School patronage

RainyDay

katydid wrote: »

The principal acts as secretary to the BOM, but is not part of it, as far as I know. He or she doesn't have voting rights. Not in my place of work anyway. I've been a teacher's rep on the BOM of my school. I can guarantee you that in my case, I had little or no influence. In the case of my workplace, the parents' places are taken by students themselves, as they are adults, and the politicians paid great heed to the students (presumably they would to the parents as well) but I might as well have been talking to the wind.

It's the parents are the ones here who have the influence, and they are the ones who could affect change, not only on the BOM but by voting with their feet. But they don't want to, because then they would have to take responsibility for the religious education of their children.

My experience is at primary level, where the principal is very much a full member of the BOM, with full voting rights, as well as secretary to the BoM.

I presume you're talking about a VEC/ETB situation, with politicians on the BoM. I've no experience of this, but if you have two teachers (teacher rep and principal) on a Board singing from the same hymn sheet, it would be foolish for other BoM members to ignore them.

katydid

RainyDay wrote: »

My experience is at primary level, where the principal is very much a full member of the BOM, with full voting rights, as well as secretary to the BoM.

I presume you're talking about a VEC/ETB situation, with politicians on the BoM. I've no experience of this, but if you have two teachers (teacher rep and principal) on a Board singing from the same hymn sheet, it would be foolish for other BoM members to ignore them.

Yes, it's a VEC/ETB situation. The two staff members don't have to be teachers; when I was on the board, the other staff representative was the caretaker...
And of course religion isn't an issue, as it isn't taught in a PLC. But of course it would be an issue in so-called "community colleges" which are not non-denominational at all.

At the end of the day, though, even with two teachers on the board, it's only two out of eight. They are only the employees, and have little say in what goes on, especially in such important matters as the ethos of a school. I'm sure it varies according to the board, but if the local priest or rector is the chair of the board at primary level, it makes it kind of difficult to progress issues such as the secularisation of the school.

expectationlost

Form to sign to tell school/dept of ed your childs ethnicity and religion http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/01/05/bad-form/#comments

commentor made a good point

“Therefore, it is necessary for each pupuil’s parent /guardian to identify their child’s religion and ethnic background”

That statement is wrong. It is necessary to gain consent, not necessary to provide the information.

lazygal

Terrible design. No consent option hidden among the religion categories.

Hotblack Desiato

RainyDay wrote: »

But by and large, they toe the patron's line.

I +1ed this becase you didn't post 'tow the line'

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Terrible design. No consent option hidden among the religion categories.

Isn't there a 'No Consent' option at the end of the ethnicity question, and a separate 'No Consent' option at the end of the religion question?

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

Isn't there a 'No Consent' option at the end of the ethnicity question, and a separate 'No Consent' option at the end of the religion question?

Yes, you're right. I didn't notice that at first, I had to go back and look.

It's a very badly worded and designed form. It give the impression that parents are required to fill it out, and the "no-consent" option, instead of being distinct, is put in amongst other option so that the parents could have ticked one of the other boxes before discovering it.

Accidental or on purpose?

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

Yes, you're right. I didn't notice that at first, I had to go back and look.

It's a very badly worded and designed form. It give the impression that parents are required to fill it out, and the "no-consent" option, instead of being distinct, is put in amongst other option so that the parents could have ticked one of the other boxes before discovering it.

Accidental or on purpose?

What benefit accrues to the school if someone inadvertently ticks Roma and Russian Orthodox before discovering they could have said 'no consent'?

Is someone who would want to tick 'no consent' likely to tick a box just because they can't wait to get to the end of the question?

katydid

Absolam wrote: »

What benefit accrues to the school if someone inadvertently ticks Roma and Russian Orthodox before discovering they could have said 'no consent'?

Is someone who would want to tick 'no consent' likely to tick a box just because they can't wait to get to the end of the question?

I don't think there's any benefit to the school one way or the other. It's just an information gathering exercise for the Department, so they can have a picture of what kind of children are availing of the system.

If someone didn't realise they had the option of "no consent", they might have ticked another box, assuming they were obliged to (the introductory paragraph clearly implies they are required to fill it out, because of the way it's worded). I only noticed the "no-consent" box on a second looking. IF it were in front of me, I would quite likely have ticked the applicable box before noticing it.

Absolam

katydid wrote: »

I don't think there's any benefit to the school one way or the other. It's just an information gathering exercise for the Department, so they can have a picture of what kind of children are availing of the system.

So, if they accrue no benefit, why would they 'deliberately' make the no consent option difficult to discover, by placing it at the end of the list of options? Is it not more likely that it is placed at the end so that parents having not found any option which satisfies them would still have an option to tick no consent, indicating their willingness to complete the form, despite not consenting to share the requested information?

katydid wrote: »

If someone didn't realise they had the option of "no consent", they might have ticked another box, assuming they were obliged to (the introductory paragraph clearly implies they are required to fill it out, because of the way it's worded). I only noticed the "no-consent" box on a second looking. IF it were in front of me, I would quite likely have ticked the applicable box before noticing it.

It seems you're suggesting that the option to withhold the information the survey is designed to collect ought to be more prominent than the information designed to be collected. Can you see how than might be counter-productive in terms of conducting the survey? Especially since you appear to be suggesting it purely to accommodate people who don't want to take the time to read the options?

expectationlost

safety first, the form is misleading

Concern over personal info database for every primary student | BreakingNews.ie http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/concern-over-personal-info-database-for-every-primary-student-656963.html#.VKxiwzuElL4.twitter

lots of links on it here

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Primary%20online%20Database%22&src=typd

as long as its done properly, we need a system where the Dept of education can know whats going on at schools in general

so the Dept of Education/Minister can no longer say we don't know nothing to do with us ask the schools board of management.

they schools were giving out about the time this would take so they got paid to do it, it seems https://www.facebook.com/VoiceForTeachers/posts/882941285079879

of course if they provided sufficient secular schools they might not need take religious info

Simon McGarr is as usaul on the warpath although I find he indulges in creating hysteria https://twitter.com/Tupp_Ed

seems it can be connected to the existing attendance management systems http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Primary-Online-Database-POD-/Software-Providers.html

already have Post Priary Version http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Services/Returns/Post-Primary-Online-Database-P-POD-Project/

http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Register-of-users-Government-Departments.aspx#educ

recedite

Teacher wins an equality case, after being rejected for the post of school principal in a RC controlled school.

The interview board, comprising two men and a nun, asked questions about the teacher's attitude to trade union "ideas on religion" and "homos".

After they heard it was going to the Equality Commission, they destroyed their interview notes, and subsequently "could not remember" asking the questions. The Equality Commission reckoned the nun was lying.

A good result

RainyDay

recedite wrote: »

Teacher wins an equality case, after being rejected for the post of school principal in a RC controlled school.

The interview board, comprising two men and a nun, asked questions about the teacher's attitude to trade union "ideas on religion" and "homos".

After they heard it was going to the Equality Commission, they destroyed their interview notes, and subsequently "could not remember" asking the questions. The Equality Commission reckoned the nun was lying.

A good result

A good result for the candidate, but very bad result for the school, which presumably does not have €54k sitting around waiting to find a home. It is particularly disturbing as recruitement is entirely under control of the Patron, acting through the Chairperson. The BoM has no role in recruitment, and the Dept Ed rules explicitly limit the role of the BoM to rubber-stamping.

But yet, the BoM is left to pay the bill....:mad:

Zamboni

RainyDay wrote: »

A good result for the candidate, but very bad result for the school, which presumably does not have €54k sitting around waiting to find a home. It is particularly disturbing as recruitement is entirely under control of the Patron, acting through the Chairperson. The BoM has no role in recruitment, and the Dept Ed rules explicitly limit the role of the BoM to rubber-stamping.

But yet, the BoM is left to pay the bill....:mad:

Yes - it is not a good result.
Was there any repercussions for Sister B(itch)? Doubt it.
Will she pay €54k? Nope
The school will - either by the tax payer or at the expense of the current pupils education.
Won't be coming out of the diocese coffers anyway.

robindch

RainyDay wrote: »

[...] It is particularly disturbing as recruitement is entirely under control of the Patron, acting through the Chairperson. The BoM has no role in recruitment, and the Dept Ed rules explicitly limit the role of the BoM to rubber-stamping.

Following - ahem - earlier precedent, I wonder if the RCC took out insurance against this kind of lawsuit?

recedite

My understanding is that a standard diocesan interview panel for the post of principal would consist of the chairperson of the BOM plus two others appointed directly by the patron.
But the chairperson was already nominated onto the BOM by the patron, and is likely to be a priest. So that means all three members of the panel are the representatives of the patron.

The question of who pays is an interesting one. AFAIK the employer is technically the school, even though the state pays the salaries. I doubt that the state will pay any extra grant to the school to cover the award, so the BOM can presumably try to fundraise via the PA, or ask the patron to cough up.

If the diocesan patron pays (out of embarrassment) then presumably all the parishioners in the diocese end up paying.

If the diocesan patron does not pay, and the BOM incurs the debt, then facilities at the school would suffer from the ongoing "austerity measures".
The kids as the pupils would suffer, but other effects would be to increase the competitive advantage of any rival school patrons re school facilities, and more importantly to act as a deterrent to any other discriminatory interview panels.

I wonder what the situation would be if the BOM rebelled against the Patron? Its probably unlikely, as the chairperson is a direct appointee, and anyone else including the teachers and parents may have been indirectly "selected" to some extent by the system set up by the patron.
Even so, if the BOM did ask for a change of patronage, is there a mechanism to allow that without the patron's prior approval?
Maybe it depends on whether the patron owns the property or not.

BTW, on a technicality, it was the Equality Tribunal that made the award, not the Equality Authority as I stated earlier - the former deals mainly with employment law and the latter with more general issues including schools admission policies.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Following - ahem - earlier precedent, I wonder if the RCC took out insurance against this kind of lawsuit?

Well, we are talking about the organisation that insider itself against claims for child rape years before anyone, including themselves according to their own statements, apparently knew what child abuse was.

MrP

expectationlost

Enda Kenny asked about meeting with religious bodies

I will meet representatives of the Humanist Association of Ireland and Atheist Ireland in the coming weeks.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-01-20a.180&s=humanist#g186.r

can't remember is that first time or maybe the second time they met?

meanwhile on School Patronage micahel martin FF

It is clear from my discussions with many parents and school representatives that resources, rather than patronage, are their main concern. Early in the lifetime of the Government an announcement was made that 50% of schools would change from religious patronage to other models of patronage. Of the 1,500 schools affected by this issue, only one, a Church of Ireland school in the Taoiseach's constituency, has changed its model of patronage. A great deal of time has been wasted and much doubt created on this issue. We would have greater diversity if the previous Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, had not taken such a confrontational and non-consultative approach to patronage, which was never a boiling issue on the ground. The issues continue to be resources

misses the point made recently that the Bishops should have followed through on their promises

Hotblack Desiato

Why are politicians still so naive as to believe a catholic bishop and take what he says at face value? After all the scandals, 'mental reservation', financial shenanigans, and reneged deals?

From your link, at the end

Enda Kenny wrote:

When the Archbishop of Dublin called to see me, he told me that the church had too many schools under its wing and that he wished to divest it of a number of those while clearly keeping in mind that the church would require schools with a Catholic ethos. I will give Deputy Martin the dates of the full engagement we had, the issues discussed and the philosophical bodies that are involved.

If a church 'requires' schools under its ethos then let it fund them itself.

shruikan2553

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why are politicians still so naive as to believe a catholic bishop and take what he says at face value? After all the scandals, 'mental reservation', financial shenanigans, and reneged deals?

From your link, at the end



If a church 'requires' schools under its ethos then let it fund them itself.

Why do they even require an ethos? Nobody ever explains what the ethos is and why is it so important that we segregate children?

robindch

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Nobody ever explains what the ethos is and why is it so important that we segregate children?

At the risk of heading off on a regular rant, the word "ethos" means, in general, precisely nothing. In practice, however, it's a pleasant-sounding term which legitimizes the control of a school by a religious organization, for the benefit of the religious organization. In the case of primary schools, it's easy enough to see why a church might wish to exert control - kids of primary school age are easily impressionable and easily lead and if the church can get to them before they've developed any serious sense of right and wrong or true and false, and especially if it can control the curriculum to prevent kids from developing the kind of critical faculties which are useful for seeing through organizations like the church, then the church stands as good a chance of any at keeping them for life.

That's the one and only reason the church wants to keep controlling schools and that's why it asserts the existence of a meaningless something called an "ethos" which it then declares, needs "protection".

The segregation is there to inculcate a sense of ingroup solidarity for confirmed members, and for wavering members, to enforce conformity to the controlling authority.

When stripped to its essentials, the term "ethos" really becomes quite objectionable.

Hotblack Desiato

When the Archbishop of Dublin called to see me, he told me that the church had too many schools under its wing and that he wished to divest it of a number of those

One is a number, and is non-zero, so yes the RCC has divested 'a number of schools' :rolleyes:

That's mental reservation in action. Fool the listener into believing you've said what they want to hear, while actually saying no such thing.

Time for that mildly obscene Burroughs quote again.

William S. Burroughs wrote:

Never do business with a religious son-of-a-b*tch. His word ain't worth a sh*t -- not with the Good Lord telling him how to f*ck you on the deal.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One is a number, and is non-zero, so yes the RCC has divested 'a number of schools' :rolleyes:
..

nope, it was a COI

Hotblack Desiato

Whoops you're right. The COI school changed patronage, the RCC one didn't but amalgamated with another one and the building was given over to an ET

So that's a big fat ZERO then.

expectationlost

humanists have gone radical

Ban schools from seeking baptism certs for entrants, say humanists
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/ban-schools-from-seeking-baptism-certs-for-entrants-say-humanists-1.2077302

He said: “It’s time to revert to the original plan and have what we were meant to have all along: a secular national school system.” As a step towards this, he said the Government could either fine schools or lower capitation grants for schools which insisted on proof of religion in admissions.

tricky to do, gov would have to acknowledge its responsible for education, you have to provide alternatives and give them money, you would have to create a policy of giving more money to the most secular of schools, put a positive spin on it.

lazygal

Changing enrolment policy won't alter the ethos problems and the fact that the right to privacy is breached by parents having to discuss opting out of religious indoctrination during school hours. Schools will still claim they can't facilitate that nd children will be exposed to indoctrination in classrooms and be marked as different.
Having said that I really respect Brian Whiteside. He married us and prior to our wedding we had a very nice few chats about this sort of thing.

expectationlost

State-funded schools insisting on baptism certificates should be confronted by Enda Kenny http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-funded-schools-insisting-on-baptism-certificates-should-be-confronted-by-enda-kenny-1.2077561

katydid

expectationlost wrote: »

State-funded schools insisting on baptism certificates should be confronted by Enda Kenny http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-funded-schools-insisting-on-baptism-certificates-should-be-confronted-by-enda-kenny-1.2077561

Well, it's hard to argue against their policy as long as religious sponsored schools are permitted.

expectationlost

katydid wrote: »

Well, it's hard to argue against their policy as long as religious sponsored schools are permitted.

it easy to argue against when there is no choice provided by the state who funds them

recedite

The issue is not whether religious sponsored schools should be permitted.
It is about whether a publicly funded facility should be allowed to practice religious discrimination in its admission policy.
Let them set up privately funded schools if they want to restrict public access.