School patronage

SpaceTime

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But that's a completely different issue from the issue you originally raised in relation to schools?

What's your point ?!

I'm not accusing schools of anything what I'm saying is that as they're a huge % of the "voluntary" but almost entirely state funded sector, they need to be extremely transparent.

Frankly, I've given up on this debate. It just goes around and around in circles.

The reality is that we've done basically nothing to ensure access to secular education despite UN criticism, endless discussion, endless debates.

We still have a bunch of private institutions running the public education system and the state adopts this weirdly hands off approach where it won't even allow itself to open schools managed by the state itself.

Meanwhile, it's still operating a system of rules for national schools that would actually shock most people unless they were visiting via a time warp from the 19th century.

The state is failing a lot of Irish children and families, but sure that's nothing new. It's almost gone out of its way to ensure it does generation, after generation.

All I see is a lot of adults arguing over which ethos they prefer and building little scholastic empires while a % of Ireland's children (supposedly our greatest resource) are basically treated like second class citizens and may not even be able to get a school place.

What kind of a society does that, other than one that puts pedantic nonsense ahead of human rights or one that's prepared to put women's lives at risk over similar adherence to utter nonsense.

Sorry to have to say this but by its own choice, Ireland is a social backwater in EU terms.

Motorways, shiny trains and hosting foreign multinationals doesn't make you a modern, progressive country, things like understanding fairness and human rights do!

As far as I'm concerned while this kind of thing continues to be excused and justified, Ireland continues to be quite an oddball country with very backwards notions in some areas of life.

SpaceTime

Also I'm signing out and no longer following this thread as its giving me a serious headache!

expectationlost

twitter discussing with a CNS school about what is faith nuturing https://twitter.com/ArdRi_CNS/status/630438733670690816 and about segretation vs differentiated teaching

ah the CNS shcool has deleted their replies just search for ArdRi_CNS on twitter

One eyed Jack

SpaceTime wrote: »

What's your point ?!

I'm not accusing schools of anything what I'm saying is that as they're a huge % of the "voluntary" but almost entirely state funded sector, they need to be extremely transparent.

My point was simply that you made a point about it being prudent for schools to publish their accounts as if they don't already, and I was just pointing out that they do. I wasn't sure why you then brought up a point about transparency in hospitals in a thread about school patronage, and that's why I questioned why you'd moved on to something else.

I know you weren't accusing anyone of any impropriety, but the transparency in schools is definitely there and if you were actually involved in the school community in a voluntary capacity, you would be aware of all this information, or at least you should be as it's all publically available online.

Frankly, I've given up on this debate. It just goes around and around in circles.

Well I've been following the thread a while now and there's a serious amount of misinformation that's been posted and I thought about linking to the proper information and then I thought "Is there any point?", because it's unlikely people actually want to understand anything which contradicts anything they already believe to be true.

The reality is that we've done basically nothing to ensure access to secular education despite UN criticism, endless discussion, endless debates.

Who do you think is putting up the most resistance to secular education and schools being divested?

Parents.

The Government are trying, the Church is trying, but the parents are having none of it.

We still have a bunch of private institutions running the public education system and the state adopts this weirdly hands off approach where it won't even allow itself to open schools managed by the state itself.

Meanwhile, it's still operating a system of rules for national schools that would actually shock most people unless they were visiting via a time warp from the 19th century.

I really don't get what this time warp thing has to do with anything. Yes the school rules are old, but then so is the Constitution, and both documents form only the basics of how both our schools and the country is run. I don't think anyone would actually be shocked by that.

The state is failing a lot of Irish children and families, but sure that's nothing new. It's almost gone out of its way to ensure it does generation, after generation.

The State of course isn't just the Government. If you want to make the point that the State is failing a lot of children and families, then a good place to start is with the Children's Referendum where only 33% of the electorate turned out to vote.

Then you could question parents and ask why are they failing their children. The vast majority of parents don't feel they are. If you look at the ESRI reports and the regularly published reports on the HSE website and numerous other sources, we're not actually doing too bad at all with regard to children's welfare.

All I see is a lot of adults arguing over which ethos they prefer and building little scholastic empires while a % of Ireland's children (supposedly our greatest resource) are basically treated like second class citizens and may not even be able to get a school place.

I really don't understand where you get this idea of "second class citizens", it's hyperbole at best because if you think a second class citizen means you don't get to put your child in the school you want, or your child has to be exempted from certain classes because you choose to have them excluded, well that's not a second class citizen by my standards.

What kind of a society does that, other than one that puts pedantic nonsense ahead of human rights or one that's prepared to put women's lives at risk over similar adherence to utter nonsense.

Every society you can think of tbh.

Sorry to have to say this but by its own choice, Ireland is a social backwater in EU terms.

That really depends upon which side of the fence you're on. I happen to think Ireland is way ahead of the curve than most other EU countries on many social issues, by it's own choice.

Motorways, shiny trains and hosting foreign multinationals doesn't make you a modern, progressive country, things like understanding fairness and human rights do!

Again though, that's only measuring by your subjective standards, and even then we have one of the most generous welfare systems in the EU, we have companies setting up here constantly praising the quality of our third level graduates, we have a system of education that's actually the envy of many countries, but then the grass is always greener elsewhere.

As far as I'm concerned while this kind of thing continues to be excused and justified, Ireland continues to be quite an oddball country with very backwards notions in some areas of life.

Fair enough, but the vast majority of people in this country don't share your opinion.

evolving_doors

Just asking for clarification on some of those points (I havn;t had time to read every post)

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know you weren't accusing anyone of any impropriety, but the transparency in schools is definitely there and if you were actually involved in the school community in a voluntary capacity, you would be aware of all this information, or at least you should be as it's all publicly available online.

Do you have a link where schools publish their accounts?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well I've been following the thread a while now and there's a serious amount of misinformation that's been posted and I thought about linking to the proper information and then I thought "Is there any point?", because it's unlikely people actually want to understand anything which contradicts anything they already believe to be true.

Who do you think is putting up the most resistance to secular education and schools being divested?

Parents.

The Government are trying, the Church is trying, but the parents are having none of it.

Where is your evidence that parents are having none of it?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I really don't understand where you get this idea of "second class citizens", it's hyperbole at best because if you think a second class citizen means you don't get to put your child in the school you want...

I think that's throwing up a bit of a strawman TBH, and time after time I hear this inference that there is choice (my way or highway mroe like!). If I'm living in a local community and my kids play with the kids on the local estate/road, they've formed a good bond (similarly with the parents) and would presume that they'll go through the system together as a community. Then enrollment time comes around... if my child doesn't get in simply because of his lack of baptism cert, how is this fair?
Are they going to school to be indoctrinated or educated?
Could these other children not get their indoctrination at Sunday school after mass (of course they must all be going to mass don't they)?
How is it fair that when places are scarce, then a child from an outside community can get precedence to education merely because of the religion their parents chose?

Shouldn't a local school be part of a community (instead of a parish)?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...your child has to be exempted from certain classes because you choose to have them excluded, well that's not a second class citizen by my standards.

And there again we have the illusion of choice... would you suggest that the child "take the soup" in order to have them not excluded? The parent does not want their child to be indoctrinated into a religion. The parent however does want their child to get an education.

Hotblack Desiato

Two Sheds wrote: »

The current system of local Boards of Management is wide open to corruption and cronyism, and in many cases is being openly abused. Some Boards of Management operate as back-scratching clubs, with the interests of the children and of the teachers being subsidiary to the interests of certain officers.

Using public funds to promote a private purpose (religion) is certainly corrupt, that I can agree with.

For back-scratching and cronyism look no further than your local BOM and the bishop's pet nominees.

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I see Absolam is playing semantics as usual.

lazygal wrote: »

"Insert suprised emoji here"

Attacking the poster not the post from the usual suspects too

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who do you think is putting up the most resistance to secular education and schools being divested?

Parents.

The Government are trying, the Church is trying, but the parents are having none of it.

'The Church' (there are many, I presume you are referring to the RCC) is trying all right - to prevent any meaningful change at all.

The government is doing far less than it promised, I would describe it as very close to f**k-all in fact. The less they do, the less risk of upsetting the religious lobbies, and backbenchers are now explicitly saying that issues like this shouldn't be discussed in the run up to an election :rolleyes: :mad: if we can't get them to discuss it now, when can we?

Parents? Most parents have no real choice, and have never had the opportunity to express what their choice would be.

That really depends upon which side of the fence you're on. I happen to think Ireland is way ahead of the curve than most other EU countries on many social issues, by it's own choice.

Can you name them? It's not gay rights in case you think the vote of a few months back gives us a free pass. It can't be women's rights or reproductive rights, either.

SpaceTime

Bankers' rights perhaps?

One eyed Jack

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Do you have a link where schools publish their accounts?

I was referring to the information that is publicly available online, not the accounts themselves, but the information on how to access those accounts, and much more information besides, which is why I said schools and how they're run is actually quite transparent.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Where is your evidence that parents are having none of it?

‘Parents and teachers are scared’: Why won’t more schools give up their Catholic patronage?

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I think that's throwing up a bit of a strawman TBH, and time after time I hear this inference that there is choice (my way or highway mroe like!). If I'm living in a local community and my kids play with the kids on the local estate/road, they've formed a good bond (similarly with the parents) and would presume that they'll go through the system together as a community. Then enrollment time comes around... if my child doesn't get in simply because of his lack of baptism cert, how is this fair?
Are they going to school to be indoctrinated or educated?
Could these other children not get their indoctrination at Sunday school after mass (of course they must all be going to mass don't they)?
How is it fair that when places are scarce, then a child from an outside community can get precedence to education merely because of the religion their parents chose?

Shouldn't a local school be part of a community (instead of a parish)?

This is a question I keep having to ask again and again - do people not investigate these things before they have children or before they move into an area?

If your children have formed a good bond, they're not going to lose out on that bond for being apart for a few hours in the day. In neighborhoods up and down the country, children play together in the evenings, at weekends and for three months in the summer and they all go to different schools. I haven't seen too many suffering from separation anxiety.

If your child doesn't get into a school for lack of a baptismal cert, is that really a school you want your child to be in then? You really can't expect anyone to take your complaint seriously if you choose to have your child baptised in order to get them into a school, and then complain because you chose to have your child baptised in order to get them into a school.

They go to school to be educated obviously, but the ethos of the school will be a determinant factor in the type of education they receive, so you would have to consider not just their academic development but also their social and personal development.

As for your suggestion that all these other children could get their education elsewhere, what you're actually suggesting there is that the parents who chose to send their children to a religious ethos school because it is a religious ethos school, are the parents who should have to be put out because you don't feel that their choice is 'fair' on you. Is your choice to have them and their children inconvenienced 'fair' on them?

They don't get precedence to an education, they get precedence to a place in an school which ethos they support. You don't support the ethos of the school, and yet you expect that your child should have the same opportunity to a place in that school as they do? I wouldn't call that fair.

Community/Parish, same difference depending on who you ask really.

Gebgbegb wrote: »

And there again we have the illusion of choice... would you suggest that the child "take the soup" in order to have them not excluded? The parent does not want their child to be indoctrinated into a religion. The parent however does want their child to get an education.

Of course not, but the child's parents can't have their cake and eat it either. The parent doesn't have to have their child indoctrinated. If the parent wants their child to get an education then they have numerous options available to them. Some of those options may be inconvenient for the parents, but often times it seems they want to put that responsibility upon other parents who have made choices for their children and are happy with those choices. What other parents may think of their choices, I'm not sure they care all that much. That is the essence of freedom of choice.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

'The Church' (there are many, I presume you are referring to the RCC) is trying all right - to prevent any meaningful change at all.

Wasn't the school in Mayo divested from the CoI? I'm reminded of a certain homeless services charity (which shall remain nameless), which when offered NAMA housing, thumbed it's nose at them because "the houses were too remote". I call that ungrateful. More people would grab an opportunity like that with both hands and be grateful for it if they were actually desperate enough.

The RCC can't divest fast enough.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The government is doing far less than it promised, I would describe it as very close to f**k-all in fact. The less they do, the less risk of upsetting the religious lobbies, and backbenchers are now explicitly saying that issues like this shouldn't be discussed in the run up to an election :rolleyes: :mad: if we can't get them to discuss it now, when can we?

Yeah, I saw that, who would have thought Labour would kick the victory chair out from under FG so soon? Politics is a dirty business, but then they do represent the will of the people and they are charged with representing the will of their constituents. Interesting to note at the end of that article is this little tidbit -

A Department of Education spokesman said the minister could not introduce changes as the laws governing religious ethos are under the Department of Justice.

A Department of Justice spokesman said the laws in place are there to reflect the "Constitutional provision of the protection of religious freedom".

FG TDs attack O'Sullivan for criticism over school baptism

Parents? Most parents have no real choice, and have never had the opportunity to express what their choice would be.

Not only were the original figures based on the 2006 census in choosing which schools to divest, but then they updated the list based on the 2011 census, then they surveyed parents in those areas, and so to suggest that parents had no real choice and have never had the opportunity to express what their choice would be, is at best simply misleading. Parents have had ample opportunities and avenues to express what their choice would be, and the majority have expressed their choice in sending their children to religious ethos schools. The minority who don't want to send their children to religious ethos schools just haven't made their choice that well known.

Can you name them? It's not gay rights in case you think the vote of a few months back gives us a free pass. It can't be women's rights or reproductive rights, either.

Yeah see you talk in terms of rights, whereas I measure how well Ireland is doing on social issues in terms of people's welfare, their quality of life. There's 6.5 billion people living on this island, and I happen to think we're not doing too badly for ourselves. There are areas we could improve upon, but for the vast majority of people, they really don't have much to complain about.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The RCC can't divest fast enough.

You're joking, right?

Not only were the original figures based on the 2006 census in choosing which schools to divest, but then they updated the list based on the 2011 census, then they surveyed parents in those areas, and so to suggest that parents had no real choice and have never had the opportunity to express what their choice would be, is at best simply misleading.

The census has no questions about school patronage preference, and a majority of parents in an area should not be able to force religious education on everyone else, anyway.

Parents have had ample opportunities and avenues to express what their choice would be, and the majority have expressed their choice in sending their children to religious ethos schools.

In many cases it's not a choice, there is simply no alternative.

The minority who don't want to send their children to religious ethos schools just haven't made their choice that well known.

So it's their fault the Irish education system is unjust and run for the benefit of vested interests?

There are areas we could improve upon, but for the vast majority of people, they really don't have much to complain about.

Being required to baptise your child when you'd rather not is far from a minor issue.

SpaceTime

Well, that: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/fg-tds-attack-osullivan-for-criticism-over-school-baptism-31433706.html

... has just taken FG off my voting preferences for the general election.

haveringchick

SpaceTime wrote: »

Given the level of lack of transparency in other bodies : charities, state bodies etc etc, it would seem prudent to have published accounts that could be consulted.

All predominantly publicly funded bodies should be fully compliant with public accounting rules.

Ireland's full of various state funded, yet unaccountable, bodies.

I'm sure if you asked the school for a meeting with the principal he or she could bring you up to speed on how your contribution is deployed. It's not really fair to imply that an impropriety has taken place unless you've been refused an explanation. Incidentally apart from 1st year we haven't been in a position to pay the contribution and there have been zero consequences for my daughter who is now going into Leaving Cert. I hope in the future to make a contribution when our circumstances improve. I wish parents would either pay it or don't pay it but don't make what is in effect a charitable donation and then moan and complain for years about it.

Hotblack Desiato

www.irishtimes.com/news/education/lease-dispute-at-only-school-divested-from-catholic-patronage-1.2305791

only seeing this now. Why am I entirely unsurprised? :rolleyes:

SpaceTime

haveringchick wrote: »

I'm sure if you asked the school for a meeting with the principal he or she could bring you up to speed on how your contribution is deployed. It's not really fair to imply that an impropriety has taken place unless you've been refused an explanation. Incidentally apart from 1st year we haven't been in a position to pay the contribution and there have been zero consequences for my daughter who is now going into Leaving Cert. I hope in the future to make a contribution when our circumstances improve. I wish parents would either pay it or don't pay it but don't make what is in effect a charitable donation and then moan and complain for years about it.

Excuse me one moment!!
Do not accuse me of implying things that I absolutely did not imply or put words into my mouth!

I did not imply that impropriety took place. What I asked for was transparency. It is completely reasonable in any system where public money is being spent that we have transparency both to prevent any possible issues and more importantly, to ensure that we are getting value for money.

Having an open book of school accounts would also ensure that the public could see where schools were going short of money and better understand why and look at how schools could be better managed, including merged where that would make sense.

I think the notion that parents are being asked to make 'voluntary' contributions into what is supposed to be a state funded system is absolutely disgraceful and undermines the concept of free, open public education.

If schools are resorting to doing this, there is something seriously wrong with the funding model at the state level and it is inevitably going to cause social problems if children are not getting access to schools.

We also have a system of "private" schools applying small barrier fees, while still being almost entirely state funded for all teaching salaries and other costs, I don't really know how that's justifiable, other than someone seems to think it keeps the 'right kind of students' in the 'right kind of school'.

We pay a seriously large amount of our incomes in tax along with VAT at 23% on everything we buy, local authority charges via LPT, business taxes and everything else that goes with it and I think it is pretty reasonable to be able to expect that a local school, should be open to everyone in that locality without any barriers, religious or financial.

Ireland has a major issue with state finances being spent by a whole raft of bodies that are not considered part of the public accounting system. This genuinely creates a major problem in terms of being able to manage where money is going as you've got a lot of bloc grants, grants per user and so on that give you no idea of what the cost drivers are, what efficiencies can be made across the system and so on.

If you're trying to run a system without being able to see where money is being spent or come up with policies to achieve maximum value for money, it tends to drive costs through the roof.

We should be getting value for money from the system and helping it to reduce costs and improve services (Without necessarily reducing teachers' wages)

I just see a system that's fragmented, not very transparent and that keeps trying to break itself down into smaller and smaller units that are causing costs to rise and economies of scale to disappear.

It's not really very sustainable, even from a purely economic / public finance analysis stand point.

Where exactly are we going to draw the line in terms of fragmentation? When each student has their own school perhaps?

---

It seems we are not allowed to have any kind of debate on this subject because anytime you do, you're attacked for even raising the issue

I note the Labour Party is also basically being told by FG back benchers that they're not to even raise the issue during the election because, I assume they don't want a debate about anything important.

We have a huge impending problem with education and it's not going to go away by burying our heads in the sand and pretending the system's perfect, or by refusing to accept the status quo may be seriously problematic.

robindch

Mod:

haveringchick wrote: »

It's not really fair to imply that an impropriety has taken place unless you've been refused an explanation.

Reading SpaceTime's post, I don't quite see where he/she has implied that any impropriety has taken place - it would be good posting style to withdraw the implication. Thanks.

expectationlost

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

www.irishtimes.com/news/education/lease-dispute-at-only-school-divested-from-catholic-patronage-1.2305791

only seeing this now. Why am I entirely unsurprised? :rolleyes:

the article doesn't really explain why they can't have ET school classes during the day and then be used by the church after school.

haveringchick

robindch wrote: »

Mod:Reading SpaceTime's post, I don't quite see where he/she has implied that any impropriety has taken place - it would be good posting style to withdraw the implication. Thanks.

I will withdraw that particular line gladly, but will stand by the rest of my post and add that any parent who wants to see the schools accounts only has to attend the AGM

evolving_doors

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was referring to the information that is publicly available online, not the accounts themselves, but the information on how to access those accounts, and much more information besides, which is why I said schools and how they're run is actually quite transparent.

Ok so the information on 'how to access these accounts' is there you say..

Where?

Could you provide a link on how to access these 'transparent' accounts maybe. I'm not going to badger anymore, I'm just curious.
You stated in an earlier post that they do publish their accounts so I'm just looking for a link...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point was simply that you made a point about it being prudent for schools to publish their accounts as if they don't already, and I was just pointing out that they do. I wasn't sure why you then brought up a point about transparency in hospitals in a thread about school patronage, and that's why I questioned why you'd moved on to something else. I know you weren't accusing anyone of any impropriety, but the transparency in schools is definitely there and if you were actually involved in the school community in a voluntary capacity, you would be aware of all this information, or at least you should be as it's all publically available online.

In relation to my last question:

Gebgbegb wrote: »

...
Where is your evidence that parents are having none of it?

[referring to divestment to the state]

Your reply was a link to a newspaper article. ‘Parents and teachers are scared’: Why won’t more schools give up their Catholic patronage? Is there a report on a parent survey there that I'm not seeing, as the only evidence that 'parents are having none of it' that I can discern is a bishop saying:

Fr Michael Drumm of the Catholic Schools Partnership told This Week the idea “scares” “a lot” of people.
“Most parents are not preoccupied with the issue of patronage, a minority of parents are very concerned.”

... which would seem to contradict your statement that a lot of parents are having none of it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is a question I keep having to ask again and again - do people not investigate these things before they have children or before they move into an area?

So therefore it should be a 'Catholic Only' area??
Jeez you'd be pretty stuck looking for a non-catholic area to live in with your kids in tow... maybe someone could give your family a stable for a while near an ET school!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If your children have formed a good bond, they're not going to lose out on that bond for being apart for a few hours in the day. In neighborhoods up and down the country, children play together in the evenings, at weekends and for three months in the summer and they all go to different schools. I haven't seen too many suffering from separation anxiety.

From my experience of how kids and adults interact, the school is a pivotal point of contact.
Sleepovers and playdates are organised, negotiated and discussed in school.
Sharing the workload in transporting or collecting kids to/from local school is critical and a lifesaver for some parents. This is very very difficult if you have to go 20miles down the road. Anyone who has to travel long distances to schools knows what I'm talking about.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If your child doesn't get into a school for lack of a baptismal cert, is that really a school you want your child to be in then?

And here again we have the 'choice illusion' being put forward. If a hospital started to ask for a baptismal cert is that a hospital you'd want your child to be in? OF course it is!!! You want your child to have access to a health service like every other child. The same way you'd want your child to have equal access to an education the same as everyone else is entitled to.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You really can't expect anyone to take your complaint seriously if you choose to have your child baptised in order to get them into a school, and then complain because you chose to have your child baptised in order to get them into a school.

So what's the solution? to 'go elsewhere' (or of course set up your own school!). If a child needed access to healthcare and they we knew that they would look for a baptism cert what do you think the majority of parents would do?
The proof of this is the number of 'cultural catholics' who are holding baptism certs but not attending mass every sunday. Just look at the falling number of attendees in churches.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They go to school to be educated obviously, but the ethos of the school will be a determinant factor in the type of education they receive, so you would have to consider not just their academic development but also their social and personal development.

And what has a religion got to do with that?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As for your suggestion that all these other children could get their education elsewhere, what you're actually suggesting there is that the parents who chose to send their children to a religious ethos school because it is a religious ethos school, are the parents who should have to be put out because you don't feel that their choice is 'fair' on you. Is your choice to have them and their children inconvenienced 'fair' on them?

And here again we have the 'choice' notion that because the school has religious indoctrination, therefore all the parents who send their kids there are demanding that service. That's like saying that because you use the internet therefore you support porn.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don't get precedence to an education, they get precedence to a place in an school which ethos they support. You don't support the ethos of the school, and yet you expect that your child should have the same opportunity to a place in that school as they do? I wouldn't call that fair.

The ethos of a school should be about educating and not indoctrination. As we have seen this only leads to exclusionary practices. If you are not being inclusive then you are excluding. Some schools have hidden behind the ethos lie for too long for one reason only; to exclude.

So lets mention the unmentionable... what do you think would happen if religious indoctrination were moved to Sunday school and out of school time (and not have to be paid by the state)? Parents still have a choice don't they?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Community/Parish, same difference depending on who you ask really.

That's true indeed, it depends one who you want to exclude too!

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

the article doesn't really explain why they can't have ET school classes during the day and then be used by the church after school.

The Department hasn't leased the two classrooms concerned, and so isn't in a position to provide them to the school. It doesn't appear from the article that anybody has approached the ERST and asked them to let or licence the classrooms, so we don't know whether they would be willing to let them or not. Possibly the uses that the ERST are making of the classrooms involve equiptment, etc, being left there, and a "shared use" wouldn't be practicable. Or possibly it would be practicable; it may be worth exploring. But there's a prior issue.

What seems to have happened here is that the Department assessed the premises requirement for the (at the time, proposed) ET school, and then entered into an arrangement with the ERST to lease the space it thought was required. This was less than 100% of the building, and that suited the ERST since they wanted to retain some space in the building for an after-school project for the school they continue to run nearby, and to make available to a local community group.

It now appears that the ET school managers feel they don't have enough space. Whether this is because they have a more expansive notion of the space they require than the Department does, or because the school has had more demand, and has enrolled or wants to enroll more children, than was projected, I don't know (but I suspect the latter). So they want the Department to lease more space for them, and the obvious and convenient space would be the remaining classrooms in the building they already occupy.

The headline describes this as a "lease dispute", but as far as I can see there is no lease dispute. The existing lease is being honoured by both sides; there is no disagreement about that. The school wants to lease more space, and hasn't been able to. I don't know whether that amounts to a dispute and, if it does, I don't know who the dispute is with. But I suspect it's with the Department; they "are reluctant to be drawn into a renegotiation of the ERST lease", which suggests that, so far, nobody has asked the ERST if they would be willing to let the remaining classrooms and, if so, on what terms. The reason given by the Department is that the negotiations for the lease they already have were "torturous"; I can't avoid the unworthy suspicion that the Department's attitude may also be coloured by the awareness that, if they want to lease more space, they're going to have to
pay more rent.

expectationlost

the minister seems to have remembered she's still in government and is talking about what she will do in the autumn rather the next dail term http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/baptising-children-to-gain-entry-to-catholic-schools-fundamentally-disturbing-says-minister-690698.html

expectationlost

two letters, the first I don't know why he want to take the schools from one private provider and give them to another http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/schools-and-the-patronage-system-1.2314725 the second a good response re the difficulty in setting up new schools

expectationlost

Govt accused of ‘hostility’ on Catholic school debate http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/govt-accused-%E2%80%98hostility%E2%80%99-catholic-school-debate its all your fault says colm keaveney td in the irish catholic, what is the poor ickle church supposed to do?

clear something up for me I had it in my head that Hanafin started the forum patronage and pluralism, or maybe she just commissioned a report on it?

Peregrinus

It was Ruairi Quinn.

expectationlost

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/a-new-system-of-school-patronage-1.786661 ah its was one day meeting with stakeholders that I was thinking of, can't find anything more on it at the minute

expectationlost

Judgment reserved on secular body’s school patron challenge http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/judgment-reserved-on-secular-body-s-school-patron-challenge-1.2324726 via @IrishTimes

minister always reticent to give reasons for their decisions sometimes have to fight it all the way to supreme court, although i can't argue these guys were really bureaucratically ready to provide a school

recedite

It will be interesting to see the result of this, but we'll have to wait a bit longer.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

It will be interesting to see the result of this, but we'll have to wait a bit longer.

It may not be that interesting, if expectationlost is correct when he says . . .

expectationlost wrote: »

. . . i can't argue these guys were really bureaucratically ready to provide a school

"The tender failed to demonstrate the capacity to run a school" is a complete answer to any objection to the Minister's decision. Which means that the judgment may not need to go anywhere near the really interesting question, which is whether a tender from an explicitly secular patron would be disadvantaged or excluded even if it did demonstrate the required capacity.

The Irish Times report is singularly unhelpful, telling us nothing of substance about SSI's challenge, and even less about the State's response.

Peregrinus

I found this Patronage Assessment Report on the Dept of Education website.

Page 4 is the key to the thing. The request for tenders set out seven criteria that prospective patrons had to commit to meeting. There were four tenderers, and three of them committed to all seven criteria. SSI would commit to only one; on that basis their tender was excluded from further consideration.

A challenge to this has to focus on one of two claims:

- It's not true to say that SSI would commit to only one criterion; the Minister was mistaken in thinking this. On a correct reading of their tender, they in fact committed to all seven.

or

- It is unreasonable of the Minister to impose a requirement to meet the criteria which SSI did not commit to meet.

One of the six criteria that SSI didn't commit to was "is willing to operate by the rules and regulations laid down by various DES circulars and operating procedures and to follow the prescribed curriculum". It's pure speculation on my part, but SSI might say that they couldn't commit to this because they couldn't accept the much-discussed Rule 68, and might argue that it was unreasonable or improper of the Minister to impose it. And it would be very interesting if the judgment addressed this point. We'll have to wait and see whether it does or not.

A separate point of interest which arises from the Patronage Assessment Report is found on pages 8 to 11. Each of the three patrons whose tenders were considered submitted details of the "pre-enrollments" they had obtained as an indication of parental demand for the school they wanted to offer, and these are analysed in some detail in the report. Of course, it's just a snapshot of parental demand at one point in time in one school district but, still, it's interesting.

Contrary to what we might expect, relatively few parents seem to have pre-enrolled with two or three different prospective schools. Of 79 pre-enrollments for the Catholic School, only 12 had also pre-enrolled for the ETB school, and 1 for the ET school. Similarly, of 42 pre-enrollments for the ET school, 5 had pre-enrolled for the ETB school and 1 for the Catholic school. Given that parents were free to pre-enroll for all the schools, am I along in being surprised at so little overlap?

(The SSI school also accepted pre-enrollments, but because their tender was excluded from consideration the report gives no information about the pre-enrollments they secured. Pity. It would have been interesting.)