School patronage

recedite

According to that Irish Times article, the new rules only apply to new schools. But I'm not convinced that is the case.

Unfortunately the old "religious discrimination is allowed if it protects the ethos" loophole is still with us, despite Jan O Sullivan's much trumpeted nonsense about some great new equality legislation for school admissions.

So in effect, this means a denominational school would have to give equal priority to all local kids of their own denomination.
An ET school would have to give equal priority to all local kids, full stop.

It seems to me that ET are moving towards a position where they want to discriminate in favour of those without a baptismal cert, or in other words discriminate against those who have one. Why else would they want to bring in people from outside the catchment area, in favour of those in it?
If so, this is a new departure, because previously they did not care about religion. Which, IMO, is the way it should be.

I'm not surprised by this though. It is no doubt driven by the frustration of parents who are themselves being discriminated against. The temptation to fight fire with fire is strong.
It just goes to show that a weak and unjust state system encourages bad feeling and divisiveness in society.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

It seems to me that ET are moving towards a position where they want to discriminate in favour of those without a baptismal cert, or in other words discriminate against those who have one.

More precisely, I think they want to prioritise those people who're downrated by the other "ethea". So, that would, presumably, be not just the undipped heathens, but people from the "small" minority religions who have no denominational provisional at all. Or indeed, the "large" minorities who are nowhere at all locally represented, as is often the case.

It's a crude approach, but absent a common admission scheme -- which roll on -- it makes a certain sort of sense.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

According to that Irish Times article, the new rules only apply to new schools. But I'm not convinced that is the case.

Unfortunately the old "religious discrimination is allowed if it protects the ethos" loophole is still with us, despite Jan O Sullivan's much trumpeted nonsense about some great new equality legislation for school admissions.

So in effect, this means a denominational school would have to give equal priority to all local kids of their own denomination.
An ET school would have to give equal priority to all local kids, full stop.

It seems to me that ET are moving towards a position where they want to discriminate in favour of those without a baptismal cert, or in other words discriminate against those who have one. Why else would they want to bring in people from outside the catchment area, in favour of those in it?
If so, this is a new departure, because previously they did not care about religion. Which, IMO, is the way it should be.

or that when starting up news schools the dept insist on _local_ demand, there may not be quite enough in the immediate area, ET might want to a wider catchment area to start the schools and then when they are more ET/non-religious they can narrow the catchment area.

Hotblack Desiato

There's a particular problem in Dublin 6 and no doubt other places - an Irish Times journalist complained about her own experience about a year and a half ago.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/for-children-with-no-baptismal-certificate-the-school-gates-seem-to-be-closed-1.1624522

It's not so much a shortage of school places in general, but a particular injustice in how they are allocated, and in particular how kids who don't live in the area can jump the queue.

The religious schools in that area are seen as 'desirable' - so they admit a significant number of children from outside the area who are of the 'right' religion.

The local 'religious' kids bumped down the priority list by the outsiders, take up a large proportion of places in the local ET.

The ET is not allowed to prioritise kids by religion, and (in this case and in the case of, it seems, all but the most recently established ETs) isn't allowed to prioritise by catchment area either. So the admission policy is strictly by application date.

Result - the 'posh' religious schools are overflowing with kids who live outside the area

The less posh religious schools are overflowing and prioritise kids of the 'right' religion

The ET goes by application date, so unless you were living there when the child was born and had the foresight to instantly put their name down you're screwed. If your child was born at the 'wrong' time of year you're still screwed.

Local kids are screwed over by 'religious' kids from outside the area.

expectationlost

how big is the catchment?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

. . . The religious schools in that area are seen as 'desirable' - so they admit a significant number of children from outside the area who are of the 'right' religion.

The local 'religious' kids bumped down the priority list by the outsiders, take up a large proportion of places in the local ET.

If people seeking places in religious schools find that they have no option but to go to the ET school, isn't it obvious that there aren't enough places in religious schools?

lazygal

Peregrinus wrote: »

If people seeking places in religious schools find that they have no option but to go to the ET school, isn't it obvious that there aren't enough places in religious schools?

I think it's more obvious that the system by which children can access education is flawed. There's no reason beyond "it's always been this way" to not have reform of how we educate our children, starting with the patronage system and schools admissions. If constitutional change is needed it should happen. There is no reason for this constant duplication of resources to facilitate parents rather than children.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

There is no reason for this constant duplication of resources to facilitate parents rather than children.

Should we just build one super sized school in Athlone and force all parents to educate their children there? That would entirely remove any duplication of resources.

Peregrinus

If kids's can't get into schools, that's hardly evidence of "duplication of resources". You'd expect duplication to lead to unfilled school places, not a shortage of school places.

It seems to me that the only way to avoid duplication of resource is to offer no choice at all. You live at this address? There is a place for your child at this school, and only this school. You can take that place, or you can go private. I'm not sure that this would be a good system, or would have good outcomes. The incentives for parents who are in a position to do so to withdraw their children from the system are obvious.

The problem Hotblack points to may be a real one, but I think he's mistaken to see it as the result of the operation of religiously-based admission criteria. If out-of-area Catholic child A is given a place at the expense of within-area Catholic child B, the basis for the preference is clearly not religion - they are both of the same religion. Reading between the lines of what Hotblack says, it may be that priority is being given to the more academically promising students (thouqh quite how you can assess that on entry to primary school is not clear to me). That may be a problem, but it's not obviously a problem that arises out of having religious patrons. Non-religious schools can be equally academically selective - and will be, if the system permits it.

lazygal

Yes, of course my suggestion is one large school in athlone. Maybe, just maybe, we could.have schools.that offer places to.children in the area rather than those of a faith their parents picked out for them from.other areas. I don't see why my area, which was.not surveyed about patronage, should have at a quick count six denominational schools, all.but one of which is Catholic, and one ET and no non denominational schools. I know people will.start bringing parental choice into it but as others have said just because people want something doesn't mean it's the best system for allocating resources. Basing essential resources on the percentage of population that sign their kids up to a religion is bizzare. I fully expect the usual suspects to.bring up the old chestnut of parents wanting this system for their children and various mentions of the patronage survey in some areas as always happens in this thread.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Yes, of course my suggestion is one large school in athlone. Maybe, just maybe, we could.have schools.that offer places to.children in the area rather than those of a faith their parents picked out for them from.other areas.

Maybe, but wouldn't that also be a constant duplication of resources? Either a single school is the answer to your duplication of resources issue, or your issue isn't with the duplication of resources; its with the allocation of resources to schools that you personally would prefer didn't receive them.... A preference that is as valid as the preference of parents who do want those schools to be allocated resources, they just appear to be in the majority.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe, but wouldn't that also be a constant duplication of resources? Either a single school is the answer to your duplication of resources issue, or your issue isn't with the duplication of resources; its with the allocation of resources to schools that you personally would prefer didn't receive them.... A preference that is as valid as the preference of parents who do want those schools to be allocated resources, they just appear to be in the majority.

Now I know you'd love to get into what exactly my issue is and then spend myriad pages dissecting each and every post into its constituent parts and the parse and analyse each sentence until we all forget what we're actually talking about so for the sake of not getting dragged into the "debate" other threads have morphed into I'll say my issue is the duplication of resources. And I won't be responding to the inevitable cut and analyse style that will follow this post because it seems a deliberate posting style designed to.prevent real discussion.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Now I know you'd love to get into what exactly my issue is and then spend myriad pages dissecting each and every post into its constituent parts and the parse and analyse each sentence until we all forget what we're actually talking about so for the sake of not getting dragged into the "debate" other threads have morphed into I'll say my issue is the duplication of resources. And I won't be responding to the inevitable cut and analyse style that will follow this post because it seems a deliberate posting style designed to.prevent real discussion.

In which case; a single school in Athlone solves the problem, does it not?

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

. .. I'll say my issue is the duplication of resources.

I don't see that your soluiton - school that prioritise applicants according to where they live - involves any less "duplication of resources" than schools which prioritise applicants on any other basis. Are you actually proposing few school places? If not, where does the economy of resources arise?

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

If people seeking places in religious schools find that they have no option but to go to the ET school, isn't it obvious that there aren't enough places in religious schools?

You quoted the answer to your own question. I'll bold the most relevant bits for you.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The religious schools in that area are seen as 'desirable' - so they admit a significant number of children from outside the area who are of the 'right' religion.

The local 'religious' kids bumped down the priority list by the outsiders, take up a large proportion of places in the local ET.

According to the Department of Education there are enough school places in the area, the particular injustice is that religious schools admit many children from outside the area and don't care that the direct result of this is to leave some local children with no school place in their area at all.

The religious schools allow religion to trump location, the ET allows application date to trump location, so where a location is seen as 'desirable' then there is inevitably going to be an influx of kids from outside the area leading to shortages. It's not just a religious problem - ETs always have kids from outside the area trying to get in, as there are so few ETs that parents who want ET see any ET as being desirable, and if there is no local ET they are forced to seek one elsewhere.

However every single child coming into the area to go to a 'desirable' RC school will have forsaken the option to go to their local RC school, that is pure snobbery and elitism.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that your soluiton - school that prioritise applicants according to where they live - involves any less "duplication of resources" than schools which prioritise applicants on any other basis. Are you actually proposing few school places? If not, where does the economy of resources arise?

As has been posted repeatedly on this thread, economy of scale in terms of land, equipment, buildings etc. and fewer principals will be needed. The latter is why the teacher unions broadly want to maintain the status quo, but they're not the ones paying for it.

It's not just about patronage leading to needless duplication, it's about having single-sex schools too. It is very inconvenient for parents to have to send their kids to more than one school (can be different start/finish times, holidays, etc) just because they have both boys and girls in their family.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The religious schools allow religion to trump location, the ET allows application date to trump location, so where a location is seen as 'desirable' then there is inevitably going to be an influx of kids from outside the area leading to shortages. It's not just a religious problem - <...> However every single child coming into the area to go to a 'desirable' RC school will have forsaken the option to go to their local RC school, that is pure snobbery and elitism.

That would seem to be less a problem of religious patronage vs a secular system, and more a problem of desirable schools vs less desirable schools?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As has been posted repeatedly on this thread, economy of scale in terms of land, equipment, buildings etc. and fewer principals will be needed.

The single mega school solution to those problems isn't very likely to be a popular option though; as you've pointed out there are issues other than economies of scale, like snobbery and elitism, that drive parents choice of schools for their children. Even the more prosaic considerations such as proximity to home, academic record, aligned social values, rugby team prospects are going to lead parents to desire different schools in different locations, mixed gender, muslim ethos, science oriented, excelling in sports etc etc. I don't think a one size must fit all school system is likely to find a great deal of support from parents who have a very clear idea of what they want for their children.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You quoted the answer to your own question. I'll bold the most relevant bits for you.



According to the Department of Education there are enough school places in the area, the particular injustice is that religious schools admit many children from outside the area and don't care that the direct result of this is to leave some local children with no school place in their area at all.

The religious schools allow religion to trump location, the ET allows application date to trump location, so where a location is seen as 'desirable' then there is inevitably going to be an influx of kids from outside the area leading to shortages. It's not just a religious problem - ETs always have kids from outside the area trying to get in, as there are so few ETs that parents who want ET see any ET as being desirable, and if there is no local ET they are forced to seek one elsewhere.

However every single child coming into the area to go to a 'desirable' RC school will have forsaken the option to go to their local RC school, that is pure snobbery and elitism.

What the bits you bold tell me, Hotblack, is that the schools are taking out-area-religious kids over within-area religious kids. That's plainly not something driven by religion; the fact that the schools concerned are under religious patronage seems to be coincidental, and I can't see any reason for thinking that if their patronage changed this aspect of their admission criteria would change, since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with religion.

If the problem is that the school is "desirable", then changing the patronage will not solve the problem unless the change of patronage makes the school less desirable. And why in the name of all that is sane would be want to change schools to make them less desirable? The same result could be acheived with greater certainty just by increasing class sizes and cutting resources, and this would have the added attraction of saving money. Surely a saner policy would be to adopt measures to make the less desirable schools more desireable?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As has been posted repeatedly on this thread, economy of scale in terms of land, equipment, buildings etc. and fewer principals will be needed. The latter is why the teacher unions broadly want to maintain the status quo, but they're not the ones paying for it.

It's not just about patronage leading to needless duplication, it's about having single-sex schools too. It is very inconvenient for parents to have to send their kids to more than one school (can be different start/finish times, holidays, etc) just because they have both boys and girls in their family.

I'm still not seeing it. Do non-religious schools have lousier pupil-teacher ratios? Smaller classrooms? I don't think that having only one patronage model in and of itself results in efficencies.

I'm happy to accept that there's an educationally optimal size for a school. 80 kids is maybe too small; 800 too large. (Maybe. I'm picking figures out of the air here, but I assume that somebody has something evidence-based, research-based on this.) I'm open to evidence - if anybody has any to offer - that a signfiicant number of Irish primary schools are too small. And, inevitably, consolidating schools reduces the opportunity for diversity of patronage. If we have fewer, larger schools then, inevitably, many parents will have less choice than they currently have - and not just less choice of patronage types, but less choice of all kinds. They will have fewer schools to choose from.

A moment's thought will show that it is the minority schools that will suffer most under this system. Want a Steiner school? A Gaelscoil? A Jewish school? Tough. So while this might be a good thing from an efficiency point of view, there are obvious downsides from the point of view of diversity, the position of minority communities, the opportunity to introduce new school types, etc. This may be sacrifices that we need to make to secure financial efficiencies in these straitened times, but I would need to see a strong case being made, with some actual data about what proportion of Irish schools are to small to be viable on efficiency grounds.

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

‘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?

Letter in yesterday's Irish Times.

Lazy education policy

Sir, – Joe Humphries reports that educational expert Pasi Sahlberg warned of the “lazy” market-based strategy of parental choice in education (“‘Lazy’ strategy set to result in poorer learning”, June 26th).

As a principal of a primary school in a very disadvantaged area, I would assert that this policy is not just lazy, it is negligent and cowardly.

In February the Government finally published the report of the value for money audit on small schools and immediately announced that it would not be implementing its comprehensive and compelling recommendations.

This is more pre-election fear than laziness.

Along with the Catholic Church, the Government continues to allow several under-funded schools with similar patronage to compete for students and resources, thus facilitating parental choice on the basis of social class and ethnicity. This is resulting in a ghettoisation of communities and schools. DEIS – delivering equality of opportunity in schools – is poppycock. – Yours, etc, ANNE McCLUSKEY Principal, Our Lady of the Wayside NS, Bluebell Rd, Dublin 12.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Letter in yesterday's Irish Times.

strangley not appearing on web http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/lazy-education-policy-1.2269703 compare that with Educate Together response

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/education-and-parental-choice-1.2264468

In the interim, Educate Together offers the closest approximation to the model of an “equity-based system” that Dr Sahlberg espouses and does so within the constraints of the Irish system.
Furthermore, I would take issue with the TUI secretary John MacGahann’s statement that choice is a “largely a middle-class option”. This is extremely patronising to the many parents in this country who do not identify as “middle class” but still care passionately about their children’s education.
It also fails to account for the many socially mixed schools run by Educate Together and attended by children – of all “classes” – whose parents have chosen an “equality-based” education. Contrary to some outdated stereotypes, the proportion of Educate Together schools that are either in or qualify for the Deis (disadvantaged) scheme is greater than the national average, as is their provision for children with special needs.

the Finnish guy wasn't talking about Educate Together so I don't know why Paul Rowe chose to take offence. He was talking about the government. I doubt the TUI secretary was referring to ET either. that choice is for the rich is well known truism.

alaimacerc

expectationlost wrote: »

the Finnish guy wasn't talking about Educate Together so I don't know hwy Paul rowe chose to take offence. He was talking about the government. I doubt the TUI secretary was referring to ET either. the idea that choice is for the rich is well know.

Presumably Rowe sees criticism of "choice" as a threat, because a unitary, majoritarian solution would very likely end up being even worse than what we have. As well as putting ET out of business, of course.

I very much agree that choice is an issue with regard to equity and resources. Pretty much regardless of how you configure it. But, y'know. One step at a time.

SpaceTime

It's just the usual case of the Irish government running things to ensure all the vested interests and not the people get the best possible service.

It's nothing new and won't be reformed because there's no political will to reform it.

expectationlost

Sir, – Educate Together CEO, Paul Rowe doth protest too much! http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/educate-together-and-parental-choice-1.2272793

think this principal is again missing the bigger picture that Pasi Sahlberg was criticising the state lack of educational provision of choice.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/small-school-merger-plan-would-have-hit-galway-mayo-hardest-1.2274264

One in six small schools which were earmarked for merger under a value-for-money review that was scrapped by the Government earlier this year are in the Taoiseach’s constituency.

The value-for-money report observes: “There is no evidence that small schools provide any greater educational benefits for their pupils which would offset their greater costs.”

Ireland has a far higher concentration of small schools than the European average. A number of leading educationalists, including Prof John Coolahan, have warned of the risk of uneven and unpredictable quality.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/politicians-protect-small-schools-but-are-they-best-for-children-1.2274243

An investment of €50 million-€57million would be required in new infrastructure, the department said. This would be recouped by savings of €37 million a year, described as the “annual premium” for one- and two-teacher schools.

recedite

One of the schools on the list is Carrakennedy National School, where Mr Kenny used to teach.
With 35 pupils enrolled in 2014-15, it is located 5.4km from another small school south of Westport.
St Joseph’s NS in Mr Kenny’s home parish of Islandeady was on a separate list of 329 one- and two-teacher schools facing possible merger with larger schools in the vicinity.

Isn't there some rule that when a teacher is elected as a TD, their old job has to be held open (in reserve) for them, for 10 years?
I think Endas own teaching post would have expired, but there must be quite a few other sitting TD's who wouldn't want to see their fall-back teaching posts disappear.
In Enda's case he will be more worried about losing votes from his local electorate.
It is a sad day for democracy though, when an expert recommendation report seeking to improve the education system is ignored for such reasons.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato

It is bizarre and one of the reasons teachers are so over-represented in politics (another would be, in rural areas particularly, that they are well-known in their community and were traditionally held in esteem whether deservedly or not)

As far as I know no other public servant (e.g. doctor) has their post held open in that way, although GPs are self-employed and hospital doctors traditionally change posts for career reasons anyway. Civil servants are prohibited from involvement in national politics at all.

Traditionally political candidates would be large landowners, wealthy businessmen and members of the professions for whom the idea of giving up a job to enter politics was not an issue, indeed many would keep their profession on the go while in politics. But no private sector employer is going to keep a job open for a TD.

lazygal

expectationlost wrote: »

Sir, – Educate Together CEO, Paul Rowe doth protest too much! http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/educate-together-and-parental-choice-1.2272793

think this principal is again missing the bigger picture that Pasi Sahlberg was criticising the state lack of educational provision of choice.

He also misses the point that it doesn't matter a damn how 'inclusive' a school is, if its religious indoctrination takes place throughout every facet of the school place and those who opt out or partake against their wishes have their rights violated.

SpaceTime

lazygal wrote: »

He also misses the point that it doesn't matter a damn how 'inclusive' a school is, if its religious indoctrination takes place throughout every facet of the school place and those who opt out or partake against their wishes have their rights violated.

Same argument made by these people over and over. However, de facto or forced tolerance of others is not inclusion or acceptance it's just putting up with someone for practical reasons.

The current school rules are an absolute mess and need reform to ensure that public schools aren't evangelising.