School patronage

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

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.

its not just eirigi lots of parents complaining, there was protest outside the school during polling, the police pushed them away from the school, locals saw the police pushing women and it got even worse.

recedite

One local mother says;

there are good facilities for the boys at the De La Salle school, including two gaelic football pitches. "The De La Salle school has been there years," said Karen. "It's fantastic. They get to do all their sports."

It seems like the boy's schools had better facilities than the girl's school.
Two GAA pitches, and only a few km from Dublin city centre. Wow...$$$... that's potentially a lot of apartments.
The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away
Maybe the locals should have been a bit more tolerant of Fr.Tony's "indiscretions".

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

One local mother says; It seems like the boy's schools had better facilities than the girl's school.
Two GAA pitches, and only a few km from Dublin city centre. Wow...$$$... that's potentially a lot of apartments.
The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away
Maybe the locals should have been a bit more tolerant of Fr.Tony's "indiscretions".

http://www.herald.ie/news/parents-protest-over-proposals-to-close-school-29813048.html

recedite

I'd give them two choices; let them sell the properties to a developer, but make them pay all the proceeds into the exchequer, to go some way towards the Redress Board payments that the taxpayer has been paying out for clerical sex abuse.
Or have the State purchase the schools by CPO, at €1 per site, and have the State re-allocate the schools under new patronage.

SpaceTime

recedite wrote: »

I'd give them two choices; let them sell the properties to a developer, but make them pay all the proceeds into the exchequer, to go some way towards the Redress Board payments that the taxpayer has been paying out for clerical sex abuse.
Or have the State purchase the schools by CPO, at €1 per site, and have the State re-allocate the schools under new patronage.

Why do schools need 'patronage' at all?
Surely the state itself is more than capable of running schools directly as a public service ??

robindch

SpaceTime wrote: »

Why do schools need 'patronage' at all?

The schools don't need "patronage". But the church does.

How else could it indoctrinate kids if it didn't have automatic access to lots of them?

expectationlost

SpaceTime wrote: »

Why do schools need 'patronage' at all?
Surely the state itself is more than capable of running schools directly as a public service ??

the local government?

SpaceTime

expectationlost wrote: »

the local government?

Well, you could either run them through the local councils or through a school board. That's how many countries do it.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

Why do schools need 'patronage' at all?
Surely the state itself is more than capable of running schools directly as a public service ??

I think there are a few (reasonably good) reasons.
Firstly, the State is not responsible for providing education, only for providing for education, so taking on an unnecessary (and inevitably expensive) obligation doesn't make much sense. It could even arguably be considered an infringement of civil liberties, usurping parents constitutional rights to educate their children.

Secondly, patronage agreements require the patron to pay a portion of the maintenance and running costs of the school (up to 5%, or all depending on the model, of building, up to 10% of maintenance and all running costs above a certain per head capitation), so it saves the State money.

Thirdly, it limits the States' liability; if something actionable (like for instance, child abuse) occurs at the school then the State is not wholly (or perhaps even primarily) liable.

So whilst schools don't need patronage, arguably the State does.

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

I think there are a few (reasonably good) reasons.
Firstly, the State is not responsible for providing education, only for providing for education, so taking on an unnecessary (and inevitably expensive) obligation doesn't make much sense. It could even arguably be considered an infringement of civil liberties, usurping parents constitutional rights to educate their children.

Secondly, patronage agreements require the patron to pay a portion of the maintenance and running costs of the school (up to 5%, or all depending on the model, of building, up to 10% of maintenance and all running costs above a certain per head capitation), so it saves the State money.

Thirdly, it limits the States' liability; if something actionable (like for instance, child abuse) occurs at the school then the State is not wholly (or perhaps even primarily) liable.

So whilst schools don't need patronage, arguably the State does.

It's the usual state cop out situation in other words as they don't want to be sued for damages in the event of something going wrong?

I actually think the constitutional argument that it's infringing on parents' rights to educate their kids as they see fit is really stretching logic to its limits.

The current situation places 96% of schools in the hands of one religious community. 96% of the Irish population doesn't necessarily agree with that, so the system is grossly disenfranchising those parents who aren't catholic or who don't want catholic education.

Outside of some urban areas, a non-Catholic education is effectively impossible too, which again is grossly infringing on parents' and childrens' rights.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

It's the usual state cop out situation in other words as they don't want to be sued for damages in the event of something going wrong?

I don't know about usual, but given the history, I'd be inclined to minimise liability exposure if it were up to me. And from a secular taxpayer point of view, it would be better for our pockets if the religious communities assumed the burden... not that that is what has actually transpired though.

SpaceTime wrote: »

I actually think the constitutional argument that it's infringing on parents' rights to educate their kids as they see fit is really stretching logic to its limits.

Maybe. But if the State assumes responsibility for education, it is then obliged to be responsible for educating children as their parents require, per the constitution. Right now, the patrons have that responsibility, and I doubt the State has an appetite to take it on in the current circumstances.

SpaceTime wrote: »

The current situation places 96% of schools in the hands of one religious community. 96% of the Irish population doesn't necessarily agree with that, so the system is grossly disenfranchising those parents who aren't catholic or who don't want catholic education.

The current situation isn't a result of the system; it's a result of history. Catholics built those schools to educate catholic children; now that there are a lot less catholics it's apparent that the RCC wants to downsize it's involvement, but somebody else needs to step up. The idea that the 'system' is disenfranchising those who haven't made the effort that others have is terribly misleading.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Outside of some urban areas, a non-Catholic education is effectively impossible too, which again is grossly infringing on parents' and childrens' rights.

Which rights are being grossly infringed exactly? If you were going to the Supreme Court tomorrow, what would your argument in law be?

Parents have a right (and responsibility) to educate their children. Some time ago, a lot of catholic parents money got used to build schools so that their children could be educated the way they wanted. Anyone who wants the same has the option of doing the same. I'm not saying it's a good situation, or a fair situation. But blaming the 'system', which implies that someone else has to 'fix' it, isn't going to achieve anything.

SpaceTime

Meh! I give up.
Its a weird county that panders to wishes of religious fundamentalism.

I couldn't even be bothered arguing anymore on this forum as it just goes around in circles and people coming up with utterly bizarre interpretations of the constitution to suit the status quo.

At the end of the day, I'll basically either have to send my kids to Catholic school, ensure I live in a large city/town and make sure that I apply early to Educate Together or emigrate to a country that actually has a public school system.

If there's one thing Ireland's been good at since the foundation of the state, it's using public service access to force social conformity. It was quite clearly a deliberate policy to create Holy Catholic Ireland as opposed to the Republic of Ireland.

The system as is, is basically just institutionalised sectarianism. People can't seem to see that because they're either sectarians and it suits them fine or brainwashed into thinking this is how thing should be.

SpaceTime

I'd add that this impacts just as much on people who are religious and aren't Catholic as it does on non-religious and atheist people.

It just so happens that atheists are raising questions about why we don't have an open, secular education system.

So it's not a "religion vs atheism" debate. It's a matter of being forced to educate your kids in a school system that has a very particular religious ethos that pervades every aspect of its day.

The system is just not fit for purpose as a provider of a public education service.

I'd also add that as a tax payer, I am sick of funding duplication and quadruplication of services to pander to the whims of religious institutions.

Also, as a tax payer, why would my kids be basically given 2nd class treatment in a school that I (and many other non-Catholics or non Church of Ireland ppl etc) are paying for!?

We're not a bottomless pit of money required to fund everyone's individual religious schooling requirements by building them a special individual school!!

All I want is a decent, public service that is available equally to ALL members of society regardless of their religious belief or lack of religious belief. That's hardly too much to ask in 2014! You'd think we were having a debate in 1814!

As far as I am concerned this is corrupt, misuse of tax payers' money to provide a religious indoctrination service for private organisations and basically compelling people to use those services!

keane2097

SpaceTime is crushing in this thread, great posting.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

I think there are a few (reasonably good) reasons.
Firstly, the State is not responsible for providing education, only for providing for education, so taking on an unnecessary (and inevitably expensive) obligation doesn't make much sense. It could even arguably be considered an infringement of civil liberties, usurping parents constitutional rights to educate their children.

Secondly, patronage agreements require the patron to pay a portion of the maintenance and running costs of the school (up to 5%, or all depending on the model, of building, up to 10% of maintenance and all running costs above a certain per head capitation), so it saves the State money.

Thirdly, it limits the States' liability; if something actionable (like for instance, child abuse) occurs at the school then the State is not wholly (or perhaps even primarily) liable.

So whilst schools don't need patronage, arguably the State does.

Not according to the ECHR. European Court of Human Rights finds State liable for sexual abuse

SpaceTime

The state shouldn't need to limit itself from liability either. The schools shouldn't have such issues in the first place!

Not to mention, there are such things as disclaimers and insurance!

Also, the state does loads of other things that would leave it open to liability potentially if something went wrong and it doesn't feel the need to sandbox them by putting them into the hands of religious institutions for liability protection reasons!

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

Meh! I give up <...>I couldn't even be bothered arguing anymore on this forum <...>

So you don't want to consider the issues,

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'd add that <...>t services!

You pretty much just want to whinge about it?

SpaceTime wrote: »

The state <....> reasons!

Unless you think you might have come up with something good?

Absolam

SW wrote: »

Not according to the ECHR. European Court of Human Rights finds State liable for sexual abuse

True, though in fairness this is a relatively recent judgement, so it probably hasn't been sufficiently considered to start affecting policy yet.

SpaceTime

Absolam wrote: »

So you don't want to consider the issues,

You pretty much just want to whinge about it?

Unless you think you might have come up with something good?

I've made countless suggestions on this forum and elsewhere. They're countered by status quo protectors who just basically put up a brick wall to any change.

That's not an atmosphere suitable for discussion and I have absolutely every right to 'whinge', complain and lobby about it while the current system mostly provides catholic (and usually single gender) schools and reserves the right to legally discriminate against staff who might be gay, divorced, single parents, not of the same faith, athiests etc etc etc

At the end of the day I'm paying tax to fund this mess of a system.

gaynorvader

Choices should always be opt-in rather than opt-out. Opt-out is always abused.

SpaceTime

The ironic thing is that was the case in the original national schools which were at least multi denominational with a strict proviso that religion was a separate from normal teaching. This made it possible to opt out.

100 years later, we've actually gone backwards!

Cabaal

Its funny,
I watched God Loves Uganda and it mentions how after the war in Uganda the American religious people came into the country and got heavily involved into education, healthcare and government. Heavily influencing laws, policy and indoctrination the massive young population.

I couldn't help but think that it sounded awful like Ireland after it gained its Independence.

SpaceTime

Same concept. Jump into positions of authority and power when a country is unstable.

The Catholic right wing lobby most definitely tried (and for a long time succeed) to hijack Irish identify and nationalism. That was despite the fact that there were plenty of protestants, humanists and probably some athiests all on the Republican side.

The biggest losers were women. This state c started out with the first ever woman government minister, voting rights, female military leaders...

By the 1930s women were firmly in the kitchen and catholic church values firmly ensconced in terms of gender roles.

Contraception banned, divorce abolished etc etc etc

This place was very strange!

Cabaal

Found out a few weeks back that Ireland also had the first women trader in our stock exchange!

.... And then things went down hill

alaimacerc

SpaceTime wrote: »

They're countered by status quo protectors who just basically put up a brick wall to any change.

To be fair, they're not (as far as I know, unless they're TDs with a surprising amount of time on their hands, or members of the Catholic Democrats <shudder>) actually materially preventing change. What they do do, though, is to obstruct discussion that might be in danger of having any clarity, rigour, and purpose with constant digression, burden-of-proof games, opaque ex cathedra claims, and general obfuscation.

So, yeah, if we can't have change, and we can't even have a proper whinge, one's will to continue to engage is slowly eroded. Which it's hard to avoid thinking is "job done!" for status quo aficionados.

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

I've made countless suggestions on this forum and elsewhere. They're countered by status quo protectors who just basically put up a brick wall to any change.

I don't think I've noticed any posters on the thread who are absolutely opposed to change; most of the discussion seems to be about what change is appropriate, and what is simply pie in the sky.

SpaceTime wrote: »

That's not an atmosphere suitable for discussion and I have absolutely every right to 'whinge', complain and lobby about it while the current system mostly provides catholic (and usually single gender) schools and reserves the right to legally discriminate against staff who might be gay, divorced, single parents, not of the same faith, athiests etc etc etc

Lobbying, totally. If you're going to lobby for sensible change, I'm right there with you. If you want to whinge about not being handed what others made for themselves however, that's a different story.

SpaceTime wrote: »

At the end of the day I'm paying tax to fund this mess of a system.

So is everyone else. So what? Claiming to be disenfranchised by 'the system' and being 'compelled to use these services' when it's readily apparent that you're not, doesn't do anything for your argument; it obstructs the discussion , as alaimacerc says, that might otherwise have clarity. Adding sweeping statements about catholicism, nationalism and womens rights doesn't bolster your case (again as alaimacerc says; constant digression), it just looks like you're grinding an axe and this is another vehicle for your pet peeve, the catholic church, rather than an education issue.

SpaceTime

Honestly, I'm not even going to respond to that.
I'm off sick with a really nasty ear problem : dizzy, nauseous, tinnitus etc etc etc and I'm just likely to be rude, so I'll refrain from hitting reply!

pauldla

^^^
Hope you feel better soon!

I Heart Internet

It seems Ruairi Quinn might be a man in a hurry now in the Department of Education. I wonder what his plans are before he's hauled out of there.

recedite

SpaceTime wrote: »

Same concept. Jump into positions of authority and power when a country is unstable.

The Catholic right wing lobby most definitely tried (and for a long time succeed) to hijack Irish identify and nationalism. That was despite the fact that there were plenty of protestants, humanists and probably some athiests all on the Republican side.

The biggest losers were women. This state c started out with the first ever woman government minister, voting rights, female military leaders...

By the 1930s women were firmly in the kitchen and catholic church values firmly ensconced in terms of gender roles.

Contraception banned, divorce abolished etc etc etc

This place was very strange!

Ken Loach's new movie "Jimmy's Hall" explores some of these issues.
Basically James Gralton was deported at the behest of the RCC for being "subversive". Way back in the 1930's, and that set the tone for how far you could push against church authority before you faced the full force of the State against you. He was the only Irishman ever to have been deported from Ireland, despite being a veteran of the war of independence.