School patronage

lazygal

SpaceTime wrote: »

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.

It's pretty much "we're letting you in, aren't we? Now get to the back of the bus, sorry class, and do some colouring while we indoctrinate the rest into a belief that you're going to hell."

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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.

Now that I think of it, there's no way a software developer could return to their old job after a full Dáil term.

Brian Shanahan

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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.

As a clerical officer in the civil service (Revenue, I started this year), it's actually now written into our contracts that we can't hold any political office above councillor in a local authority when a CO or any office at all when at a higher grade. I'm not sure about teachers, but I imagine they've the same restrictions applied.

Hotblack Desiato

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As a clerical officer in the civil service (Revenue, I started this year), it's actually now written into our contracts that we can't hold any political office above councillor in a local authority when a CO or any office at all when at a higher grade. I'm not sure about teachers, but I imagine they've the same restrictions applied.

That's always been the case for civil servants, grades above CO are not even allowed to join a political party. FF brought in a law preventing any public comment on anything "political" which could be interpreted to be anything really.

Teachers have never had any restrictions and given how many of them there are in the Dail and in the Cabinet it'd be very hard to see it ever happening.

The Dept of Education is still trying to maintain the fiction that they are not the employer of teachers (they just set the salary scales and pay them :rolleyes: ) but this position is being eroded by the courts.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/minister-ordered-to-pay-compensation-to-part-time-teacher-1.2272658

The Minister for Education must pay compensation to a part-time teacher, who taught for 20 years in a pre-school for traveller children, over being treated less favourably than teachers doing comparable work, the court ruled.

Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley upheld a Labour Court finding Anne Boyle was an employee of the Minister and not, as the Minister argued, of her school’s management board.

The Minister argued she, like about 50,000 teachers in the State paid by the Minister, were employed by their schools’ board of management and not employees of the Minister.

In her judgment, Ms Justice O’Malley said this case involved a serious matter affecting a large number of people. It was rooted in the “unique Constitutional arrangements for education in this State”, involving a “unique tripartite relationship” between the Department of Education, the Department funded teacher and the school.

In relation to teachers whose salaries are paid by the State, the role of employer is, “uniquely, split”, with one part played by the Department and the other by the school management, she said.

The school management has the right to hire, discipline and generally direct a teacher in the day to day running of the school while the Department sets the rules about, and pays, the salaries. Since the Department was taking on what would normally be the rights of an employer in relation to pay, it also carried the “legal duties” of an employer associated with pay, she ruled.

Zamboni

Apologies if this was already posted.

Young parent outlines the stress of applying to 13 schools for a 4 year old child with no baptism certificate in South Dublin.

It is appalling that this necessary change has to be lead from grassroots parents instead of a responsible state.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/ray/programmes/2015/0707/713236-ray-darcy-tuesday-7-july-2015/

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The Dept of Education is still trying to maintain the fiction that they are not the employer of teachers (they just set the salary scales and pay them :rolleyes: ) but this position is being eroded by the courts.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/minister-ordered-to-pay-compensation-to-part-time-teacher-1.2272658

That judgement is very significant. Its the first time it has been admitted that the State is the employer. Yet, by describing the role of the employer being "split" the court seeks to maintain the system whereby schools can opt out of equality legislation to protect their "ethos".

It is ridiculous to suggest that an employer can be responsible for paying the salaries of employees, while a manager takes sole responsible for hiring and firing those same employees. We all know that the buck stops at the top, not at middle management. Therefore, you cannot have a situation where the State (as employer) is required to treat all citizens equally, but a lower level line manager (the patron) is not. The State must treat all its employees equally; anything else would be unconstitutional.
Hence, I don't think this particular judgement is sustainable.

IMO the only way for religious schools to continue hiring teachers on the basis of their religion is to divest them from the State altogether, and make some new arrangement whereby the State grant-aids the patron body as a whole on the basis of pupil numbers. The patron would then employ the teachers directly, setting the pay and conditions etc. (and be 100% responsible for all aspects of the employment) But the teachers would not be "public servants" as such. Existing teachers would probably retain contracts with the same privileges, but new recruits would not. Similar to the older Eircom and An Post workers; some of these used to work for the govt. when they were in "Posts and Telegraphs".

expectationlost

didn't sound like minister said much https://www.facebook.com/TerenureET https://www.facebook.com/TerenureET/photos/a.765551193563326.1073741828.755222281262884/783572355094543/?type=1

Record Expressions of Interest were collected - almost 500 in 4 weeks!

big number

expectationlost

Campaign for D6/6W Educate Together Primary School http://www.kevinhumphreys.ie/featured/campaign-for-an-educate-together-primary-school-for-d66w/ shouldn't he be writing legislation rather begging for 1 school

expectationlost

Ignorance of this fact is widespread. Mr Ó Diomasaigh states that Catholic schools are “diverse and inclusive” but the published enrolment policy for Sacred Heart of Jesus National School states that local baptised children take precedence in admissions. An original baptism certificate is required as evidence. Next, if places remain, come baptised children not from the locality in need of a Catholic school. Then, and only then, come unbaptised local children.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/school-patronage-and-enrolment-policies-1.2276509

can anyone find the enrolment policy for this school

lazygal

http://sacredhearthuntstown.weebly.com/policies.html

Its here under general enrolment policies. And is as the letter writer stated.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Hence, I don't think this particular judgement is sustainable.

I think you make an excellent case it's ridiculous and illogical...

... I wish I was so confident that it can't be sustained that way semi-indefinitely. But maybe it will indeed be a case of "breaking it to them gently", over a series of such. In the (IMO likely) event that political will is lacking to make such change in the first instance.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

SpaceTime

This is basically sectarianism and religious discrimination. The establishment has been criticised by the UN for it but they keep ignoring in either because they are still terrified of the catholic education lobby or because they are fully infiltrated by it and run schools on that basis.

It's going to ultimately only get fixed when someone successfully takes a human rights case.

As it stands the state doesn't really give a toss about atheists and seems to think the non religious should just tow the line or emigrate.

zeffabelli

The problem with Educate together is they bring into high relief the respect of religion.

I don't even respect my own religion there is no way in hell I will teach my kid to respect Ramadan and the traditions of other crackpot glorified voo doo.

At least in a Catholic school it becomes part of the wall paper and I can call out the superstitious bulk**** without being called a bigot, because it's my tradition.

SpaceTime

zeffabelli wrote: »

The problem with Educate together is they bring into high relief the respect of religion.

I don't even respect my own religion there is no way in hell I will teach my kid to respect Ramadan and the traditions of other crackpot glorified voo doo.

At least in a Catholic school it becomes part of the wall paper and I can call out the superstitious bulk**** without being called a bigot, because it's my tradition.

That's because they have no choice in the matter though.

It's basically illegal to operate a school without religion classes here. The school rules read like a handbook for running a convent school circa 1904.

zeffabelli

SpaceTime wrote: »

That's because they have no choice in the matter though.

It's basically illegal to operate a school without religion classes here. The school rules read like a handbook for running a convent school circa 1904.

Yes that's right, it's a constitutional obligation.

Ireland also got an exemption from the EU to practise religious discrimination when it comes to hiring teachers.

SpaceTime

zeffabelli wrote: »

Yes that's right, it's a constitutional obligation.

Ireland also got an exemption from the EU to practise religious discrimination when it comes to hiring teachers.

I'm not sure it is a constitutional obligation actually. It's how the state has chosen to interpret the constitution and mostly from departmental rules that are constitutionally highly questionable.

I see no where in the constitution that requires religious education.

zeffabelli

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm not sure it is a constitutional obligation actually. It's how the state has chosen to interpret the constitution and mostly from departmental rules that are constitutionally highly questionable.

I see no where in the constitution that requires religious education.

In a correspondence I have with the department they cite a child's right to a religious education via the constitution.

I politely pointed out to them that a right is not the same as an obligation and that using the terminology of rights, couching what is essentially indoctrination as child protection doesn't change what it actually is.

Hotblack Desiato

zeffabelli wrote: »

In a correspondence I have with the department they cite a child's right to a religious education via the constitution.

There is no such right to a particular type of religious school. There are many religions in Ireland who have no schools.

However there is a right NOT to have one's child undergo religious instruction in a publicly funded school. This right is violated all over the country every school day.

SpaceTime

My opinion based on reading the constitution is that there's a mythology about what it actually requires.

I can't see how the school rules are constitutional at all:

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

--- nothing about religion there. Could be covered by a civics class.

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

--- it's doing he exact opposite if you're not religious. In most areas you've no choice but to go to a school that in violation of your conscience and lawful preferences and if you don't send your kid you are subject to prosecution and would be risking their ability to participate in normal society.

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

--- only applies to quasi-established church members' rights it seems in reality and I honestly can't see how the current system lives up to those lofty goals.

from 44:

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

It absolutely does this in areas like education and employment of teachers. I also think the Supreme Court would have a difficult job arguing that not having a religious belief isn't covered by that too.

From 42A - children's referendum:


1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.

---- Except for their rights to freedom of conscience and to not be put into a negative situation because of their religious or non religious background ?!
Perhaps even going as far as preventing them from accessing a local primary or secondary school as they prioritise Catholic or their preferred religious group in all applications ?

zeffabelli

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There is no such right to a particular type of religious school. There are many religions in Ireland who have no schools.

However there is a right NOT to have one's child undergo religious instruction in a publicly funded school. This right is violated all over the country every school day.

I'm surprised this hasn't hit the Supreme Court.

With the children rights act, could this not be classified as state endorsed intellectual abuse?

SpaceTime

zeffabelli wrote: »

I'm surprised this hasn't hit the Supreme Court.

With the children rights act, could this not be classified as state endorsed intellectual abuse?

It could be classified as institunalised discrimination or even sectarianism to be perfectly honest.

I don't see it as much different from making Catholics' access to public services up north difficult in the 1960s.

Hotblack Desiato

zeffabelli wrote: »

I'm surprised this hasn't hit the Supreme Court.

Because it only affects parents most of whom are time-poor and cash-poor

Give me a million euro and I'll take it all the way to Europe, and give you back the change if any.

SpaceTime

The problem is you're up against a status quo and a county that for the most part won't even be able to see this as discrimination because they see education as a function of the church, not the state.

I assume nobody has had the finances or the motivation to go the whole way to the Supreme Court, yet anyway.

I'd say it will eventually happen though or we'll be dragged through the European Court of Human Rights.

It's just a shame the Oireachtas can't seem to be objective and forward thinking enough to fix the problem without having to resort to the courts, but that's what Ireland is like on some issues - brainwashed or head-in-sand.

recedite

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

The problem is in the phrase "provide for" which, on the face of it, allows the state to opt out of providing schools, and to instead provide funds to managers or patrons to run their own schools.
But this is not a requirement, it is a loophole. There is no obligation on the State to fund these private organisations.

Separately, there are other provisions in the Constitution which prohibit the endowment of religion, and there is the requirement to cherish all citizens equally, which (IMO) have the effect of closing the above mentioned loophole anyway. So yes, a constitutional challenge is long overdue.

SpaceTime

recedite wrote: »

The problem is in the phrase "provide for" which, on the face of it, allows the state to opt out of providing schools, and to instead provide funds to managers or patrons to run their own schools.
But this is not a requirement, it is a loophole. There is no obligation on the State to fund these private organisations.

Separately, there are other provisions in the Constitution which prohibit the endowment of religion, and there is the requirement to cherish all citizens equally, which (IMO) have the effect of closing the above mentioned loophole anyway. So yes, a constitutional challenge is long overdue.

That doesn't mean the state gets out of all the other constitutional obligations that are extremely clearly written.

The document is extremely proscriptive on most of them.

I just think Ireland has a habit of being very selective about which bits off the constitution matter and which don't matter at all...

Legislating for blasphemy was very urgent for example ...but sure just ignore the whole religious freedom aspects!

A la carte constitutional law!

PopePalpatine

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because it only affects parents most of whom are time-poor and cash-poor

Give me a million euro and I'll take it all the way to Europe, and give you back the change if any.

Maybe you should try starting a GoFundMe campaign for it.

Zamboni

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Maybe you should try starting a GoFundMe campaign for it.

Facebook page is ready to go

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Equal-Access-to-Education-Ireland/1642829079286825

Absolam

SpaceTime wrote: »

My opinion based on reading the constitution is that there's a mythology about what it actually requires.
I can't see how the school rules are constitutional at all:

2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
--- nothing about religion there. Could be covered by a civics class.

But Article 42 specifies:
ARTICLE 42
1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
So there is a Constitutional requirement for the State to allow parents to provide religious education to their children in schools established or recognised by the State. The means by which parents do this is by enrolling their children in schools which provide the religious education they prefer.

SpaceTime wrote: »

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
--- it's doing he exact opposite if you're not religious. In most areas you've no choice but to go to a school that in violation of your conscience and lawful preferences and if you don't send your kid you are subject to prosecution and would be risking their ability to participate in normal society.

That's not true though. You're entitled to educate your children at home, or in a private school, or to establish your own school and seek State recognition for it. It may be inconvenient to the point of practical impossibility to educate your children in a way you want whilst doing everything else you want, but the State isn't under any obligation in that regard; that's your choice and responsibility?

SpaceTime wrote: »

4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.--- only applies to quasi-established church members' rights it seems in reality and I honestly can't see how the current system lives up to those lofty goals.

How so? The State does provide for free primary education. Everything else is endeavour and reasonable, so you can't realistically expect that everyone is going to get what they want?

SpaceTime wrote: »

from 44:
3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
It absolutely does this in areas like education and employment of teachers. I also think the Supreme Court would have a difficult job arguing that not having a religious belief isn't covered by that too.

I think the State would argue (possibly, at this point, unsuccessfully) that teachers employed by religious schools are not employed by the State. But I would have thought that when it comes to Article 44,
1 The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion
would be much more likely to exercise people.

SpaceTime wrote: »

From 42A - children's referendum:
1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
---- Except for their rights to freedom of conscience and to not be put into a negative situation because of their religious or non religious background ?!
Perhaps even going as far as preventing them from accessing a local primary or secondary school as they prioritise Catholic or their preferred religious group in all applications ?

Do children actually have any of those rights? I'm not aware of any Irish legislation that specifies a child has a right to freedom of conscience. They're entitled to not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion (or non religion), but I' dubious that rises to a right not to be put into 'a negative situation'; particularly when it's a parents decision whether they're in that situation, a decision which is Constitutionally protected.

SpaceTime

Ah yes the old if you don't like the "public" system why don't you feck off and educate your kid at home or build your own school argument.

Every parent is supposed to be a fully qualified primary and secondary teacher?

Home schooling is a viable option in 2015?! Things are a bit too technical these days. It might have been viable in 1937 when you basically had to be able to read and maybe so sums to be considered to be "basically educated" and many people left school at 14.

Also it's not realistic to just keep subdividing and subdividing the school system with more and more specialised schools divided on religious grounds.

We could probably do with more division of secondary schools on basis of subject specialisation, with senior cycle colleges the equivalent of High Schools or Lycées but we instead blow all the money on having the same generic schools without any choice academically and often poor facilities and lack of subject availability all to satisfy the need for umpteen different religious orders to run schools.

I don't think many sane people would accept that home schooling or build your own school as feasible alternative to an actual public education system. The UN didn't and I doubt the European courts would either.

Honestly I think I will emigrate. I'm actually fed up to the back teeth with the religious obsessions and backwardness of this country.

I read the school rules recently and honestly, they're so obsolete they're laughable and nobody in officialdom seems to find anything unusual about them.

Sorry, but if this is Ireland I'm just not sure I'm welcome here

It's the fact that the majority of the population obviously think this situation is perfectly acceptable that makes me wonder if I actually share their point of view or want to live here anymore.