School patronage

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

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

The problem is that catchment areas only apply to the newest schools, longer established schools (whether ET, RC, or whatever) aren't forced by the Dept to apply a catchment area policy.

So you end up with scenarios like this:

(1) The religious schools in the area have no catchment area restriction, can prioritise pupils on the basis of religion even if they live in another area, above local kids of the 'wrong' or no religion
(2) There is no ET in the area. So non-religious pupils are bottom of the enrolment list on every school in the area where they live, and may not get any place
(3) There is a new ET in another area, but because it has to have a catchment area policy, the kids excluded from schools in their own area due to (2) are now bottom of the list here too, so can't get a place there either.

ETs can't operate some sort of atheism or secularism test to prioritise their pupils so traditionally they just went by application date, which has its own flaws too, but at least is transparent, and parents who are keen on ET are motivated to get their kids names down at birth if they have to

Now the newer ETs are being forced to operate catchment areas first and application date second, so cultural catholics can get their kids into an ET ahead of non-religious parents in adjacent areas who have no ET option where they live. The cultural catholics also have their pick of RC schools in their own area, and in other areas as the religious schools aren't forced to apply a catchment area policy.

Peregrinus

This looks like an excellent explanation of the problem, Hotblack. Have you any idea when the catchment area rule was brought in for new schools?

TheChizler

expectationlost wrote: »

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

The building in question offered by the Catholic Church was basically abandoned as a Catholic school 20 years ago, 8 km from the town and looks like a bit of a hole.



Good to see that they're taking religious divestment seriously! :rolleyes:

RTE story.

Quadrature

The only way this will ever change is if parents start sueing and pursuing the state locally and trying to get the courts to interpret the constitution and also by looking at taking the state to the ECHR.

This is Ireland, it's the only way of getting any kind of change on these issues is by taking legal action.

I'm also bitterly disappointed with Labour and won't be voting for them in the general election over their two faced approach to this. All talk before the last general election and once in office, they towed the Department of Religious Education's line and defended it rather than actually trying to implement change.

I'm not really sure there are any parties willing to do anything about this topic. So, I can only suggest that parents should start getting money together to start taking law suits because there's no point in pushing this politically.

The state seems to be quite happy to just exclude non religious children from education. Clearly it must just see them / their parents as socially undesirable, unwelcome and flawed somehow.
That's the only conclusion one could draw from this. It's certainly the message that's being sent out.

"Ireland - where vested interests always come first."

Peregrinus

Well, they can only divest themselves of the schools they actually have. It would be nice if they had a building that they weren't using and that was ET's dream school building, but it's hardly surprising that they don't.

And, from the report, ET don't seem to think it's the Catholic church's business to provide them with a suitable building in a suitable place; they think it's the Department's business. Which seems correct, somehow.

gaius c

Got a 10 week old at home and we're worried how this is going to work out.

My sister teaches in Cork and her stories are hair-raising.

Quadrature

Hair raising in what way?
a family member of mine will have this in a few years too...

gaius c

The difference between their official admissions policy and the practice.

A kid living next door to the school got refused on the basis that they were over-subscribed when other religious kids from way outside the area got in no bother. From the number of times, they were asked about a baptismal cert, "are you getting him baptised at all?" "why are you putting your own religious beliefs ahead of your child's future?", it's plain that this was the real reason.
His name was put down when he was 6 months old.

Quadrature

That kind of thing is quite likely to cause a *major* problem with my relative. Being Chinese, they consider being an atheist as cultural and part of the their national identity. So, they're considering anti-atheist discrimination as racism.

gaius c

Quadrature wrote: »

That kind of thing is quite likely to cause a *major* problem with my relative. Being Chinese, they consider being an atheist as cultural and part of the their national identity. So, they're considering anti-atheist discrimination as racism.

Oh they'll be fine then. This discrimination is solely directed at Irish people being "awkward" and not going with the flow baptising their kids "like everybody else".

Quadrature

It's a complete disgrace that this is the situation we find ourself in coming up to 2016, the centenary of what was supposed to be the start of an idealistic new country where we'd finally all have equal rights.

Instead all we've done is give a special status to Catholics and a special exclusion status to non-religious people.

The state should absolutely not be pushing religion on people and that's precisely what it's doing. It pretends it doesn't run the schools yet it does.

The recent history here is horrific around these issues - particularly when you look at things like an extrajudicial prison system that operated for moral "crimes" that saw large numbers of women losing their freedom and rights to education entirely because they were deemed immoral or a threat by the religious.

This is one seriously screwed up country and we don't even see it!

This is a very serious breech of fundamental human rights.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The problem is that catchment areas only apply to the newest schools, longer established schools (whether ET, RC, or whatever) aren't forced by the Dept to apply a catchment area policy.

The issue here is one of ownership. Newer schools have been built by the taxpayer/Dept of Education and the management of the school is then awarded to a private patron, subject to their agreeing with this list of conditions (which SSI is accused of refusing to agree to)
So the school is publicly owned as well as publicly funded.

Older schools are likely to be privately owned, but publicly funded.
So they may have their own idea of a catchment area, eg a parish boundary.
But as publicly funded schools they will still be subject to the new rules in the 2015 Bill, such as no long waiting lists, no private interviews to see if parents are "the right sort", and no paying to be put on the list. Religious discrimination will still be allowed though, for now.

Quadrature

It's bloody ridiculous that our tax money is handed over to private organisations who then provide so called public services with an agenda and strings attached and without any requirement to open them to the general public.

I see this as both a human rights and also just a value for money / accountability issue. If you're going to provide public services you provide *public* services that are open to all. Otherwise, it's state funding of private services.

Basically we don't have a public school system in any normal definition of what that would be.

I mean, even the "voluntary" hospitals owned by religious orders absolutely do not operate a policy of discriminating against non catholic patients or running a catholic waiting list and a other religions waiting list and then a non religious list where they try to harass you into being Catholic or extending your waiting time!

expectationlost

TheChizler wrote: »

The building in question offered by the Catholic Church was basically abandoned as a Catholic school 20 years ago, 8 km from the town and looks like a bit of a hole.



Good to see that they're taking religious divestment seriously! :rolleyes:

RTE story.

Minister blames charity for lack of state provision
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/furious-row-as-educate-together-pulls-planned-primary-school-31481186.html

now where have we seen this before oh from another Labour Minister

Quadrature

Well, they like to ensure they've no political responsibility for anything.

It's just how the Irish system of government likes things! Total lack of accountability, ignore problems until hopefully they go away, ask no questions as you might get the wrong answers!

expectationlost

Irish Catholic misuse Joanna Tuffy and Education Committee report to argue for continued religious dominance http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/problems-patronage

The Black Oil

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/08/27/catholics-come-first/

it makes sense for a school to give priority to the parents who believe in the ethos of the school because the school is set up for a particular reason…Discrimination is an extremely loaded word.

Ah Dave - how are ye? It's been a while.

Daith

The Black Oil wrote: »

Ah Dave - how are ye? It's been a while.

3 months....

evolving_doors

The parents don't go to school. The children do. What do kids know about ethos?

The Black Oil

First I heard my local TD going on about it (basically 'I've not heard from many parents, go away, pesky atheists', then there was a bishop or a priest saying there's very little demand for secular schools and now Dave.

In other words - 'atheist parents? lol'

Quadrature

Gebgbegb wrote: »

The parents don't go to school. The children do. What do kids know about ethos?

The most important thing is that vast amounts of money, time and energy are spent on a fight with a powerful vested interest which the government feels the bees to be beholden to. It's Irish way! No point in complaining ... Priests or bankers or someone better than you knows best and needs all your money.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The issue here is one of ownership. Newer schools have been built by the taxpayer/Dept of Education and the management of the school is then awarded to a private patron, subject to their agreeing with this list of conditions (which SSI is accused of refusing to agree to) So the school is publicly owned as well as publicly funded.

When was SSI accused of refusing to agree to anything? As far as I recall, the Dept said their submission only confirmed their willingness to meet one of the seven requirements outlined specifically. Hardly an accusation of refusing to agree, surely?

recedite wrote: »

Older schools are likely to be privately owned, but publicly funded. So they may have their own idea of a catchment area, eg a parish boundary. But as publicly funded schools they will still be subject to the new rules in the 2015 Bill, such as no long waiting lists, no private interviews to see if parents are "the right sort", and no paying to be put on the list. Religious discrimination will still be allowed though, for now.

So, in short, the new Bill will make no difference whatsoever to religious schools prioritising students who conform to their religious ethos?

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

The parents don't go to school. The children do. What do kids know about ethos?

Presumably, as much as their parents when they've finished their schooling. I would have thought that's the very reason to send your children to a school whose ethos aligns with your own; as the person responsible for the education of your children in matters religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social, if you choose a school to act on your behalf you choose one that imparts values that align with your own.

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Presumably, as much as their parents when they've finished their schooling. I would have thought that's the very reason to send your children to a school whose ethos aligns with your own; as the person responsible for the education of your children in matters religious, moral, intellectual, physical and social, if you choose a school to act on your behalf you choose one that imparts values that align with your own.

If religious ethos was that important to parents I'd expect attendance at Mass to be increasing not decreasing.

I wonder how many parents choose their school based on location as opposed to ethos?

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

If religious ethos was that important to parents I'd expect attendance at Mass to be increasing not decreasing.

Surely that would only be the case if the parents ethos included attending Mass? I'd suggest, going by the evidence, that it doesn't. Though in fairness, I don't think I've a read a statement of ethos from a school that specifically included regular Mass attendance either.

Daith wrote: »

I wonder how many parents choose their school based on location as opposed to ethos?

I would have thought most, but going by posters on this thread, and evidence presented on the thread of parents choices, the kind of school seems to be more significant than the proximity of the school (and there seems to be a general lean towards religious patronage amongst those consulted in the real world as distinct from opinions on A&A). Though having the kind of school they want to be as close as possible could certainly be a driving force for certain posters wanting schools to be taken from religious patronage and given to the kind of school patrons they would prefer?

Daith

Absolam wrote: »

Surely that would only be the case if the parents ethos included attending Mass? I'd suggest, going by the evidence, that it doesn't. Though in fairness, I don't think I've a read a statement of ethos from a school that specifically included regular Mass attendance either.

Indeed? Just from two schools

"The Catholic school provides religious education for the pupils in accordance with the doctrines, practices and tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and promotes the formation of the pupils in the Catholic faith."

"we provide Religious Education for the pupils in accordance with the doctrines, practices and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church"

Is regular mass attendance not part of the practices and traditions of the Catholic Church? It would explain a lot actually.

Quadrature

My question is who do I vote for to help towards progressing this issue?

Labour seem to be as useless as a chocolate teapot, despite making all the right noises.
FF & FG seem to think it's grand.
SF - No idea what their policies are on this.
I've also got no idea where the socialist party, renua or the social democrats stand on it.

So, really I'm left with nobody to vote for on this.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

When was SSI accused of refusing to agree to anything? As far as I recall, the Dept said their submission only confirmed their willingness to meet one of the seven requirements outlined specifically. Hardly an accusation of refusing to agree, surely?

Excluded from the tender process for not agreeing. A simple request for further information would have clarified whether there really was "a refusal to agree".

Absolam wrote: »

So, in short, the new Bill will make no difference whatsoever to religious schools prioritising students who conform to their religious ethos?

Yes. In short.

Daith

Quadrature wrote: »

So, really I'm left with nobody to vote for on this.

That's the unfortunate truth and pretty much the reason Quinn said you'd need someone to go the ECHR.

Quadrature

Daith wrote: »

That's the unfortunate truth and pretty much the reason Quinn said you'd need someone to go the ECHR.

We really should start a fund.