School patronage

eyescreamcone

Smack my children with a thorn stick and you'll be eating it! That's my law!!!

expectationlost

Change in ‘archaic’ rule on religious teaching sought
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/change-in-archaic-rule-on-religious-teaching-sought-1.1939144

don't know in what context rule 68 came up not sure it was the committee perhaps the new ministerial briefing http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Ministers-Brief-/ huge unsearchable pdf can anyone find it

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

Change in ‘archaic’ rule on religious teaching sought
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/change-in-archaic-rule-on-religious-teaching-sought-1.1939144

don't know in what context rule 68 came up not sure it was the committee perhaps the new ministerial briefing http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Ministers-Brief-/ huge unsearchable pdf can anyone find it

Rule 68 has been around since forever. It may not always have been called rule 68, but the same language was always there. It is certainly pre-1922, and may go back to the establishment of the national school system in the 1830s.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rule 68 has been around since forever.

On what precise basis, prior to the (1965) Rules for National School?

Peregrinus

alaimacerc wrote: »

On what precise basis, prior to the (1965) Rules for National School?

In earlier versions of the same document, or in earlier legislation or policy regarding the conduct of national schools.

For example, here is a link to a Google books search showing that the text dates back to at least 1926, and that the precise text appeared in the Department of Educations "Rule and Regulations" in 1932. It's not difficult to find further quotes from the 1940s and 1950s.

Further Google books searches show similar language appearing from the mid-nineteenth century in official British publications. Unfortunately the full text of these works isn't online, so I can't confirm that they relate specifically to the Irish national schools, but I'm prepared to bet a pint and a chaser that they do. For absolute verification, we'd have to look up the publications concerned in hard copy in a good academic library, and I leave that as a task for the honours students.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

In earlier versions of the same document, or in earlier legislation or policy regarding the conduct of national schools.

I'd be most surprised to learn it had any legislative basis, because RfNS itself is not so much as a mere ministerial order. Hence if there were earlier such, RfNS could not be purporting to be amending or overriding such (though it might be reiterating or expounding on it).

Further Google books searches show similar language appearing from the mid-nineteenth century in official British publications. Unfortunately the full text of these works isn't online, so I can't confirm that they relate specifically to the Irish national schools, but I'm prepared to bet a pint and a chaser that they do. For absolute verification, we'd have to look up the publications concerned in hard copy in a good academic library, and I leave that as a task for the honours students.

Do you mean the likes of "Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons and Command, Volume 54"? That appears to be in a different textual context, and to not being referring to Ireland too. (Oddly, I can see the text of that one, but for your link the page is blank, albeit with highlighting. Is Google tormenting us with random pages to different users?)

Earlier mentions might, of course, need to be seen in the context of different "arrangements" for national schools. But the precise history of the wording itself seems an interesting topic...

Peregrinus

1. I don’t know why Google is giving us differing results, the sly minx. It may have something to do with the fact that I’m in Australia, and Google Books has copyright/licensing issues which are jurisdiction-specific. Just a guess.

2. As for the legislative basis for the Rules for National Schools, as far as I can see the position is that when they were introduced they had no statutory basis - as in, there was no Act of the Oireachtas providing for the Minister to make Rules for National Schools.

The Rules themselves do not explicitly specify a legal basis, but are written as though they have a basis in mind. In the Preamble the Minister claims to “make with, where necessary, the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, the following Rules for National Schools under the Department of Education”. That language does suggest that the rules invoke official powers of both the Minister for Education and the Minister for Finance. And the rules recite in full the educational provisions of Article 42 and 44 of the Constitution. At a minimum these articles are relevant because they establish parameters within which the Ministers must exercise whatever powers they have. But reciting them may hint at an argument that the Constitution impliedly gives the Minister a power to issue rules to ensure that the educational requirements of Arts 42 and 44 are carried into effect - i.e. the rules have no statutory basis but they do have a constitutional basis.

I did find this statement by the Minister for Education in answer to a Parliamentary Question in 1989:

“The primary education system derives from the Stanley letter of 1831, the Royal Charters of 1845 and 1861, the Ministers & Secretaries Act of 1924, Articles 42 and 44 of Bunreacht na h-Éireann, and the School Attendance Act 1926.

The rules for national schools are not statutory rules but exist in pursuance of Articles 42 and 44 of the Constitution and have their origins in rules previously drawn up on the basis of the Stanley letter and Royal Charters by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. The Minister for Education is empowered under the Ministers and Secretaries Act of 1924 to administer public services in education and to take over the functions of the Commissioners for National Education in Ireland. In numerous court cases the rules have been afforded quasi-legal status, and the rules, along with administrative circulars and directives have been treated as legally binding.”

The context has changed slightly since that answer was given. We now have the Education Act 1998, which give the Minister power to issue “directions” on a wide variety of matters, and requires Boards of Management, Inspectors and others to respect those directions. No particular formalities are requires for the issue of directions. It must be at least arguable that the Rules for National Schools now have the status of “directions” under the 1998 Act, at any rate if they have been ratified or confirmed by anything done by the Minister since the Act commenced.

It’s obvious from what the Minister said in 1989 that the Rules for National Schools did have predecessors, going back to British days, with presumably a similar unclear basis but effective status. And we know from the Google searches - at any rate, I know, because I’m seeing stuff that you’re not - that exactly this language seems to have formed part of those predecessor documents from at least as far back as 1932.

I can’t, through Googling, find out what was said about this in the predecessor documents issued by the Commissioners of National Education prior to 1922, so I have to go back on my initial statement that this wording is pre-1922. It may be pre-1922, but I can’t say that it is. But, given the dominance of the church in national education even in pre-1922 days, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to find this wording, or something to the like effect, in the policies and directions issued by the Commissioners of National Education.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rule 68 has been around since forever. It may not always have been called rule 68, but the same language was always there. It is certainly pre-1922, and may go back to the establishment of the national school system in the 1830s.

I meant don't know in what context rule 68 came up, this week.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

I meant don't know in what context rule 68 came up, this week.

The context is in the newspaper article you provided a link for. The current minister wants to "amend" Rule 68, but not delete it. (The previous minister, Ruairi Quinn, decided to ignore it).

Minister for Education Jan O’Sullivan is seeking to amend a 50-year-old directive to primary schools which states that religious instruction is “by far the most important” part of the curriculum.
She believes “the language and tone of rule 68 is archaic and doesn’t reflect the reality of today’s primary education sector”, her department said.

The Minister, however, has stopped short of ordering the deletion of the rule as recommended by an advisory group on patronage and pluralism.
In its 2012 report, the group chaired by Professor John Coolahan said “as a first step” towards updating the rules for national schools “rule 68 should be deleted as soon as possible”.
The rule states: “Of all the parts of a school curriculum Religious Instruction is by far the most important, as its subject-matter, God’s honour and service, includes the proper use of all man’s faculties, and affords the most powerful inducements to their proper use.
“Religious Instruction is, therefore, a fundamental part of the school course, and a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school.”

Peregrinus makes an interesting point that these "rules" have only very murky legality about them anyway.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for the legislative basis for the Rules for National Schools, as far as I can see the position is that when they were introduced they had no statutory basis - as in, there was no Act of the Oireachtas providing for the Minister to make Rules for National Schools...
It must be at least arguable that the Rules for National Schools now have the status of “directions” under the 1998 Act, at any rate if they have been ratified or confirmed by anything done by the Minister since the Act commenced.

Nevertheless I think schools funded by dept of education are obliged to follow departmental rules, even arbitrary ones. But that leaves the question, why are the many school who don't treat religion as the most important subject in the world not being disciplined, for breaking the rule? I'm inclined to think that this is one of those stupid rules that supporters can wave like a flag to justify their stance, but detractors are allowed to ignore with impunity. On that basis, I don't see that it makes any practical difference whether they amend it, delete it, or leave it alone.
Personally I'd prefer to see it deleted, purely because I don't like having rules unless you intend to enforce them. The real issue is not rule 68, it is whether or not the state should fund religious schools with public money. Once the state hands money over to a religious organisation, for the purposes of providing education, they are naturally going to use that money to further their own ends. Regardless of whether Rule 68 exists or not.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

The context is in the newspaper article you provided a link for. The current minister wants to "amend" Rule 68, but not delete it.

I meant in what context was the minister asked about it in order for a report about what she thought about it to appear in the Irish Times last week.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

I meant in what context was the minister asked about it in order for a report about what she thought to appear in the Irish Times.

Oh, right.

It's been a live issue, on and off, for a couple of years. When the present coalition government was negotiated in 2011, the Programme for Government included a commitment to establish a "Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector", which would "allow all stakeholders including parents to engage in open debate on change of patronage in communities where it is appropriate and necessary".

The Minister of at the time, Ruairi Quinn, set up an advisory group to run the forum and consult with stakeholders. The advisory group consisted of John Coolahan (a retired professor of education from NUI Maynooth), Dr Caroline Hussey of UCD and Fionnuala Kilfeather of the National Parents Council.

The Advisory Group issued the report of the Forum in 2012. The report recommended (among many other things) that the Rules for National Schools should be reviewed and updated and that " as a first step and in line with the general view expressed at the Forum, Rule 68 should be deleted as soon as possible" on the basis that "such views incorporated no space in state-supported school provision for non-Christian citizens".

The Minister, still Ruari Quinn, accepted the thrust of the report but did not act on the recommendation for immediate deletion of rule 68. It seems that he wanted the rule amended rather than deleted and, reading between the lines of the newspaper reports, that he saw no reason to do this in isolation from, and in advance of, the wider review and updating of the Rules for National Schools.

The new Minister has now reportedly asked departmental officials “to consider how best to progress the particular recommendation relating to rule 68 in the context of the ongoing implementation of the forum report recommendations”. Meaning, I think, that like Ruairi Quinn she is not going to take a stand-along decision to abolish the rule, but that it will be scrutinised in the context of the review of the Rules generally (and its prospects for surviving that review are not great).

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, right.

It's been a live issue, on and off, for a couple of years. When the present coalition government was negotiated in 2011, the Programme for Government included a commitment to establish a "Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector", which would "allow all stakeholders including parents to engage in open debate on change of patronage in communities where it is appropriate and necessary".

The Minister of at the time, Ruairi Quinn, set up an advisory group to run the forum and consult with stakeholders. The advisory group consisted of John Coolahan (a retired professor of education from NUI Maynooth), Dr Caroline Hussey of UCD and Fionnuala Kilfeather of the National Parents Council.

The Advisory Group issued the report of the Forum in 2012. The report recommended (among many other things) that the Rules for National Schools should be reviewed and updated and that " as a first step and in line with the general view expressed at the Forum, Rule 68 should be deleted as soon as possible" on the basis that "such views incorporated no space in state-supported school provision for non-Christian citizens".

The Minister, still Ruari Quinn, accepted the thrust of the report but did not act on the recommendation for immediate deletion of rule 68. It seems that he wanted the rule amended rather than deleted and, reading between the lines of the newspaper reports, that he saw no reason to do this in isolation from, and in advance of, the wider review and updating of the Rules for National Schools.

The new Minister has now reportedly asked departmental officials “to consider how best to progress the particular recommendation relating to rule 68 in the context of the ongoing implementation of the forum report recommendations”. Meaning, I think, that like Ruairi Quinn she is not going to take a stand-along decision to abolish the rule, but that it will be scrutinised in the context of the review of the Rules generally (and its prospects for surviving that review are not great).

I was asking if anyone knew in what context rule 68 came up, last week. In may be mentioned in the ministerial briefing I still hasn't had a chance to read it. stupid photocopied documents that are not searchable.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

I was asking if anyone knew in what context rule 68 came up, last week. In may be mention of in the ministerial I still hasn't had a chance to read it. stupid photocopied document that are not searchable.

The Minister made a statement on the subject about a week ago which has been reported in the media. None of the reports I have seen has said where or on what occasion or to whom she made the statement, but it may have been in the context of her appearance last week before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection, which has been holding hearings into the Department of Education estimates.

robindch

The church says it will mount a constitutional challenge if the government tries to remove Rule 37 which concerns the requirement for school employees to "uphold the ethos" of the school:

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/church-prepared-mount-constitutional-challenge-if-stripped-ethos-rights

Irish Catholic wrote:

A leading figure in Catholic education has warned that the Church could mount a constitutional challenge to any attempt to strip schools of the right to defend their religious ethos. Fr Michael Drumm, chairman of the Catholic Schools Partnership (CSP), said any attempt to remove section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 would be “unconstitutional”.

Section 37 permits faith-based organisations to employ only those who will uphold their religious ethos. “It would be unconstitutional as it would interfere with the constitutional right of religious bodies to run their own affairs and it undermines the human right of freedom of religion,” Fr Drumm told The Irish Catholic.

If section 37 did not exist, Fr Drumm said, then a religious body “could not use religious belief as a criterion for selecting its employees”. He insisted that a “balance of rights” must be found. “We are still awaiting the publication of the draft amended legislation from Government but balance has to be found. There is a balance to be found between employees’ rights and the rights of religious employers to maintain the ethos of the school,” he said.

Fr Drumm also warned that any amendment to the legislation must also be respectful of “parents’ rights to have their children educated in accordance with their wishes”. But Fr Drumm remains confident that section 37 will not be deleted.

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Minister made a statement on the subject about a week ago which has been reported in the media. None of the reports I have seen has said where or on what occasion or to whom she made the statement, but it may have been in the context of her appearance last week before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection, which has been holding hearings into the Department of Education estimates.

yes I linked to the statement in the Irish Times and said I ddin't think it was because of the committee because the IT article was published before the committee occured, do you know anything but being condescending, stop repeating things I just said above, and telling me things I already know. This is why I have you on ignore.

expectationlost

robindch wrote: »

The church says it will mount a constitutional challenge if the government tries to remove Rule 37 which concerns the requirement for school employees to "uphold the ethos" of the school:

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/church-prepared-mount-constitutional-challenge-if-stripped-ethos-rights

luckily for them the government arn't going to do so.

recedite

If section 37 did not exist, Fr Drumm said, then a religious body “could not use religious belief as a criterion for selecting its employees

I presume he primarily means teachers, ie state employees. And he thinks its OK for people applying for jobs on the state payroll to be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. We discussed this in detail last week, its a pity he wasn't here for it.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

do you know anything but being condescending, stop repeating things I just said above, and telling me things I already know. .

P is only trying to help you out.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

yes I linked to the statement in the Irish Times and said I ddin't think it was because of the committee because the IT article was published before the committee occured, do you know anything but being condescending, stop repeating things I just said above, and telling me things I already know. This is why I have you on ignore.

If you have me on ignore, how come you're not ignoring me?

SpaceTime

I think one major move would be for the state to start by directly employing teachers. They could be provided to schools but they should be state employees.

That would reflect the reality of where their pay comes from and would mean the state would be their employer and could comply fully with equality at work legislation.

It world also remove the ridiculous situation where jobs seem to go to those in the know and get rid of local panels making the whole thing much more flexible.

Recruitment should be via the Public Recruitment Service.

I've never understood why the teachers' unions stand for being treated as second class public sector employees by allowing their members' employment rights to be subject to religious and other rules that would be illegal in any other job.

recedite

SpaceTime wrote: »

I think one major move would be for the state to start by directly employing teachers.

That is what happens now, it's just an accountancy trick to pretend otherwise. Here's the pay info from the employer. There may be a grey area in the case of "private" schools, but most teachers are in national schools or free secondary schools, and their entire salary comes straight from the Dept. of Education.
Either they are public sector workers, or they are not. Which is it?

SpaceTime

Huge difference between being PAID by And EMPLOYED by though!

Peregrinus

SpaceTime wrote: »

Huge difference between being PAID by And EMPLOYED by though!

This. The state pays for the teaching staff, but it doesn't, e.g., make the hiring or promotion decisions, or operate the disciplinary procedures which are usually important functions of the employer.

I don't think we should get into an argument about definitions, but it's clear when Spacetime says that the state should employ the teachers they mean that the state should make hiriing, resource allocation, promotion, etc decisions. At the moment the state doesn't do that and, while you can debate whether it would be a good thing or not, the notino that the state should do it is plainly worth discussing.

By contrast, when recedite says that the state already employs teachers, I think they really mean that the state foots the bill for teacher's salaries, and saying that the state "employs" them is a hyperbolic way of making the point. Hyperbole has its place, but in this context saying that the state "employs" teachers obscures the reality that the state doesn't in fact exercise many of the important functions of an employer. The state doesn't employ the teachers; it just pays for them to be employed, which is important, but is not the same thing.

recedite

I think it largely depends on how temporary the contract is. In the case of building workers, lots of them are paid as "sub-contractors" meaning they are technically self employed, but if they are working for the same firm on a permanent basis, Revenue asks the firm to re-classify them as employees, meaning the firm then has to look after tax and pensions.
Then as is the case with nurses and office staff, they can be working as temps for an agency, whereby the agency is paid more than they are.

So if these teachers are permanent, and they are getting the exact amount that the Dept of Education is paying, and they are commonly referred to as "public sector workers", how is the State not their employer?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

..when Spacetime says that the state should employ the teachers they mean that the state should make hiriing, resource allocation, promotion, etc decisions. At the moment the state doesn't do that ...

The State sets out pay increments, but promotion to Principal or Vice Principal is actually a "hiring" function, which is the function that has been outsourced to the Patron. IMO its just a thinly veiled scam to get around the constitutional ban on the state "endowing" any religion.
Hopefully when the European Commission finish examining the questionable tax relationship between certain multinationals and the Irish state they will also have a look at this. Because state-sponsored religious discrimination is also illegal under EU law.

redfacedbear

recedite wrote: »

how is the State not their employer?

If the Board of Management of the school advertise the position, conduct the interviews, decide the winning candidate, sign the contract of employment, provide the supervisory & management structures that the teacher reports to and whose policies (especially in the current context 'ethos' related policies that could result in disciplinary sanction or dismissal) the teacher is obliged to adhere to - how are they not the employer?

recedite

It puts the BOM/Patron in a managerial role. Anyway, whether or not you want to call them "the employer" is somewhat irrelevant if, like me, you believe that any publicly funded position should be open to any member of the public, and free of any form of discrimination.

RainyDay

redfacedbear wrote: »

If the Board of Management of the school advertise the position, conduct the interviews, decide the winning candidate, sign the contract of employment, provide the supervisory & management structures that the teacher reports to and whose policies (especially in the current context 'ethos' related policies that could result in disciplinary sanction or dismissal) the teacher is obliged to adhere to - how are they not the employer?

Or to be more specific, it is the Patron, usually acting through the Chairperson that advertises the position, decides the criteria and selects the interview panel. The role of the BoM is strictly limited to rubber-stamping the decision of the interview panel. They cannot change that decision, unless they know of relevant information that was not known to the panel. The BoM has absolutely no control over recruitment (in the primary sector at least).

expectationlost

robindch wrote: »

The church says it will mount a constitutional challenge if the government tries to remove Rule 37 which concerns the requirement for school employees to "uphold the ethos" of the school:

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/church-prepared-mount-constitutional-challenge-if-stripped-ethos-rights

good cop bad cop
We have great teachers in Ireland: Archbishop Martin


http://www.catholicireland.net/great-teachers-ireland-archbishop/

“We need to reassure them that faith cannot be imposed and one should not attempt to impose it. But when faith gives one an added dimension, one which enriches what is purely technical, that contribution should be welcomed by all,” he said.

robindch

Martin also said that religion should never be forced:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/pluralist-ireland-can-only-happen-through-dialogue-and-respect-1.1950019

Irish Times wrote:

Progress towards a pluralist Ireland can only happen through dialogue and mutual respect, the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said. He also noted that “there are certain sectors within secular society which can be almost allergic to any explicit mention of faith within a public educational system.” Speaking tonight at a Mass in Dublin’s Clonliffe College to mark the opening of the school year, he said “those who neglect or abuse or disregard a child always indicate through their lives that they badly misunderstand who God is or even reject God. There is a sense also that one of the prime ways of determining whether a society is truly Christian or not is by looking at the way that our society treats all its children.”

He continued: “if we truly cherish the children of Ireland it means that we will work together to ensure that all our children can enjoy the most favourable possible environment for their education.” Faith could “and does play a role in the future of Irish education and not just in a marginal way.....We need to reassure them that faith cannot be imposed and one should not attempt to impose it. But when faith gives one an added dimension, one which enriches what is purely technical, that contribution should be welcomed by all,” he said.

The “common desire towards a vision of a pluralist Ireland which both those who hold a secular viewpoint of life and those whose lives are faith inspired will only be achieved through a process of mature dialogue, respectful discussion of differences and a sharing of common concerns.” he said. He continued: “the challenge facing us is great. In this Archdiocese of Dublin 18 per cent of the population is under 9 years of age and there are more children under 4 than people over 70. The youthfulness of our population means that our needs in the educational field are growing and growing rapidly.”