School patronage

Absolam

I may be overly cynical here, but I do wonder if the purpose of Secular Schools Ireland Ltd actually is to manage schools, or if it existed only to make an application to manage a school so that it could publicly highlight a secular body not being allowed to manage a school?

It seems amazing that, given there were seven published criteria to be satisfied by the applicant (and satisfaction amounted purely to stating agreement, without any commitment to plan or structure), they should fail to satisfy six of them.
Fair enough, it's their first application; given a list of seven requirements they might get overexcited and neglect to agree to one of them. But only agreeing to one of seven? One might be forgiven for thinking they were ensuring they couldn't be chosen, so that this could be made an issue.... just in case not agreeing to operating according to the Rules for Schools which contain provisions arguably anathemic to SSIs ethos wasn't enough to get them knocked out of the process.

Interestingly, Lefre de Burgh, who's the only obvious person involved with SSI, is a trained barrister though she seems to have worked as a teacher whilst qualifying as a barrister.

Peregrinus

You'd think, though, that if that were the strategy, they would have committed to all of the criteria except those with un-secular content, so as to focus the ensuing dispute on the fight that they want to have.

As it is, they failed to commit to having up to three streams, subject to demand; to entering into the DES standard lease agreement; to accepting and opening special education facilities; etc, etc.

It seems to me that the Department could say "we never even thought about their secular character; we dismissed them because they wouldn't accommodate special education facilities, and our policy is that all new schools must do so". And, while you can fight about that, it wouldn't be a fight about secularism.

Absolam

You might, but if they had and the Dept hadn't considered having a 'religious spirit informing and vivifying the whole work of school' to be a deal breaker, they might have been left in the uncomfortable position of having to open a school they weren't prepared to open?
This way they have an opportunity to invite public discussion about secular schools not getting a fair shot in a religious controlled schools system without having to demonstrate such a school could work.

Perhaps I am being overly cynical... but if am, the alternative is a barrister, trained for years in the nuances of specific expression, who has also worked as an English teacher, was unable to clearly state agreement to six of seven published conditions for applying to be patron of a school.
Whether that was due to a lack of comprehension, an inattention to detail, or a principled but unstated objection to requirements such as providing special education facilities, it's hardly confidence inspiring.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

You might, but if they had and the Dept hadn't considered having a 'religious spirit informing and vivifying the whole work of school' to be a deal breaker, they might have been left in the uncomfortable position of having to open a school they weren't prepared to open?

A small price to pay, surely, for vindicating the right to open a secular school?

Absolam wrote: »

This way they have an opportunity to invite public discussion about secular schools not getting a fair shot in a religious controlled schools system without having to demonstrate such a school could work.

Well, if that's the strategy, it could backfire. They could end up creating the impression that the only people ostensibly willing to tender to run a secular school are people who lack the educational and/or organisational wherewithal to run a school of any kind. Which could lead people to slot their grievance into the "wrong in principle, not having any real-world consequences, I have bigger things to worry about" box.

robindch

Australia says No.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/21/victoria-to-scrap-religious-instruction-from-school-curriculum

The Guardian wrote:

Religious instruction will be scrapped from the curriculum of Victorian schools from next year and replaced with education about building respectful relationships, the government announced on Friday. The new relationships education program will be taught by qualified teachers and aims to help children understand global cultures and traditions, recognise and prevent family violence, and appreciate and understand diversity.

Special religious instruction, currently taught during school hours by volunteers, will be moved out of regular class times, freeing 30 minutes a week for the new program. The education minister, James Merlino, said about 20% of primary school students took part in religious instruction, while the remaining students occupied themselves with other activities, such as reading.

“You can’t have 20% of school kids undertaking special religious education, while the other children are not getting teaching or learning, during precious curriculum time,” he told ABC radio on Friday morning. “I understand that some people are going to be upset by this decision, but it’s the right thing to do.”

Understanding others, including other world views and religions, and acting with tolerance and respect, were essential skills for young people to learn, he said. Rob Ward, a spokesman for the main provider of special religious instruction in Victoria, Access Ministries, said his organisation had not been consulted by the government, and he was disappointed by the decision.

“It’s hastily made and poorly advised,” he told Guardian Australia. “Nobody has seen this new curriculum as yet, and I’m not sure how a primary school teacher will teach well and capably the basic beliefs of the five major religions.” Fairness for Religions in Schools, an organisation developed in response to religious instruction programs in Victoria and New South Wales, said the move was overdue.

Its chief executive, Lara Wood, said the organisation received feedback from parents concerned about religious instruction nearly every day. “These parents are angry that their kids are losing four days’ worth of school time each year for a very small minority of students,” Wood said. “Kids who do take part in the program are being told they will go to hell if they don’t believe in God, and we had a report of one child last year being locked in a closet while taking part in religious education.

“Merlino is so courageous in making this decision, because there will be a backlash from a small section of the religious right, but he’s done the perfect thing.” The minister for the prevention of family violence, Fiona Richardson, said addressing gender inequality would comprise an important aspect of the healthy relationships curriculum. Such education was key to preventing family violence, she said. “We’re including it in the curriculum so that every Victorian school teaches students these important skills and lessons.”

Schools will receive training and guidance to deliver the new curriculum content, and the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority will develop resources to support teachers. It will be implemented from the start of the 2016 school year.

expectationlost

surprising move considering the current Australian government is victoria much more liberal and/or is also part of anti-muslim move? as seems to be the case in Wales http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057474613

interesting thing spotted by Atheist Ireland https://twitter.com/atheistie/status/634280148288831488
'in Portlaois CBS You can opt out of religion class if you practice another faith but must fully participate if you don't'

http://www.portlaoisecbs.com/POL/RELIGIOUS%20%20EDUCATION%20%20POLICY.pdf

INCLUSION
The school is informed by the “Guidelines on the Inclusion of Students of other Faith in Catholic Secondary Schools” as devised by the J.M.B Students who are not practicing Catholics but who do not practice another faith must fully participate in all religious activities.

it also says

Religious Education is a core subject on the school curriculum and an integral part of the ethos of the school. All pupils are expected to participate in Religious Education.

In line with their legal rights parents of students of a non-Christian faith may request their son not participate in religious education / services.

The practice in such cases is that the student remains in the classroom under supervision. If a parent decides to withdraw a student, it is the parents responsibility to organise supervision for the student while the programme is being delivered.

Teachers reserve the right to insist that students who normally do not participate in class, would do so, if they feel that the topic of that class is relevant to them e.g. R.S.E. / S.P.H.E. issues.

The Religion / meditation room is currently under design to meet subject needs in a more appropriate manner.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Contrary to what we might expect, relatively few parents seem to have pre-enrolled with two or three different prospective schools...Given that parents were free to pre-enroll for all the schools, am I along in being surprised at so little overlap?

We had a discussion about this earlier, which you may have missed. Go back to post #2233.
Its an interesting aspect to the process. What you call "pre-enrolments" others may call "expressions of interest", and others may consider "votes".
I was involved in one of these a few years ago and both myself and OH assumed that we could only put the child's name down for one patronage type, ie whichever one we preferred. But there is never any clear guidance on that, and I found out later that other people thought that putting the name down for all patrons would mean they were on the "priority list" for each one, and therefore they personally would be ahead on the list no matter which patron won out in the end.
Then you have the possibility of strategic voting alliances and transfers etc. if the same persons vote is going to be counted for more than one patron.
The rules for this need to be explained and tidied up, especially with such small numbers of parents determining the patronage for a school which is likely to be fixed for a very long time.

recedite

Also on the court case itself, the previous IT article had this;

It says the Minister had failed to afford SSI the opportunity to address the purported invalidity of its application or to address any concerns the Department may have had.

And I think the proposed school has a stated policy on school uniforms and other mundane aspects of their ethos which seems to indicate that they were indeed genuinely trying to set up a school.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Australia says No . . .

There's something we're not being told, I think.

"Special religious education" in Australian public schools is optional. As in, it's optional for schools to provide it. It is only provided if (a) there are accredited volunteers offering to provide it, and (b) the school management - the principal, basically - judges that parents want it. (It's up to the principal how to make this judgment, but most schools have a parent council which they can consult.) And, if it is provided, it's optional for students to attend. Fewer than half of the public primary schools in Victoria offer SRI, and therefore much fewer than half of the students actually receive it.

Which gives rise to the obvious question; if SRI is to be replaced with relationship education, will relationship education be only provided in those schools which currently offer SRI? What about the other schools? Will something have to be shunted out of the curriculum to accommodate relationship education and, if so, what? Or will they not have it, just as they don't currently have SRI? Assuming that all students are to participate in the new programme, the majority of them will not be participating in it instead of SRI, but instead of something else.

And the other obvious question; SRI is provided not by teachers, but by volunteers. The new relationship education is to be provided by "qualified teachers", according to the newspaper report, but will they be the regular teachers in the school, or specialists? When you replace a volunteer-run programme with a professionally-run one, you expect to incur a cost. Has that been provided for? Does the minister still have to have the statutory row with the teaching unions over this?

I don't have a problem in principal with the decision, but it looks a bit half-baked to me. The article says its to be implemented "from the start of the 2016 school year", which is in five months time. Colour me sceptical, if they haven't thought about how it will be accommodated in schools that don't currently provide SRI, and if there are outstanding issues over who will provide it, and whether they will be paid (extra) for doing so.

Expectationlost, "liberal" is a confusing term in Australian politics; the Liberal Party is the principal party of the right. For liberal in the US sense, best to use "progressive".

Victoria currently has a Labor government. The Minister for Education (and Deputy Premier) is James Merlino, who is generally regarded as a social conservative from a Catholic/trade union background. Don't expect him to endorse same-sex marriage any time soon, for example. So I doubt that this initiative stems from an anti-religious/secularist motive. And it almost certainly has nothing to do with anti-Islamic feeling, if only because only a handful of Victorian schools offer Islamic SRI. It's mostly the religious right who are going to get shirty about this.

This is more likely a recognition of the need to include something in the curriculum dealing with respectful inter-communal and personal relationships. Australia has a problem with both, and family/domestic violence in particular is a matter of current concern. It's seen as a big problem in Australia and there have been calls for government action to encourage cultural change in this regard. But if that's the motivation, it would be all the sillier just to treat this as a replacement for SRI, since if that's the approach most schools won't have it.

My guess is that (a) this won't be rolled out at the start of 2016 or, if so, just on an experimental basis in a few schools; (b) it will eventually be offered in all schools and will be compulsory; (c) since most students currently don't participate in SRI, they will not receive it in substitution for SRI but for something else, and (d) in schools which don't currently offer SRI, there will have to be a reduction in classroom time for some other part of the curriculum to accommodate this.

Peregrinus

Thanks for this.

recedite wrote: »

We had a discussion about this earlier, which you may have missed. Go back to post #2233.
Its an interesting aspect to the process. What you call "pre-enrolments" others may call "expressions of interest", and others may consider "votes".
I was involved in one of these a few years ago and both myself and OH assumed that we could only put the child's name down for one patronage type, ie whichever one we preferred. But there is never any clear guidance on that, and I found out later that other people thought that putting the name down for all patrons would mean they were on the "priority list" for each one, and therefore they personally would be ahead on the list no matter which patron won out in the end.
Then you have the possibility of strategic voting alliances and transfers etc. if the same persons vote is going to be counted for more than one patron.
The rules for this need to be explained and tidied up, especially with such small numbers of parents determining the patronage for a school which is likely to be fixed for a very long time.

As far as I can see, the system is that each of the prospective patrons invites expressions of interests from parents of children who will be starting school in the next four years. SSI are still operating this page, soliciting expressions of interest for the school that they would like to run. Presumably other prospective tenderers similarly solicited pre-enrolments.

It's clear from that page that SSI don't ask you if you have indicated an interest in any of the possible rivals, and it follows that it is possible to register for more than one. It could well be that people think that registering an interest will secure priority from the tenderer , should it be successful, and therefore the rational strategy would be to register with all of them. On the other hand, in this particular case only one person was registered with all three valid tenders (and we don't know if that person also registered with SSI) so this doesn't appear to be a common approach.

More to the point, duplicate registrations won't distort the comparative position of the different tenderers. People are counted for all the schools for which they register. In so far as people register for all the possible schools, they are counted for all of them, so nobody secures any comparative advantage. The school with the largest pre-enrolment will be the one which secures the greatest number of exclusive pre-enrolments.

I don't have a problem in principle with allowing multiple pre-enrolments, if we understand pre-enrolment as a statement that "if this tenderer is successful, we would send our child to that school". There may well be more than one tenderer for whom parents are willing to make that statement.

(In fact, in this case the keenly secularist parent might have wished to make that statement about every tenderer except the Bishop of Cloyne. If this weren't allowed, the non-religious vote would have been split among the two or three non-denominational tenderers, and Cloyne might have romped home by even more lengths than in fact he did. So be careful what you wish for!)

And it's not the case that parents are determining the patronage, since the level of pre-enrolments is just one factor that the Department takes into consideration. If the question was determined by pre-enrolments, in fact this school would have gone to the Bishop of Cloyne, but on diversity grounds the Department chose to give it to a tenderer who, judged purely by pre-enrolments, was actually less popular. I think the pre-enrolments are treated more as a threshold issue; you have to get enough to indicate that your school is likely to be acceptable to enough parents to be viable. But, between those tenderers who meet that threshold, other issues then take over.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Also on the court case itself, the previous IT article had this;

I think what they're saying there is that they should have been allowed a second bite of the cherry. But that doesn't really answer the question as to why they needed a second bite, or whether it would have made any difference. If they couldn't commit to the tender requirements when they submitted the tender, what had changed a month later that they could suddenly commit to them, but after the deadline?

recedite wrote: »

And I think the proposed school has a stated policy on school uniforms and other mundane aspects of their ethos which seems to indicate that they were indeed genuinely trying to set up a school.

Oh, I don't know. I have opinions about matters like school uniforms, but I don't imagine that qualifies me to run a primary school.

expectationlost

Church should give some rural schools to State http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/church-should-give-some-rural-schools-to-state-1.2327907

Margaret Lee is a member of the Seeds of Hope group in Killaloe’s Catholic diocese, which affiliated to the lay Association of Catholics in Ireland last year.

Priest says demand for secular schools is low
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/priest-says-demand-for-secular-schools-is-low-1.2327459 so? schools are still needed, up to state not catholic church or catholic parents

Government and Educate Together clash over enrolment
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/government-and-educate-together-clash-over-enrolment-1.2327204

However, according to the Department of Education, any school opened since June 2011 must “meet the demographic needs presenting within a particular school feeder area”, which means that they must prioritise children from the local area.

what are these feeder areas?

repeated statements from the Department of Education that Shellybanks ETNS, which opened in Ballsbridge in Dublin in September 2014, must only offer places to children in Dublin 2 or 4.

which means you can either be 2.1 miles from the Shellybank school and get in from the D2 side or 0.71 miles on the D4 side and not get in

Fire1985

So does anyone think that CETB will lose the school in carrigtohill now?

expectationlost

School patronage explained - how are your children affected? http://www.newstalk.com/School-patronage-explained--what-is-it-and-how-will-it-affect-your-children Newstalk

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It could well be that people think that registering an interest will secure priority from the tenderer, should it be successful, and therefore the rational strategy would be to register with all of them. On the other hand, in this particular case only one person was registered with all three valid tenders (and we don't know if that person also registered with SSI) so this doesn't appear to be a common approach.

Some people do think this, but it is erroneous. Every patron must commit to accepting all kids from the local catchment area (as specified by Dept of Ed in the tender).
If a religious patron wins the patronage and then twists the rules by devising an admissions policy which gives greater priority to kids of a particular religion, then having your name on the earlier "expressions of interest" list isn't going to help if you're the wrong religion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

More to the point, duplicate registrations won't distort the comparative position of the different tenderers. People are counted for all the schools for which they register. In so far as people register for all the possible schools, they are counted for all of them, so nobody secures any comparative advantage. The school with the largest pre-enrolment will be the one which secures the greatest number of exclusive pre-enrolments.

I disagree; the votes don't have to be exclusive pre-enrolments, just valid ones. So duplicates can in fact distort the process.
Lets say for example, a parent wanted an RC school with faith formation taught during school hours, and communion/confirmation classes arranged within the school.
But they also knew that every other school around was an RC denominational school, and therefore the patronage was almost certainly going to be awarded to "a multi-denominational" school for reasons of "diversity". The strategic thing to do would be to put the kids name down for both the RC patronage and the the ETB patronage. (The religious programme of ETB was devised by some of the same people who devised the Alive-O programme anyway. So during faith formation classes it would be business as usual, but with the heretics segregated out into their own special and various groups. Whether the school would actually have the staff to teach the other groups is another question, but that is the theory they are proposing.)

In this way, the effective RC vote which was disallowed on diversity grounds is "transferred" to ETB as a second choice, which then seems to become the most popular "multidenominational" patron.
On the other hand, those who were unhappy with the previous lack of alternative to denominational schools in the area would tend to vote less often, ie for Educate Together only, but their vote gets swamped by all the denominational "transfers". And this is effectively what happened with the Carrigtwohill patronage IMO.
Part of the problem here is due to the Dept of Ed classifying ET, SSI and ETB as being all "multidenominational", as if they were all much the same. Whereas if they classified schools into the categories "secular schools" and "faith schools"* the outcome would be completely different. The RC and the ETB patrons would both be excluded on the grounds that all the pre-existing schools were faith schools. So for diversity reasons, it would have to be a secular school. The patronage would then be decided by a popularity contest between ET and SSI.

*if we define "faith schools" as schools which teach faith formation during school hours.

Peregrinus wrote: »

(In fact, in this case the keenly secularist parent might have wished to make that statement about every tenderer except the Bishop of Cloyne. If this weren't allowed, the non-religious vote would have been split among the two or three non-denominational tenderers, and Cloyne might have romped home by even more lengths than in fact he did. So be careful what you wish for!)

But seeing as SSI were excluded, the only more or less "secular" patronage was ET, and these votes could easily be swamped by the holy communion brigade of Bishops followers as described above. So the Bishop always wins.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they couldn't commit to the tender requirements when they submitted the tender, what had changed a month later that they could suddenly commit to them, but after the deadline?

I'm not privy to the information, but it could easily have been a mix-up in the tender application and a lack of communication subsequently. AFAIK they did not "refuse" to commit to the requirements at all. Either way I think a fair procedure would have been for the Dept. to phone them or send them a quick e-mail just to clarify whether they were refusing to comply, or not.

Fire1985 wrote: »

So does anyone think that CETB will lose the school in carrigtohill now?

Unlikely really at this stage. Even if the court rules in favour of SSI, I presume the tender would have to be looked at again. However the Dept is the one looking at it, and they might say they don't believe the patron has demonstrated the experience or the capability of running a school.
Even if the Dept does not exclude SSI on some such grounds, the newly allowed patron SSI would still have to have mustered a greater number of votes than ETB got. Which figure we don't know, but it is unlikely to have exceeded the ET vote.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I'm not privy to the information, but it could easily have been a mix-up in the tender application and a lack of communication subsequently. AFAIK they did not "refuse" to commit to the requirements at all. Either way I think a fair procedure would have been for the Dept. to phone them or send them a quick e-mail just to clarify whether they were refusing to comply, or not.

A “fair procedure” is for the Department to stick to the processes, deadlines, etc stated in the request for tenders, and to do so uniformly for all tenderers. If Departments bend the rules, and allow one tenderer more time to indicate compliance with the requirements than has been allowed to the other tenderers, then they tend to get sued by the other tenderers, on the grounds that they have been subject to more onerous requirements while the favoured tenderer was, quietly, given greater latitude.

It seems from the Patronage Assessment Report that I linked to earlier that all tenderers were required to confirm that they would comply with seven stated requirements, and were invited to comment further in relation to any of the requirements. (Presumably this was an invitation to comment about how they would comply with the requirements, rather than about why they wouldn't.) A commitment to comply with all of the requirements was mandatory before an award of patronage could be considered. Three of the tenderers committed to all seven requirements; SSI committed to only one.

Nothing in the newspaper reports suggests that SSI are making any claim that they were unaware that a commitment to all seven was a condition of tendering, and none of the other tenderers appear to have been under any misapprehension about this.

The big unanswered questions are “why did SSI not commit to all seven in their initial application?”, and “on what basis will they claim that they should have been given extra time, and more time that was given to other tenderers, to do so?”. Until we know what SSI said on these points, we can’t really say whether their application to set aside the award of the tender could succeed. Frustratingly, the newspaper reports do not deal with the arguments made in court by SSI, or by the State in response. But based on the little we know now, it looks to me that SSI are fighting an uphill battle.

recedite wrote: »

Unlikely really at this stage. Even if the court rules in favour of SSI, I presume the tender would have to be looked at again. However the Dept is the one looking at it, and they might say they don't believe the patron has demonstrated the experience or the capability of running a school.

If SSI succeeds, there are three possible outcomes:

1. Department is told to start the entire process again, and issue a new request for tenders.

2. Department is told to reconsider the four tenders already received, but without excluding SSI’s tender at an early stage, as they did the first time around.

3. Payment of damages to SSI to compensate them for the costs of participating in a flawed tender process, but the award of the tender to CETB stands (for pragmatic reasons; the school opens next week).

If expectationlost is correct, SSI may actually be hoping for the third outcome. They may not be geared up to run a school just yet; they are simply seeking to establish the principle that a secular tenderer cannot lawfully be excluded.

It’s wild speculation on my part, but what they may argue is not that they should have been allowed extra time to commit to the seven requirements. Rather, they may have objected to six of the seven requirements on the basis that they were in some way inconsistent with SSI’s secular ethos, and they may have commented to that effect in their submission. So their argument would essentially be that, rather than ruling us out, the Minister should have taken our comments on board, recognised that it was improper to impose conditions which excluded secular patrons, not insisted on commitment to the conditions, and perhaps talked to us (and to other tenderers) about a modified commitment that would accommodate our secular concerns. And if the outcome of the case is (a) CETB is still patron of this school, but (b) the court declares that the Department cannot in future impose tender conditions which exclude secular patrons, SSI will be delighted.

Such an argument makes sense, given where SSI are coming from. But it is difficult to reconcile with the facts. For example, how is a requirement to accommodate special education facilities inconsistent with secularism? Or a requirement for the school to have “up to three streams, subject to demand”? In relation to several of the requirements that SSI failed to commit to, there doesn’t seem to be any obvious secularist reason for objecting to them.

recedite wrote: »

Even if the Dept does not exclude SSI on some such grounds, the newly allowed patron SSI would still have to have mustered a greater number of votes than ETB got. Which figure we don't know, but it is unlikely to have exceeded the ET vote.

I don’t think so. There’s no requirement that the Dept has to give the school to the patron with the most pre-enrolments (and, in fact, they didn’t). Diversity trumps popularity, in the Department’s system. What clinched it for the ETB is that there was no community national school in or adjacent to the feeder area, whereas there were both Catholic and ET schools.

It seems to me that, had the SSI tender been considered, it too would have been offering a unique school type. It would then come down to a choice between CETB and SSI, I think. We don’t know whether SSI had more or less pre-enrollments than CETB, but that wouldn’t necessarily have been the deciding factor. As far as pre-enrollments go, all the tenderer has to do is “demonstrate that there is a demand” for the school type they offer, not that there is a greater demand for this school type than for the types offered by other tenderers. If enough parents indicate a willingness to send their child to the school to suggest that the school will have enough pupils to be viable, demand has been demonstrated.

expectationlost

Fire1985 wrote: »

So does anyone think that CETB will lose the school in carrigtohill now?

no why would it Parents told school will open despite court challenge


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/parents-told-school-will-open-despite-court-challenge-350201.html

Cork ETB chief executive Ted Owens acknowledged there had been a drop in numbers, from the 29 junior infant pupils originally expected next week, but he assured parents there would be a new school.

expectationlost

really don't understand the ET system of not preferring a system of prioritisation, while still allowing people from outside a catchment area join the school

ET guy on Ireland AM doesn't explain it very well http://www.tv3.ie/ireland_am_video.php?locID=1.65.74&video=97986

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

A “fair procedure” is for the Department to stick to the processes, deadlines, etc stated in the request for tenders, and to do so uniformly for all tenderers.

I agree. But AFAIK they were not looking for any extra time.
If the Dept was in doubt about some aspect of the application, ie whether or not they were refusing the conditions, then IMO fair procedures would require the Dept to clarify that aspect, or at least notify the tenderer of the issue. Not just exclude them without saying anything. In other words, "a request for further information" was in order. It would seem crazy to apply for a tender while at the same time excluding yourself by refusing to agree to the necessary conditions (unless as you say, they were trying to draw attention to some injustice of said conditions) So either way, the anomaly needed to be clarified.
My speculation is only based on the newspaper report..

It says the Minister had failed to afford SSI the opportunity to address the purported invalidity of its application or to address any concerns the Department may have had.

But it will be interesting to see what facts emerge into the public domain, if any.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t think so. There’s no requirement that the Dept has to give the school to the patron with the most pre-enrolments (and, in fact, they didn’t). Diversity trumps popularity, in the Department’s system. What clinched it for the ETB is that there was no community national school in or adjacent to the feeder area, whereas there were both Catholic and ET schools.

It seems to me that, had the SSI tender been considered, it too would have been offering a unique school type. It would then come down to a choice between CETB and SSI, I think. We don’t know whether SSI had more or less pre-enrollments than CETB, but that wouldn’t necessarily have been the deciding factor.

Here's what the Dept said;

The models of multi-denominational provision proposed would strengthen and expand diversity in the area to be served by the new school. However, while there is no Educate Together school in the area to be served by the new school, there is an Educate Together school in the adjacent area of Midleton. There is no Community National School model in either the area to be served by the new school or in adjacent areas.

The overall parental demand for each of the multi-denominational models is relatively comparable. However, the demand for the Education and Training Board model of provision is stronger overall and this model also has the strongest start-up numbers for 2015.

It seems to me that in general, in an area such as this, where the only existing schools are RC denominational schools, the patronage will go to the multi-denominational school with the most parental votes.

But the above quote does raise a few questions.
1. If there is already an ET school in an adjacent area, to what extent would that militate against establishing an ET school in this area, if at all.
This aspect is not transparent.

2. If a new and largely untested patronage model emerges, such as ETB or SSI it will by definition not exist already in the local area, or in any adjacent area. Does being a new type of school work in favour (increases diversity) or against (not tested or experienced) the proposed patron?
This aspect is not transparent.

3. If SSI had not been excluded, would they have been considered as a multidenominational patron, in competition with ET and ETB, or would they have been put in a separate and new category called non-denominational?
If they were the only patron in this new category, and there was already a denominational school and an ET school in an area, would SSI get the patronage on the basis that there were no other non-denominational schools around, whatever the number of pre-enrolments they had?
This aspect is not transparent.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

no why would it Parents told school will open despite court challenge
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/parents-told-school-will-open-despite-court-challenge-350201.html

A school could open in Sept and the patron could change subsequently.

expectationlost wrote: »

really don't understand the ET system of not preferring a system of prioritisation, while still allowing people from outside a cathcment area join the school

ET guy on Ireland AM doesn't explain it very well http://www.tv3.ie/ireland_am_video.php?locID=1.65.74&video=97986

It seems to be all about allowing parents who are really keen on the ET "ethos" getting priority over people living closer to the school who aren't that bothered about which school their child attends.

I don't have much sympathy for it. Its not much different to a denominational school prioritising "their own" people.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I agree. But AFAIK they were not looking for any extra time.
If the Dept was in doubt about some aspect of the application, ie whether or not they were refusing the conditions, then IMO fair procedures would require the Dept to clarify that aspect, or at least notify the tenderer of the issue. Not just exclude them without saying anything. In other words, "a request for further information" was in order. It would seem crazy to apply for a tender while at the same time excluding yourself by refusing to agree to the necessary conditions (unless as you say, they were trying to draw attention to some injustice of said conditions) So either way, the anomaly needed to be clarified.
My speculation is only based on the newspaper report..

Tender procedures specify not just requirements but timescales: You have to submit your tender by this date and it must contain this information and address these issues. If you meet the date but not the mandatory content requirements (or vice versa) your tender will be unsuccessful. If you say that the Minister should have come back to you, pointed out the problems and allowed you to submit a second document, that would be to relax in your favour rules which had not been relaxed for other tenderers.

I know what it says in the newspaper report. What it doesn't say is why SSI think the Minister should have afforded SSI the opportunity to address the problems in their tender, or even why they think he could have done so, in fairness to other tenderers. She had afforded SSI the opportunity to submit a valid tender in the first place, and they chose not to take it. I don't see that it was her responsibility to save them from the consequences of their choice, and the newspaper gives no hint as to why SSI thinks it was.

recedite wrote: »

But it will be interesting to see what facts emerge into the public domain, if any.

If there's a written judgment delivered in this case, it will probably summarise the arguments offered by SSI and the judge's reasons for accepting or rejecting them.

recedite wrote: »

Here's what the Dept said;It seems to me that in general, in an area such as this, where the only existing schools are RC denominational schools, the patronage will go to the multi-denominational school with the most parental votes.

On reflection, yes, I think that's right. As between the school types favoured by the diversity requirement, the one with the biggest pre-enrolment will be favoured (unless, I suppose, some other relevant criterion gives another school the edge).

recedite wrote: »

But the above quote does raise a few questions.
1. If there is already an ET school in an adjacent area, to what extent would that militate against establishing an ET school in this area, if at all.
This aspect is not transparent.

There was an ET school in an adjacent area, but no CNS. That gave the CETB an edge. (Presumably, it would have given SSI an edge also, had their tender been admissible.)

recedite wrote: »

2. If a new and largely untested patronage model emerges, such as ETB or SSI it will by definition not exist already in the local area, or in any adjacent area. Does being a new type of school work in favour (increases diversity) or against (not tested or experienced) the proposed patron?
This aspect is not transparent.

It didn't arise here because none of the three schools types considered are new. Perhaps if the SSI tender had not been excluded at an early stage, there would have been a need to address not only the novelty of the school type, but also the inexperience of the patron.

It seems to me, if you want to increase diversity, then you have to be open to untried school types (all school types are untried at first, aren't they?) and inexperienced patrons. Maybe you need some controls on this; a new patron might be asked to demonstrate that it had, or had access to, appropriate educational expertise and resources. But, again, this has to be a threshold thing; once they have acheived the required level of expertise/resources, it shouldn't be held against them that a more established rival has a greater depth of expertise/resources (as they almost certainly will) since that would militate against increasing diversity.

None of this is addressed in the patronage report in this instance, because it didn't come up; there were no new school types or new patrons considered. It may well be addressed in the Department's tender requirements, guidance, published policy, etc; I don't know. If it isn't, I agree that it should be.

recedite wrote: »

3. If SSI had not been excluded, would they have been considered as a multidenominational patron, in competition with ET and ETB, or would they have been put in a separate and new category called non-denominational?
If they were the only patron in this new category, and there was already a denominational school and an ET school in an area, would SSI get the patronage on the basis that there were no other non-denominational schools around, whatever the number of pre-enrolments they had?
This aspect is not transparent.

They themselves describe the schools they would like to run as "secular", "not sectarian" and "non-denominational". So, presumably, if they were classed as "multi-denominational" by the Department in its assessment, that would be grounds for challenging the assessment. They should be classed as what they are, which is apparently non-denominational, and that should then stand to them as awarding the tender to them would increase diversity.

Whether that's what would have happened, we can't say from the tender report, because they weren't considered. Again, this might be addressed in the tender requirements, published policy, guidelines or similar; I don't know.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

A school could open in Sept and the patron could change subsequently.


It seems to be all about allowing parents who are really keen on the ET "ethos" getting priority over people living closer to the school who aren't that bothered about which school their child attends.

I don't have much sympathy for it. Its not much different to a denominational school prioritising "their own" people.

so shouldn't they create school districts admission form for a number of schools in an area and parents can list their own a priority, and ET can see whch parents choose ET as their first choice.

expectationlost

Educate Together principals seek change to admissions policy http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/educate-together-principals-seek-change-to-admissions-policy-1.2328257 wants to favour kids who been in ET primary in new secondary

According to the department, all schools opened since 2011 must give priority to children in their catchment area
The Educate Together national school principals say this criteria has “no basis in Irish law” and contravenes the “statutory and civil rights” of parents.

i suspect lots of secondary schools favoured certain schools (within catchment area) but they are not susposed to do it

The letter calls for ET secondary schools’ enrolment policies to prioritise students who have completed “at least three years of the primary education at an ET national school”, siblings of existing students at the ET second-level school, and then students from other schools on a first come, first served basis

seem dept of ED won't recognise that there arn't ET schools in ever catchment area.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It didn't arise here because none of the three schools types considered are new. Perhaps if the SSI tender had not been excluded at an early stage, there would have been a need to address not only the novelty of the school type, but also the inexperience of the patron.

I would consider the ETB model of primary school to be new. I think the first one was only opened about 3 years ago, so the oldest pupils must be still in 2nd or 3rd class. That is not enough time to see how their plan to segregate the kids for separate religious education will work out.

Prior to that, ETB only did secondary schools, and ET only did primary schools. So they were not in direct competition with each other for the patronage of new schools, as they are now.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

so shouldn't they create school districts admission form for a number of schools in an area and parents can list their own a priority, and ET can see whch parents choose ET as their first choice.

That would be useful if there was a choice of school in each area.
But the typical problem for ET parents is that their type of school is only available in an adjacent area.
So for example, a parent with a new born baby now in Carrigtwohill might not like the sound of this new ETB school with its segregated religious policy, so they might decide its worth the extra trip across to the ET school in the neighbouring town (or the "adjacent area" as mentioned). But even if they put the baby's name down now, it will have a lower priority than somebody who arrives into that adjacent area in 4 years time. Because that newly arrived family will be actually resident in that area. They might not even care which type of school they go to, but they will get priority in that ET school as a local.

And when these ET pupils go on to second level, they might not get places in an ET secondary school, because it might be in a different town where somebody else gets the local priority.

The more private patrons there are, the worse this issue becomes. On the other hand there is less travelling involved for everybody. If school buses were required to transport pupils in all different directions to schools of their preferred ethos, the school bus transport system would collapse.
Also it would be a bad thing if people were discouraged from moving into an area because they were afraid of losing their priority on school waiting lists, and being bottom of the pile in the new area.

What we really need is a basic secular system of education provided by the state, with priority admission for locals regardless of colour or creed.
Free school buses provided by the state would then be an affordable and cost effective measure, taking needless car traffic off the roads at peak morning rush hour. Similar to the US style school buses.

Private patrons could still set up schools as an alternative to the basic system. They could prioritise their own people. But they would get little or no public funding, and school transport would be their own problem.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

That would be useful if there was a choice of school in each area.
But the typical problem for ET parents is that their type of school is only available in an adjacent area.
So for example, a parent with a new born baby now in Carrigtwohill might not like the sound of this new ETB school with its segregated religious policy, so they might decide its worth the extra trip across to the ET school in the neighbouring town (or the "adjacent area" as mentioned). But even if they put the baby's name down now, it will have a lower priority than somebody who arrives into that adjacent area in 4 years time. Because that newly arrived family will be actually resident in that area. They might not even care which type of school they go to, but they will get priority in that ET school as a local.

And when these ET pupils go on to second level, they might not get places in an ET secondary school, because it might be in a different town where somebody else gets the local priority.

a combined school districts would mean that people in that district would have to list a preference, ET could still accept people from outside if they had room, combined with a 2 year (or perhaps 3 year) limit on signing up for everyone in every school.

is there anything in the admission bill about the sign up limit, mention it in the discussion paper http://www.education.ie/en/Parents/Information/School-Enrolment/sp_enrolment_discussion_paper.pdf http://www.education.ie/en/Parents/Information/School-Enrolment/ its not something they'd put in law, maybe a statutory instrument or a ciricular


are you suggesting that people who live in the area and don't get into another school in the area should be made travel outside the area to find a school so the people who don't live in the area can go to the ET school?

expectationlost

Primary school suddenly delays opening, leaving children without a definite school to attend http://shr.gs/oK3HRDc Castlebar just 10 pupils

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

are you suggesting that people who live in the area and don't get into another school in the area should be made travel outside the area to find a school so the people who don't live in the area can go to the ET school?

No, I'm not. But ET themselves seem to want it. Hence they are complaining about the above new law which means their traditional "first on the list gets priority" policy "may" now be illegal.

expectationlost wrote: »

a combined school districts would mean that people in that district would have to list a preference, ET could still accept people from outside if they had room

They could do that now. But only after all the kids in the local area that applied for a place had been offered one.

expectationlost wrote: »

..is there anything in the admission bill about the sign up limit, mention it in the discussion paper http://www.education.ie/en/Parents/Information/School-Enrolment/ its not something they'd put in law, maybe a statutory instrument or a ciricular.

It is "provided for" (here we go again ) in the law, the pdf can be downloaded from your link above. The bill was enacted in April this year, including this part...

d) selection criteria that schools shall be prohibited from applying in cases where the number of students seeking admission to the school is greater than the number of places being made available at the
school which may include criteria based on one or more than one of
the following:
(i) a student’s connection to the school by virtue of his or her
relationship with a specified category or categories of person;
(ii) a student’s prior attendance at a specified category or categories
of pre-school or pre-school service;
(iii) the payment of fees or contributions (howsoever described) to
the school, other than in accordance with section 63;
(iv) the occupation or financial status of the parents of a student;
(v) a student’s academic ability, skills or aptitude;
(vi) a requirement that a student, or his or her parents, attend an
interview, open day or other meeting as a condition of
admission;
(vii) the date on which an application for admission was received by
the school.

Not totally sure about this, but I think it is now open to the Dept. to issue a circular or a regulation giving effect to the above. And nobody can say they are exceeding their powers because it is "provided for" in the 2015 bill.
On the other hand, if they don't bother giving the instruction, then it "may" not come into effect, so certain aspects may be negotiable....
In the associated "explanatory memorandum" document they explain further that..

this subsection will not only clarify the power of the Minister to make regulations but make clear what such regulations can cover. This may include matters relating to the preparation, content, publication and review of school admission policies and the procedures in relation to the admission process.

So its all about giving the Minister the power to influence the admissions policies.
While also (in another section of the bill) making clear that religious schools are still free to practice religious discrimination, and single sex schools can discriminate based on sex.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I would consider the ETB model of primary school to be new. I think the first one was only opened about 3 years ago, so the oldest pupils must be still in 2nd or 3rd class. That is not enough time to see how their plan to segregate the kids for separate religious education will work out.

Well, maybe this isn't a simple binary. The Community National School model is quite new (but not as new as you think - the first ones were opened in 2008, and as of next week there will be eleven of them in total). But the SSI-type secular school would obviously be completely new - there are none at all, at present.

As far as promoting diversity, goes, though, when awarding the patronage of a new school I don't think there's much difference between "this would be the first school of its type in Ireland" and "this would be the first school of its type in the district, or the surrounding districts". In both cases, awarding the patronage to such a school would result in a school of a type never available before to parents in the catchment area. So both of those school types are, for the purposes of a patronage decision for a specific school in a specific place, equally "new".