School patronage

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

Oh I see, you want larger schools. Its not an argument specific to Gaelscoileanna though. I'm not sure parents would really agree with larger schools and having to travel further. People kick up a fuss when hospitals close down departments and amalgamate them for a similar rationale. Even though its justifiable IMO for certain highly specialised medical services.

Yes people are stupid like that. They would prefer to have stuff like hospitals which perform every type of surgery and schools in their back yards, despite the evidence clearly showing that such hospitals are massively dangerous, and that the duplication of schools is imposing an extra cost burden on the education system, by unneccessarily duplicating roles and assets.

expectationlost

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes people are stupid like that. They would prefer to have stuff like hospitals which perform every type of surgery and schools in their back yards, despite the evidence clearly showing that such hospitals are massively dangerous, and that the duplication of schools is imposing an extra cost burden on the education system, by unneccessarily duplicating roles and assets.

atleast the gov/hse takes some responsibility for hospitals they'll take none for schools

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may deplore the fact that the majority preference in Ireland is for denominational-patranage schools, but the reality is that it is.

I don't know what the majority preference in Ireland is, but then neither do you.

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

atleast the gov/hse takes some responsibility for hospitals they'll take none for schools

Even in Ireland we wouldn't think it remotely acceptable if a hospital admitted patients from a waiting list prioritised by religion. Yet for some bizarre reason that is deemed perfectly acceptable for taxpayer funded schools.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I don't know what the majority preference in Ireland is, but then neither do you.

I don't know why you say this. We have the evidence from the 2012/13 Consultations, in which people were asked about their patronage preferences in some detail. I realise this research doesn't show what you wish it to show in regard to patronage preferences, but while that might explain why you dismiss it it doesn't explain why you expect everyone else to.

And in fact there has been a fair degree of research published since the mid-1990s, commissioned by bodies as diverse as Educate Together, Iona, the Irish Primary Principals Network, the INTO and the ESRI, regarding people's views about the place of religion in education and in school governance. The Consultation findings don't exactly come as a bolt from the blue, in the light of that earlier research. There is a massive over-provision of Catholic school places in Ireland, and a corresponding under-provision of non- or multi-denominational places, but if the system were to be rebalanced in line with demand denominational places would still be in the substantial majority.

Hotblack Desiato

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the consultations only covered a very small subset of areas, so to claim that the majority of parents would choose denominational schooling if they had a free and equal choice, which the vast majority of them currently don't have and never have had, is rather the stretch.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And in fact there has been a fair degree of research published since the mid-1990s, commissioned by bodies as diverse as Educate Together, Iona, the Irish Primary Principals Network, the INTO and the ESRI, regarding people's views about the place of religion in education and in school governance.

People or parents (and parents-to-be) ? because the views of grandparents, parents of adult children, and non-parents are completely irrelevant to what the future shape of education in this country should be. As you know there is a huge generational divide in Ireland on the RCC and what its position in society should be - so let's have some information on these studies and their methodology please before they are used to support claims.

Peregrinus

The consultation was conducted in 43 school areas. The areas chosen were those which, per the 2011 census (a) had a population of between 5,000 and 20,000, and (b) had a less than 20% population increase since the 2006 census. These criteria were adopted because they identified areas in which there was no prospect of establishing additional schools.

In 42 out of 43 areas, a majority of parents expressed a preference for denominational patronage; in most cases a large majority. That's a pretty consistent pattern. There may well be some reason to think that this pattern wouldn't be replicated in the areas not surveyed but, right now, I'm not seeing it. The areas surveyed were disproportionately urban (because rural school areas were more likely to be ruled out by the 5,000 population threshold) and disproportionately middle-class (because middle-class areas have more stable populations; Dublin 6, for example, was the only area surveyed in Dublin city) so if the demographic criteria did introduce a bias one way or the other, an appeal to stereotypes would suggest that it wasn't a bias towards religious patronage.

As for your dismissal of all the other research, rather than dismissing it on the grounds that it could have involved non-parents, wouldn't a more rational approach be to see whether it did or not, and then decide what weight to attach to it? For the record, the research commissioned by the INTO and the IPPN surveyed the views of teachers and principals respectively, the ESRI and Educate Together were surveying the parents of primary-school-age and younger children, and I'm not aware of who the IONA-commissioned research subjects were.

Nor am I saying, incidentally, that all of this research uniformly shows high demand for denominational patronage - I haven't read it all - so before you whoop with joy and say that at least you are justified in dismissing the INTO and IPPN research, check first whether that research doesn't actually support you. I'm just saying that, contrary to your knee-jerk "I don't know, and neither do you" stance, there is in fact quite a bit of research out there on what parents want, the most recent and largest (albeit not comprehensive) research, the Consultation, showed a strong demand for denominational patronage, and you can't just wave all this away and insist that all must operate out of ignorance. You can make that choice for yourself, but not for others.

recedite

Suppose it could be shown in an opinion poll that the majority of people wanted denominational hospitals, with priority admission for people of the majority religion.
Would that make it right?

Peregrinus

The question I'm tackling is not whether it's a good thing that a significant number of people prefer church schools, rec, but whether it's a thing at all. I think it is a thing, and denial of it is simply wishful thinking which will not assist the cause of those prefer want secular schools (because it amounts to refusal to deal with one of the the principal barriers to getting them).

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question I'm tackling is not whether it's a good thing that a significant number of people prefer church schools, rec, but whether it's a thing at all. I think it is a thing, and denial of it is simply wishful thinking which will not assist the cause of those prefer want secular schools (because it amounts to refusal to deal with one of the the principal barriers to getting them).

I, for one, am prepared to stipulate that it's A Thing.

The more live questions are, I think... how big a thing, not just in "first preference share", but in strength of feeling? What remedy is available to those that don't get their "first preference"? How does this interact with the patronage status quo, and any possible "what we have, we hold", both in obstructing the whole process, and in looking for cash for their stake, which many would see as ransoming back the state's own investment back to it.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Suppose it could be shown in an opinion poll that the majority of people wanted denominational hospitals, with priority admission for people of the majority religion.
Would that make it right?

Did any of the polls ask if respondents supported a tiered admission system?
I'd be a bit wary of suggesting that one necessarily followed the other.
For instance, I would lean towards Jesuit schools as (generally) providing a good quality education. But I would lean away from their faith/ethos based enrollment policy, because it would place my children at a disadvantage.
So whilst I would be in favour of denominational education, I would not be in favour of denominational admissions.

I suspect that there may be respondents who prefer denominational institutions not because they strongly align with the ethos values of the institutions, but because they perceive a value to the style or quality of the education they provide.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

The consultation was conducted in 43 school areas. The areas chosen were those which, per the 2011 census (a) had a population of between 5,000 and 20,000, and (b) had a less than 20% population increase since the 2006 census. These criteria were adopted because they identified areas in which there was no prospect of establishing additional schools.

Where I live is the same, but larger than 20,000, so why were areas like this not included?

In 42 out of 43 areas, a majority of parents expressed a preference for denominational patronage; in most cases a large majority.

As I said before, inertia and fear of the unknown are at work here, even for parents whose kids haven't started school yet.

Dublin 6, for example, was the only area surveyed in Dublin city

But religious practice is far less in most parts of Dublin than it is in the country on average. What a joke.

As for your dismissal of all the other research, rather than dismissing it on the grounds that it could have involved non-parents, wouldn't a more rational approach be to see whether it did or not, and then decide what weight to attach to it?

Questioning is not dismissing.
You cited it, you go chase up your sources.

Nor am I saying, incidentally, that all of this research uniformly shows high demand for denominational patronage - I haven't read it all

What I'm getting at here is whether this research is, or isn't, of any more worth than the '84% catholic in the census' nonsense we hear trumpeted about all the time.

Also, the popular thing isn't always the right thing and populism does nothing to protect the rights of minorities.

You can make that choice for yourself, but not for others.

Oh, the irony, when I get to decide which christian primary my kids go to, and which single-sex RC secondary :rolleyes: :mad:

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Where I live is the same, but larger than 20,000, so why were areas like this not included?

The consultation was focussed on areas where increased provision of non-Catholic places could only be achieved by switching schools from Catholic to non-Catholic patronage. The 20,000 upper population limit is connected to the 20% population growth limit. If an area had less than 20,000 residents and less than 20% population growth then, on the demographics, there is no scope for establishing a new school. Any demand for non-Catholic patronage could only be met by switching an existing school. Hence those were the areas surveyed. It's not some sinister conspiracy. It's an entirely utilitarian calcuation.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As I said before, inertia and fear of the unknown are at work here, even for parents whose kids haven't started school yet.

You're changing your ground here, Hottie. You started off by saying that we don't know what people's preferences are. Now you are saying that their preferences are the outcome of factors which you feel entitled to dismiss. I'm puzzled by (and, if I'm honest, cannot take seriously) the claim that you don't know what people want, but do know that their reasons for wanting are unsound.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But religious practice is far less in most parts of Dublin than it is in the country on average. What a joke.

So? Have you any evidence correlating school patronage preference with religious practice? Presumably not, since by your own admission you have no idea what people's patronage preference is.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Questioning is not dismissing.
You cited it, you go chase up your sources.

I cited it, Hottie, not to show that people prefer religious patronage, but to refute your claim that we cannot know what people prefer. If you maintain that, despite the research that has been conducted into the question, we cannot know what people's patronage preferences are, you really need to offer some reason for dismissing the research. And if that reason is to be credible, it will be something that arises from your actually having read the research.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What I'm getting at here is whether this research is, or isn't, of any more worth than the '84% catholic in the census' nonsense we hear trumpeted about all the time.

Ah, I see. You're defining nonsense as "something I don't like, and wish were not so".

It is actually a fact that 84% of the population is identified as Catholic in the most recent census. A surprising fact, perhaps, but a fact for all that. We might discuss the signficance of the fact, but it remains a fact. It can only be dismissed as "nonsense" if we employ your own rather generous sense of the word "nonsense".

Still, given that rather generous sense, it's perfectly rational to dismiss research that you haven't read as "nonsense". The fact that you don't like its conclusions, or might not like them if you knew what they were, establishes that it is "nonsense". Given that, could reading it be anything other than a waste of time? I mean, who wants to read nonsense?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Oh, the irony, when I get to decide which christian primary my kids go to, and which single-sex RC secondary :rolleyes: :mad:

But, Hottie, if you are entitled to dismiss other people's patronage preferences as "nonsense", can you deny them the right to dismiss yours in a similarly cavalier fashion? Your stance here seems to me to be supporting and reinforcing the attitudes that are causing your problem. Is this entirely rational?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Suppose it could be shown in an opinion poll that the majority of people wanted denominational hospitals, with priority admission for people of the majority religion. Would that make it right?

Are you saying that sometimes principles are more important than opinion polls, or even (faked) referendums?

recedite

Basic principles such as equality and freedom, yes. Flags, no.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Basic principles such as equality and freedom, yes. Flags, no.

Off-topic, but the freedom to remain living in one's own country without being invaded and having one's own land stolen seems a pretty basic principle to me.

SpaceTime

I just see Ireland ending up being dragged through the courts over this and it'll probably be by a religious minority more so than atheists as we're not a recognised "group" because we're a religion in the same way as not liking stamp collecting is a hobby.

The fundamental issue here is that we do not have a public education system at primary and secondary level.

The term National School is basically just a big pretence / lie maintained for some kind of historical reasons or some attempt to pretend we've a school system.

There's an interesting Wikipedia article on the history of them but it ends with some nonsense about how they're de facto multi denominational which is just not true at all.

Our system actually went backwards under the current school rules by blending religious education through the whole curriculum in schools which it would seem mightn't even be constitutional.

MrPudding

expectationlost wrote: »

Tristram Hunt criticises “absurdities” caused by having faith schools in the education system http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/06/tristram-hunt-criticises-absurdities-caused-by-having-faith-schools-in-the-education-system getting bolshy as they vie for leadeship

Some of the stuff he says is pretty sensible. I suspect he might actually be a decent politician.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes people are stupid like that. They would prefer to have stuff like hospitals which perform every type of surgery and schools in their back yards, despite the evidence clearly showing that such hospitals are massively dangerous, and that the duplication of schools is imposing an extra cost burden on the education system, by unneccessarily duplicating roles and assets.

Are these people, by any chance, the same people that want less potholes, better trains, more hospital beds with shorter waiting times for treatment and a tax cut?

MrP

Huntergonzo

I don't know my history inside out, so can someone please tell my exactly why religion is thought in schools as literal fact, now I know most of our primary schools are run by the catholic church (which is a genuinely insane situation when you think about it clearly and impartially) but why is this the case?

I mean how in the jaysus did this happen? why did I grow up going to school hearing all about the long haired, miracle workin hippie born of a virgin with an omnipotent but very hate filled daddy and yet at the same time names like Darwin, Curie, Newton, Einstein were hardly ever, if ever mentioned in primary school?!

Also why is this still going on in the 21st century, it's like some sort of widely socially acceptable form brainwashing for children.

PopePalpatine

It all started with the creation of the National Schools system in 1831. They were originally intended to be multi-denominational, with representatives from the CoI, the Presbyterians and the RCC comprising the school board, but they all threw a tantrum and refused to work together. The National Schools effectively became denominational.

Huntergonzo

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It all started with the creation of the National Schools system in 1831. They were originally intended to be multi-denominational, with representatives from the CoI, the Presbyterians and the RCC comprising the school board, but they all threw a tantrum and refused to work together. The National Schools effectively became denominational.

Ye it was a semi-loaded question because I had heard something about 1831 National school system but that's as much as I know, I've never read up about how it progressed to the current system we have. Still though it's a bit ridiculous that in this day and age we don't have secular education, but again it's just something people completely turn a blind eye to.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hottie

Grow up ffs.

robindch

Mod:

Peregrinus wrote: »

[...] Hottie [...]

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Grow up ffs.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, no name-calling now please!

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

Are these people, by any chance, the same people that want less potholes, better trains, more hospital beds with shorter waiting times for treatment and a tax cut?

MrP

Probably.

expectationlost

‘Lazy’ strategy set to result in poorer learning - expert
Dr Pasi Sahlberg: Parental choice likely to mean educational inequality in Ireland http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/lazy-strategy-set-to-result-in-poorer-learning-expert-1.2263234 Addressing a Department of Education policy seminar in Dublin

choice is for the rich

4 experts tell em, will they listen?

expectationlost

Group calling for Educate Together school says 433 children signed up http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0626/710884-school-terenure/

so what are their chances, was area already surveyed?

says survey done in 2011 http://www.educatetogether.ie/dublin-6


http://www.educatetogether.ie/media/national-news/dublin-school-places

still no school?

expectationlost

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/educate-together-takes-legal-advice-on-admissions-1.2264527

if all ET schools are oversubcribed, what does allowing students from further away help?

Hotblack Desiato

Surely even the politicos can see the entire patronage system as it stands is unworkable.

But they're too terrified of the catholic oul' wan vote to listen to what parents need.

lazygal

It did strike me as bizzare that the dept could dictate to ET schools about their catchment areas and enrolment policies while at the same time throwing its hands in the air and claiming it couldn't tell religious schools what to do in terms of enrolment. At least ET seems have grown a pair and is challenging this.

SpaceTime

expectationlost wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/educate-together-takes-legal-advice-on-admissions-1.2264527

if all ET schools are oversubcribed, what does allowing students from further away help/

I'd say it's more the department's 19th century policies and deeply embedded religious philosophies that have denied children access to secular education.

Educate Together is just trying to change things while in a straight jacket of the 1960s school rules that require integrated religion (and optional laundry as a subject for girls ... I kid you not!).

Looks to me like an opportunity being taken to kick ET. Not surprising tbh.

Also probably prevents "awkward" parents from demanding school places and disrupting the ethos of the holy public school system.