to education rests on twin fallacious assumptions.

What hard and fast distinction (between what?) do you think is being applied to education?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Firstly, that "rights" are necessarily always and only "negative rights".

Rights are necessarily always what?
Can you please explain what you mean by rights are only negative rights?

alaimacerc wrote: »

This is a popular theory among people who've consumed too many Heinlein or Rand books in their impressionable youths, but isn't one that Bunreacht na hÉireann would long sustain.

I think I'll reserve my opinion on your thoughts until you've explained what you think these rights above are; it's a bit hard to decipher which rights you think the Constitution doesn't sustain.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Secondly, this is an area in which the state itself is the principal actor. To suggest that the state on the one hand purports to grant a "right", but on the other is completely free to act inconsistently with it, is hardly consistent.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that the State grants a right, but is free to act inconsistently with it. Perhaps you might start with the right the State is granting, and we may progress from there? If you're suggesting that the State having granted the right to freedom of association, is acting inconsistently with it, can we assume you mean you believe the State is infringing on that right? If so, what is the infringement? If you were to frame your argument before a judge so as to seek enforcement of your right, how would you do so?

Absolam

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

There's the constitution, then there's the UNHRC. Maybe the government doesn't think it needs to pay any attention to it but they have done precisely nothing since attention was explicitly drawn to the lack of provision of a state funded secular education system a number of years ago. Giving the finger to that particular body is nothing to be proud of and I wonder what they'll have to say for themselves next time round, conveniently show them a copy of the constitution?

I'm pretty sure the Constitution does have more legal standing in Ireland that the UNHRC, to be brutally straightforward about it. The UN may issue recommendations to Ireland, but unlike the Constitution, governments are free to ignore those recommendations (and in this case we are talking about successive governments, not just one party).

Absolam

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

It's obvious that the only way this will get done is for ordinary citizens to take it to Europe or the UN. Problem is that costs money, money some such as absolam might say would be better spent on getting those secular schools set up. In this case I believe you can't forgo the bigger principle at stake. Under universal principles, as pointed out to the Irish Government by the United Nations Human Rights Council, every child is entitled to a state funded education with no underlying mandatory religious ethos, the norm in most of the western world.

Frankly, I don't see what going to the EU or the UN would achieve? What can they actually do to produce more secular schools? So yes, I think the money is better spent on setting up new secular schools, or acquiring existing schools from the religious orders, and implementing a secular system (if that's what the parents of pupils in those schools want).

Also I believe you have misrepresented the principle put forward by the UN. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which is not actually a legally binding document, except where a State agrees to it) says nothing about religious ethos. With regard to Education it says:

Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Obviously a wonderfully aspirational document, but not quite aspiring to "every child is entitled to a state funded education with no underlying mandatory religious ethos". And again, not legally enforcable in Ireland; you can't for instance, sue the Irish state because Irish education doesn't necessarily further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Well, you could sue, but you wouldn't win.

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

This idea that we have to give no belief in any religious faith a name, secularism, has obscured the reality of what we're talking about.

Actually, that would be athiesm, or agnoticism. Confusing that with a secular education may be obscuring the reality of what we're talking about to you. To be clear we're talking about secular education, which does not necessarily mean atheistic or religiously agnostic, simply not connected with religious or spiritual matters.

Bloe Joggs wrote: »

We're simply talking about an education free from religious dogma, secularism is not another religion. That's why we can't look at the problem in the same way minority faiths in this country have had to tackle their issues and self funded their schools to a certain degree. Secularists are not another "group" looking for equal status to catholics in schools, we're simply pointing out the universal right to dogma free education, which trumps that of the constitution, at least in principle.

Again, I don't see that there is a universal right to dogma free education. It's not in the UN Declaration, and more importantly, the Constitution pretty much guarantees the right of dogmatic education to those who want it (Article 42 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) .
Regardless, the Universal Declaration does not 'trump' the Constitution, expect perhaps in your (or someones) opinion. The Constitution is the basis of all law in Ireland, it's un'trump'able (except of course where under Article 29 EU law takes precedence over the Constitution if there is a conflict between the two, but only to the extent that such EU law is "necessitated" by Ireland's membership). There is a right to freedom of religion, and there is a right to determine the faith formation of your own children. That may or may not amount to dogma free education depending on how you implement it, and how you look at it. But it is an issue that affects both religious and non religious parents alike.

People who want a secular education are not a minority faith; they are (or were) a minority group. The overwhelming majority of children educated in Ireland over the last century have had parents who desired a catholic ethos in education, and the State let them pay for it. To change that system to be in tune with what parents want now, will cost money. Someone will have to pay for it. And no politician is going to raise taxes to do this unless they think they'll get re-elected as a result. Regardless of the moral or ethical factors to the situation, the ultimate arbiter of the result is cash. Which means we most certainly can look at the problem in the same way minority faiths in this country have, and self-fund schools to a certain degree.

Hotblack Desiato

Absolam wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the Constitution does have more legal standing in Ireland that the UNHRC, to be brutally straightforward about it. The UN may issue recommendations to Ireland, but unlike the Constitution, governments are free to ignore those recommendations (and in this case we are talking about successive governments, not just one party).

That's not the case for the ECHR however.

Absolam

ninja900 wrote: »

That's not the case for the ECHR however.

Presuming you're talking about the Court as distinct from the Convention, I agree, however, the contents of the Convention, which the Court has jurisdiction over, are not the same as the contents of the Universal Declaration.
The provisions for religious freedom in the Convention aren't terribly dissimilar from those in the Constitution, and the provisions for education are substantially less comprehensive than those in the Constitution.

SpaceTime

EU Guidelines on Rights to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB):

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/137585.pdf

(Aimed at the EU's role in promoting such values in 3rd countries, not inwardly focused on member states)

Absolam

Are they not the EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

If someone is prevented from using the seating area because that are not Muslim, they are being illegally discriminated against on religious grounds.

Correct, because public parks have not obtained an exemption to the equality legislation under the Equal Status Act, unlike the publicly funded (and in many cases publicly owned) faith schools.

But I was more interested in your opinion as to why this should be so.
Why is it OK to segregate kids by religion in public schools, but not people in public parks?

Also can I point out two things;
1. You congratulated the religious communities for having the initiative to build the schools, saying this is why they can impose their own ethos. But nowadays most schools are built by the State, and awarded to a patron afterwards. For example the proposed Islamic school in Blanchardstown. Even for those older school buildings that are owned privately, the ongoing maintenance costs and staff salaries, which are all publicly funded, dwarf any residual capital value in the buildings themselves.

2. A school with a religious ethos is permitted to refuse a place to someone who could compromise that ethos, under the above mentioned exemption legislation. Possible examples of this might be a pregnant girl, an openly gay boy, an outspoken atheist.
Does this not compare to the hypothetical park bench which is earmarked with a religious ethos? Why is one OK, and the other not OK?

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

1. You congratulated the religious communities for having the initiative to build the schools, saying this is why they can impose their own ethos. But nowadays most schools are built by the State, and awarded to a patron afterwards. For example the proposed Islamic school in Blanchardstown. Even for those older school buildings that are owned privately, the ongoing maintenance costs and staff salaries, which are all publicly funded, dwarf any residual capital value in the buildings themselves.

That's been the way in Ireland almost since the 1830's. The British government initiated the national school programme (off which most of our primary school infrastructure was built, and is currently staffed, rebuilt, repaired and maintained) as a system of secular education, in order to try and heal sectarian divides in Ireland through schooling. The problem is that the rcc and the coi ganged up together to sabotage that effort and to rescue what they could the government initiated the religious patronage system which is poisoning Irish education down to this very day.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Given the fact that it has already been tested in the Supreme Court (Crowley v Ireland 1980), it is not allegedly, but in fact and in law.

This is an interesting read on that subject. It sets out some reasons why that particular judgement may be liable to be updated soon.

expectationlost

Voters angry over 'attack' by Minister on Catholic schools http://shar.es/VqFVX catholic schools dominate Ms Devitt (Ind - Swords ) and still will...

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Correct, because public parks have not obtained an exemption to the equality legislation under the Equal Status Act, unlike the publicly funded (and in many cases publicly owned) faith schools.

Only 2% of primary schools are publicly owned; not really 'many'. But the difference is that one is covered by the legislation, and the other isn't.

recedite wrote: »

But I was more interested in your opinion as to why this should be so.
Why is it OK to segregate kids by religion in public schools, but not people in public parks?

Again, the State is not segregating children in public schools. Privately owned schools are entitled to prefer students who are compatible with their ethos, and the Minister is entitled to overrule them and force them to accept specific pupils if he wishes.

recedite wrote: »

Also can I point out two things;
1. You congratulated the religious communities for having the initiative to build the schools, saying this is why they can impose their own ethos.

I should point out I didn't congratulate anybody for anything, or justified imposing an ethos as a result. I simply pointed out that religious communities have built schools that they felt were needed.

recedite wrote: »

But nowadays most schools are built by the State, and awarded to a patron afterwards. For example the proposed Islamic school in Blanchardstown.

I would honestly be interested in any link you can provide to schools built entirely with public money, especially those built on public land.

recedite wrote: »

Even for those older school buildings that are owned privately, the ongoing maintenance costs and staff salaries, which are all publicly funded, dwarf any residual capital value in the buildings themselves.

Regardless how much a tenant spends running a business on a landlords premises, they don't acquire any right over the property as a result?

recedite wrote: »

2. A school with a religious ethos is permitted to refuse a place to someone who could compromise that ethos, under the above mentioned exemption legislation. Possible examples of this might be a pregnant girl, an openly gay boy, an outspoken atheist.

How many pregnant girls, openly gay boys, and outspoken athiests that should be in school today are not in school today as a result of the above?

recedite wrote: »

Does this not compare to the hypothetical park bench which is earmarked with a religious ethos? Why is one OK, and the other not OK?

One is a publicly owned, public place, providing a public service. The other is a privately owned, semi-public place providing a semi-public service.There is a difference between public and private and plenty of variations in between. So, to return to the colorful racial metaphors of earlier, whilst you can't refuse to hire a black person because they're black, you can refuse to be friends with a black person because they're black. You can't refuse to have a muslim in your workplace, but you can refuse to have a muslim in your home. Doesn't make you a nice person, but it isn't illegal. Nor I think, would many people want the State to legislate on who they can have in their homes, or be friends with.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

This is an interesting read on that subject. It sets out some reasons why that particular judgement may be liable to be updated soon.

He is en excellent and interesting writer, which is unusual in the field. But from this particular paper I would think it's more likely that an EC judgement will force a different stance on employment in religious schools (quite rightly in my opinion), than a shift on the funding of education in religious schools being considered not to be an endowment.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I would honestly be interested in any link you can provide to schools built entirely with public money, especially those built on public land.

It is normal practice for new schools. Try this link.

Absolam wrote: »

How many pregnant girls, openly gay boys, and outspoken athiests that should be in school today are not in school today as a result of the above?

Here's one anyway. The smug b'stard sitting in the armchair knows he cannot be overruled by either the Childrens Ombudsman or the Minister for Education. Being the religious type, he can claim an exemption from equality law;

.....(3) An educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that—
(c) where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,.....

Absolam wrote: »

One is a publicly owned, public place, providing a public service. The other is a privately owned, semi-public place providing a semi-public service.There is a difference between public and private and plenty of variations in between. So, to return to the colorful racial metaphors of earlier, whilst you can't refuse to hire a black person because they're black, you can refuse to be friends with a black person because they're black. You can't refuse to have a muslim in your workplace, but you can refuse to have a muslim in your home. Doesn't make you a nice person, but it isn't illegal. Nor I think, would many people want the State to legislate on who they can have in their homes, or be friends with.

I agree entirely with your distinction between public and private. But the fact is, the newer faith schools are publicly owned. Even those existing ones that are privately owned are still publicly funded.
Most people actually make no distinction between privately owned faith schools and publicly owned ones. They just look at the patronage, and assume that if the patron has a particular ethos, then that ethos will be enforced.

SpaceTime

expectationlost wrote: »

Voters angry over 'attack' by Minister on Catholic schools http://shar.es/VqFVX catholic schools dominate Ms Devitt (Ind - Swords ) and still will...

This voter is angry with him for not reforming nearly enough!

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

This voter is angry with him for not reforming nearly enough!

This Fingallian too. Now I've one less contender for my preferences tomorrow.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

It is normal practice for new schools. Try this link.

In fariness thats 19 pages of discussion about the patronage of single school. Is there a link in there that shows the school was built entirely with public money and/or on public land?

recedite wrote: »

Here's one anyway.

There's nothing there that says she's not in school today? In fact there's nothing there that straight out says she wasn't in school then, only that she was previously in two other schools and wasn't enrolled in that particular school.

recedite wrote: »

The smug b'stard sitting in the armchair knows he cannot be overruled by either the Childrens Ombudsman or the Minister for Education. Being the religious type, he can claim an exemption from equality law;

I can't personally say that what he did was right, but it does seem that what he did was in accordance with the principles of the school he was given the job of upholding. He may be a dick, but at least he's upfront about it. Nor is he claiming exemption from equality law as a religious type; the religious ethos school he works for is already excluded from specific areas of equality legislation.

recedite wrote: »

I agree entirely with your distinction between public and private. But the fact is, the newer faith schools are publicly owned. Even those existing ones that are privately owned are still publicly funded.
Most people actually make no distinction between privately owned faith schools and publicly owned ones. They just look at the patronage, and assume that if the patron has a particular ethos, then that ethos will be enforced.

Again, I'm yet to see anything that shows that there are any number of faith schools which have been built with public money on public land. And privately owned, publicly funded schools simply aren't entirely public concerns. Most people may not make a distinction between publicly and privately owned schools, and I suspect that's because most people assume the majority of schools are state owned, rather than privately owned. However, if parents want a particular education for their children they should be considering it; their children's education is primarily their responsibility, not the States. The children of parents who get actively involved, like Obliq, benefit immeasurably from having parents engaged with their education.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

In fariness thats 19 pages of discussion about the patronage of single school. Is there a link in there that shows the school was built entirely with public money and/or on public land?

Just trust me. Where's your faith?
Or try looking up the deeds, or maybe phone the Dept of Education.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Just trust me. Where's your faith?
Or try looking up the deeds, or maybe phone the Dept of Education.

That would be a no then?

recedite

In this case, as with most new schools where there is competition for patronage, the site was chosen and the funding for the construction ringfenced long before the patronage had been decided.
This is done on the basis of demographics and population growth projections.
Here is the Dept. of Education assessment of the applications from the various private patrons. Notice that in Requirement 1 the winning patron must be prepared to sign the "standard lease" (of State property) which applies where the site is not being provided by the patron.
If the site was being provided privately, there could be no competition for patronage, unless some donor was willing to provide a site no matter who the patron turned out to be. Naturally enough, a parish church is not going to provide a site unless they are guaranteed to be given control of the school "ethos". That's pretty much how things used to be done.

The newer competitive way is better overall, although sometimes you can end up with an anomaly such as the Greystones school, where a school is being provided by the State for the general public, and is entirely publicly owned and funded, and yet a minority religion is given the patronage. Effectively a licence to indoctrinate their beliefs and ethos on the general population, at the State's expense.

In principle its no worse than having the majority religion do exactly the same thing, but it just seems more extraordinary, to my mind anyway.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

In this case, <...>Effectively a licence to indoctrinate their beliefs and ethos on the general population, at the State's expense.

I have had a read of it, and noted as you say that Provision 1 requires that the patron "Is willing to enter into the standard lease agreement with the Dapartment of Education & Skills". I noted it also said "or that the prospective patron will provide their own site". It seems from the rest of your post that you are deducing from this and other circumstances that the State is providing the site and building, but whilst I'm sure your sleuthing skills are excellent, you'll understand if I don't think this doesn't actually rise to the level of actually showing the school was built entirely with public money and/or on public land? You are, in fact, presuming at this point...

As to your assertion that it is effectively a licence to indoctrinate their beliefs and ethos on the general population, at the State's expense, you seem to have skipped over the portions in your link which say:
"they are not proposing a Protestant school for Protestant children, but instead a faith based school that will embrace children of all faiths and none"
and
"Is willing to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a school"
and
"The school type proposed by COI is English medium, co-educational faith based and Christian in ethos, ( but they state that it will be welcoming to children of all faith traditions and those with none) In their application on page 4 they state that “COI has a strong record of patronage of multi denominational post primary schools under a comprehensive model.”” It is proposed that if the COI is given the patronage of this school, it would operate under a similar model to that in the community/comprehensive sector”."
which, if we presume a little less than you have done above, seem to indicate an intent other than that which you assert? Or at very least, an agreement with the DoE to act in a fashion other than you have asserted; so they're not being given a license, they are actually agreeing to conditions which are quite the opposite of a license.
Whether or not they're held to the agreement I think will be a matter for parents and the DoE.

SpaceTime

You'd think at this stage the Dept might try running a school itself!

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

you'll understand if I don't think this doesn't actually rise to the level of actually showing the school was built entirely with public money and/or on public land? You are, in fact, presuming at this point...

Perfectly understandable, you are right to be sceptical. However I am not just "presuming". I know the site well, it is part of a campus on which two primary schools were provided in recent years, an ET and a Gaelscoil. So it is a mish-mash of different schools with separate patronages, awarded at different times, all built on a patch of public land by the State. Work only started on the secondary school last week, so it is not up and running as yet.
I have failed to provide you with an internet link to something that proves the land is public, yes that much is true.
But the fact that you find it hard to believe that the State carries on its business in this way is a healthy attitude.

Absolam wrote: »

As to your assertion that it is effectively a licence to indoctrinate their beliefs and ethos on the general population, at the State's expense, you seem to have skipped over the portions in your link which say:
"they are not proposing a Protestant school for Protestant children, but instead a faith based school that will embrace children of all faiths and none"
and
"Is willing to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a school"

Well I think the non-COI section of local population which backed this patron in the first place was extremely gullible, but they are now starting to regret it. The "secularist" section of the population were foolish to allow their vote to be split between the ET and the VEC candidate patrons. They allowed themselves to be defeated by poor "strategic voting".
The new COI controlled BOM initially introduced a fair admissions policy for the 2014 intake, but they have already modified it to introduce priority admission for COI persons in the 2015 admissions policy. Also they have introduced a highest level of priority to any COI parishioners who can produce a "letter of active parish affiliation" which is available to families who actually attend the church every Sunday. So priority access to the school facilities (which by all accounts will be excellent) will be used as a mechanism to recruit active church members, and to bring back lapsed ones.

Also I think the Dept. of Education was gullible in using the type of wording that they used. Either that, or some vested religious interest group (either RC or COI, or both working together) lobbied to get certain wording used.
Either way, the wording is far too vague to be effective in its intent.

Take for example; "they are not proposing a Protestant school for Protestant children, but instead a faith based school that will embrace children of all faiths and none".
It can be taken to mean "they are proposing a Protestant school for all children, a faith based school that will embrace children of all faiths and none". And that is exactly the interpretation that the BOM is developing.

Take this one; "Is willing to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a school"

It can be interpreted as "Is willing to enrol children in the area for whom the Department has identified the need for a school if there are places left over after all the priority applicants identified by the patron have been taken care of."
So in the 2015 policy, they have already identified certain protestant primary schools lying outside the catchment area (the one which was originally identified by the Dept. as the official catchment area). They have given priority access to a quota of applicants from these favoured schools. As the school is already oversubscribed for 2015, this means that some applicants from the original catchment area have already been displaced. So even though the school is being built by the State in that location, specifically to provide for these local people, some of them have already been displaced for religious reasons. And that is before the foundations of the building have been dug. Its a salutary lesson which the parents of young children will have to take heed of, if they want the chance of a place in their local secondary school in a couple of years time.

expectationlost

what this ballyfermot save our schools campaign is about? http://bit.ly/1nCRTUb against amalgamation of schools, protest about it yesterday

recedite

Interesting discussion of it here.
Basically these were 4 schools, two for boys and two for girls. They were a favourite hunting ground for infamous predatory paedophile priest Fr. Tony Walsh.
The schools have been abandoned by many local parents, in favour of other schools with alternative patronages. The RCC is now planning to amalgamate the male and female schools in each area together, so it has just two co-ed schools, each with improved facilities and morale.
It looks like they will sell the other two vacant buildings for profit, rather than donate them to the Dept of Education for re-allocation to another (competitor) patronage.

Éirigí is jumping on the bandwagon to have a go at "the Dublin Government", but somewhat surprisingly is not blaming The Brits for this one.
I don't see any real problem with all this. Its natural selection at work. This is likely to happen when parents are offered a choice. If there had been no other schools available, people would still be queuing up with their baptismal certs for places in the 4 schools, and it would be business as usual at them, with no reforms on the agenda.