School patronage

PopePalpatine

The school has "Community School" in the name. When I checked the website for "CEIST" (the Catholic patronage body for secondary schools), it wasn't listed there, so it's safe to say that it ISN'T a Catholic school...in name, at least.

Banbh

Was it in a catholic school by any chance? Cos that might explain it.

Are there any others?

I Heart Internet

Banbh wrote: »

Are there any others?

Yes, of course.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Do you mean the local, Catholic Church owned and run school, funded by the state like all other privately owned schools in Ireland? That one? It would be remarkable if catholic liturgy was not evident in a catholic school throughout the year, no?

The Mass has changed in the last half century. Some changes for the better, some for the worse (imho). But that's a different discussion.

Still no excuse for religious intolerance or state funded mandatory religious indoctrination.

expectationlost

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think we actually need a 'secular education platform' which brings some non-atheists on board too.

There are many open-minded people who wouldn't necessarily be atheist but who wouldn't necessarily want the school system that we have at the moment either and I just have a little bit of a concern that people are confusing "atheist" and "secular" a lot (often deliberately) when arguing against secular schools.

There's a lot of social, educational and economic positives for 'An Open School System'.
1) Socialisation of kids of different genders, different religious backgrounds, different ethnic backgrounds.
2) Reduced costs and improved services due to removal of duplication of services and reduction of administrative overheads (every small school has a principal and management structure, buildings etc)
3) Improved subject choices, better equipment and support services become possible.
4) Avoid ghettoisation of Irish society as it becomes more diverse.
5) Avoid a demand for lots more fragmentation as society becomes more diverse - you cannot really expect Muslims, Evangelical Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus etc to all just go along with the 95%+ catholic school system and not want their own schools. Who is going to pay for those?

like teach dont preach http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/ and the secular statement http://www.atheist.ie/2014/05/the-secular-statement-that-atheist-ireland-is-asking-election-candidates-to-endorse/

Banbh

There are no non-Catholic schools within 50 miles of where I live. Has anyone got a list of non-Catholic second-level schools in Ireland. It shouldn't be very long.
I found a couple within 100 miles that were called 'inter-denominational' but also had the designation 'community school'. Well the school I was speaking of is also a 'community school' and in case anyone is in any doubt about its ethos, it flies the Pope's flag at the gates alone with the National Flag.
But to return to the patronage topic; is there anyone in the current Government that we (non-religious parents) should be cheering for in the coming reshuffle or are they all the same?

expectationlost

Banbh wrote: »

There are no non-Catholic schools within 50 miles of where I live. Has anyone got a list of non-Catholic second-level schools in Ireland. It shouldn't be very long.
I found a couple within 100 miles that were called 'inter-denominational' but also had the designation 'community school'. Well the school I was speaking of is also a 'community school' and in case anyone is in any doubt about its ethos, it flies the Pope's flag at the gates alone with the National Flag.

I wouldn't cheer for any of them but Aodhan O'Riordan (he's going for deputy of labour party) has the made the strongest statements but whether that turns into action in government? if he ever got education portfolio he'd become chief excuse maker for doing little.

this is the official list

http://education.ie/en/find-a-school


multi-denominational
http://www.educatetogether.ie/schools

expectationlost

Seven candidates go forward for election to the new CDETB http://www.cdvec.ie/footer/News/Latest/Seven-candidates-go-forward-for-election-to-the-ne.aspx We have been advised by the Department of Education and Skills that, due to a technical issue, the Staff Elections have been postponed until further notice. As soon as we have further information this site will be updated. http://www.cdetb.ie/About-Us/Election-2014.aspx

Banbh

Thanks for that list Expec. I had fun going through it for my county and as I expected there are no multi-denominational schools or 'other/unknown' schools but there are a few 'inter-denominational' schools. These are mostly 'community schools' but, as I suspected, if I check their individual websites, they are Catholic community schools.
One that I pass regularly flies the Pope's flag at the entrance as well as the National Flag - just in case anyone was in any doubt over what to expect.
Anyone know when the Government reshuffle is likely to be and if it is automatic that the Education job will go to a Labour Minister?

Hotblack Desiato

no non-religious primary schools in Dublin 22. Plenty of gaelscoils though :rolleyes:

I Heart Internet

expectationlost wrote: »

........but Aodhan O'Riordan (he's going for dupty of labour party) has the made the strongest statements but whether that turns into action in government if he ever got education portfolio[URL="http://"][/URL]

He won't ever be given that portfolio though....because of his hardline views on the subject of religion in schools.

The last thing the Labour Party needs now is to have a minister with views that correspond to about 5% of the population.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

He won't ever be given that portfolio though....because of his hardline views on the subject of religion in schools.

The last thing the Labour Party needs now is to have a minister with views that correspond to about 5% of the population.

5%?

Interesting that a 2010 Bishops Conference survey found that 10.1% of Irish Roman Catholics did not believe in God. So think about that for a second, 10% of people who class themselves as Catholic don't believe in god......

Now add that to the 277k people (2011 census...approx 7.63%) who actually have enough cop on to list themselves as no religion on the census, thats certainly more then the 7% you are claiming.

Lets also not forget that this census figure alone is larger then church of Ireland or Muslim faiths in Ireland and its actually the second biggest grouping after Catholics, so ignoring it is wrong on so many levels.

Whats the alternative, leaving things they way they are for about 20% of the population who actually bother to practice their catholic faith on a regular basis outside of births, deaths and marriages?
:rolleyes:

Even the catholic church doesn't like non practicing Catholics like the above, its common for many priests to refu

I Heart Internet

Nothing about practicing/believing catholics or not Cabaal.

5% is just my estimate of the number of people who would get on board with O'Riordan's views about reforming the school system.

TheChizler

I Heart Internet wrote: »

5% is just my estimate of the number of people who would get on board with O'Riordan's views about reforming the school system.

Interesting how you didn't mention that at the time :rolleyes:

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

He won't ever be given that portfolio though....because of his hardline views on the subject of religion in schools.

The last thing the Labour Party needs now is to have a minister with views that correspond to about 5% of the population.

• 30% of parents would prefer to send children to primary school run by VEC on behalf of the State
• 27% of parents would opt for Church-run primary schools - current model
• 24% of parents would choose multi-denominational primary schools – eg. Educate Together model
• 20% of parents would opt for State-run primary schools – no patron.

only 27% want to avail of schools as they currently are. May be bad at maths but 27+5 is not equal to 100 last I checked.

Link

I Heart Internet

TheChizler wrote: »

Interesting how you didn't mention that at the time :rolleyes:

Didn't I??

".....to have a minister with views that correspond to about 5% of the population."

I'm pretty sure I did.

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Didn't I??

".....to have a minister with views that correspond to about 5% of the population."

I'm pretty sure I did.

Which is notably missing the "just my estimate" qualifier, this being rather important if you're then going to act surprised, innocent and injured when there then follows a "this number is nonsense" discussion.

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Do you mean the local, Catholic Church owned and run school, funded by the state like all other privately owned schools in Ireland?

I think they say "state-funded", because "state-funded" is what they mean. That being the predominant, defining, essential characteristic of such schools.

This is especially tedious because not only have you raised this precisely particular meaningless quibble numerous times before, and taken on the ensuing discussions not in the slightest, but because we're getting opposite spins on this in either ear. If the "endowing religion" objection is raised, or indeed the "right to education without religious discrimination" one, assorted status quo defensor types will pop up to say "clearly constitutional Because Reasons". Generally amounting to an appeal to incredulity that it couldn't be so if it weren't, and crucially, minimisation of their degree of denominationalism. (Russian doll entities, "doctrinal light touch", etc, etc.)

Then we get the Most Denominational Things Ever take, when that's what suits.

alaimacerc

Banbh wrote: »

Fianna Fail/ Greens gave us the blasphemy law and the write-off for the abusive religious orders.

Unfortunately, if you're going to write off every politician or party on the basis of "guilty by association with Fianna Fail", you're left with a pretty empty electoral bathtub.

I don't know what Sinn Fein's attitude or policy is in these matters but will look it up.

Good luck with that! I did find the following statement on their website: "Sinn Féin supports the creation of a secular education system." However, that's in the context of a document that seems to be essentially giving out yards about the Northern situation, on the basis of "the problem with the UK educational system is that it's the UK educational system", insisting on quaintly pre-GFA terminology like "the 26 Counties", etc. So by "support", I think we can safely conclude they mean "opportunistically oppose or strategically stay silent". I don't think you'll be getting SF politicians going against nimbyist attempts to throw together "don't be changing the ethos of our local school!" blocking minorities any time soon.

The independents are a mixed bag and may contain people from the religious right as well as socialists and progressives.

And in the case of some independents, both in the same person at the same time! *coughmariancoughcoughharkincoughcough*

And we know that Labour / Fine Gael have done nothing and have no plans to do anything in their time remaining.

I think that's somewhat unfair. Ruari Quinn's done far more that any other MoE to progress matters on a number of fronts. (That that's "very little indeed" itself speaks volumes, of course.) He's OK'd more ET schools than anyone else, the first ET secondaries that were being held up to a ludicrous extent by the previous lot, and at least made the occasional noises about changes in patronage and "minority" inclusion.

I Heart Internet

alaimacerc wrote: »

Which is notably missing the "just my estimate" qualifier, this being rather important if you're then going to act surprised, innocent and injured when there then follows a "this number is nonsense" discussion.

I made a point that included a statistic, someone entirely misunderstood my point and thought I meant something completely different. I didn't. I was happy to clarrify though.

Good luck with the O'Riordan for Minister for Education campaign though lads

I Heart Internet

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think they say "state-funded", because "state-funded" is what they mean. That being the predominant, defining, essential characteristic of such schools.

State-funded is a very accurate name for almost all schools in Ireland.

When a query is raised about catholic liturgy in the life of a school, it is sensible to ask - "Who owns the school?" and "Who manages the school?"

That's what I did.

I Heart Internet

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think that's somewhat unfair. Ruari Quinn's done far more that any other MoE to progress matters on a number of fronts. (That that's "very little indeed" itself speaks volumes, of course.) He's OK'd more ET schools than anyone else, the first ET secondaries that were being held up to a ludicrous extent by the previous lot, and at least made the occasional noises about changes in patronage and "minority" inclusion.

He'd have gotten a lot further if he focussed on encouraging the hand-over of certain RCC owned schools to other patrons and avoided his regular sabre-rattling at religious schools in general. Trying to encourage hand-overs while telling everyone about how he'd like to effectively strip the religious ethos of remaining schools was never going to work. As I described it previously here - it's a bit like scaring the horses and then wondering why they won't move paddocks.

Hotblack Desiato

I Heart Internet wrote: »

He'd have gotten a lot further if he focussed on encouraging the hand-over of certain RCC owned schools to other patrons and avoided his regular sabre-rattling at religious schools in general.

Yeah, right.

Like we can believe Diarmuid Martin when he says the RCC should hand schools over. How many so far?

It only takes a few parents (or even non-parents) to kick up an almighty (no pun intended) fuss and block change, meanwhile parents of pre-school children and future parents get no say at all.

My mother was on a school board, the laugh was that she only joined it when I was in 5th year and she stayed on it for several years after I left, none of the other 'parents' had a child in the school within the previous ten years. But they were all regular massgoers, so that was important.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think they say "state-funded", because "state-funded" is what they mean. That being the predominant, defining, essential characteristic of such schools.

Surely the fact that they're owned and run by the religious is the predominant, defining, essential characteristic of such schools, which is why so many secularists are unhappy about them? Or are we ok to say this is not a defining characteristic anymore?

alaimacerc wrote: »

This is especially tedious because not only have you raised this precisely particular meaningless quibble numerous times before, and taken on the ensuing discussions not in the slightest, but because we're getting opposite spins on this in either ear.

Hasn't the objection always stalled on the point that the schools are in fact owned and operated by religious institutions, for the precise purpose of providing a specific religious ethos in education, as they are entitled to do, though? You keep coming back to it, you just never seem to get around it.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If the "endowing religion" objection is raised, or indeed the "right to education without religious discrimination" one, assorted status quo defensor types will pop up to say "clearly constitutional Because Reasons".

Or they will continue to repeat that the Supreme Court found that it wasn't an endowment of religion. So whilst in your opinion you can argue that it's an endowment of religion, in fact it is not. Raising the point over and over will never make you right; only reversing a Supreme Court decision will.
Raising a "right to education without religious discrimination" objection will always fail on the point of "right"; you know no such right exists, but you keep trying to pretend it does. Children have a right to a certain minimum education, and a right not to attend religious instruction. That does not parlay into a "right to education without religious discrimination", or even into what you seem to think such a right should convey.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Generally amounting to an appeal to incredulity that it couldn't be so if it weren't, and crucially, minimisation of their degree of denominationalism. (Russian doll entities, "doctrinal light touch", etc, etc.)

I'll admit to a degree of incredulity that you still think repeating yourself eventually makes you right.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Then we get the Most Denominational Things Ever take, when that's what suits.

Mmm.. I think you're making stuff up again?

Brian Shanahan

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.

In all honesty the property should legally revert to the state, after all the church as patron is only a temporary custodian for a state owned, state maintained, state run and state staffed facility. Their ownership is nothing more than a polite legal fiction to solve a problem the British government encountered 150 years ago, and a relic the current state found convenient to have around, because they thought it would get them off the hook in cases like paedophile teachers.

Brian Shanahan

Cabaal wrote: »

I didn't take the pioneer pledge at all, i was the only one in the class that refused and i was singled out for it too but both students and the teacher.

About a fifth of my year failed to take it (being a country school, it was done every two years with fifth and sixth classes). I was the first to decide not to take it, after the principal said that we didn't have to and pretty much persuaded the others, along the lines of "sure we'll all probably break it anyway so we're better off not promising".

The principal organised the classes so that those of us not taking the pledge wouldn't be seen by the arch-bish.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

In all honesty the property should legally revert to the state, after all the church as patron is only a temporary custodian for a state owned, state maintained, state run and state staffed facility. Their ownership is nothing more than a polite legal fiction to solve a problem the British government encountered 150 years ago, and a relic the current state found convenient to have around, because they thought it would get them off the hook in cases like paedophile teachers.

That's not actually true though is it?

I Heart Internet

ninja900 wrote: »

Yeah, right.

Like we can believe Diarmuid Martin when he says the RCC should hand schools over. How many so far?

It only takes a few parents (or even non-parents) to kick up an almighty (no pun intended) fuss and block change, meanwhile parents of pre-school children and future parents get no say at all.

So we listen to parents when they tell us what we want and they are a nuisance when they don't agree with us? I see.

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So we listen to parents when they tell us what we want and they are a nuisance when they don't agree with us? I see.

What we should do is listen to parents when they say "I'd like my and my child's rights to education, freedom of conscience, and religious equality to be vindicated, please." What we shouldn't do is listen them when they're saying "no, screw those people, it suits me slightly better to keep things as they are now."

What we actually do is the reverse, of course, so I assume your own "listening to parents" model is untroubled thereby.

Hotblack Desiato

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So we listen to parents when they tell us what we want and they are a nuisance when they don't agree with us? I see.

Is this an utter failure of comprehension, or deliberate misrepresentation on your part?