School patronage

Absolam

Daith wrote: »

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

Can you point out where the school ethos "specifically included regular Mass attendance"? I can't see it... and since they don't actually provide regular Mass attendance in the schools (well, not every Sunday, anyway!), I'm not seeing how you imagine it falls under providing Religious Education for the pupils in accordance with the doctrines, practices and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church..... nor does it show that the parents ethos includes attending Mass?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

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".

But they weren't excluded from the tender process? They participated in the tender process; it's how we know that their submission only confirmed their willingness to meet one of the seven requirements outlined specifically.
So they weren't accused of refusing to agree to the list of conditions, and they participated in the tender process, so who needed clarification of whether there really was "a refusal to agree"? No one ever said there was a "a refusal to agree".

expectationlost

Quadrature wrote: »

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.

you could ask them or use this Atheist Ireland survey use the menu > campaigns > general election 2011 survey > party response http://atheist.ie/campaigns/2011-general-election/political-party-responses/political-parties-election-position-2011-sinn-fein/

Sinn Fein has provided the following statement on behalf of all its candidates –
1. Will you work to reform the education system so that all children in your constituency can access publicly-funded schools which have no religious ethos?
Yes. Sinn Féin believes that the separation of Church and State must be completed. Church control of primary schools is a legacy of the old era of ecclesiastical power and control. This must change and we must move to a democratically controlled education system, truly representative of the community, respecting the rights of people of all religions and none and totally child-centred.

etc

SP/AAA TDs support secular schooling unsurprisinly

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

But they weren't excluded from the tender process? They participated in the tender process...

OK, excluded half-way through the process, if you want to be pedantic about it.

Quadrature

expectationlost wrote: »

you could ask them or use this Atheist Ireland survey use the menu > campaigns > general election 2011 survey > party response

etc

SP/AAA TDs support secular schooling unsurprisinly

That's interesting. I'd assumed that they were likely to be very allied to the Catholic Church because of how they're always portrayed as "the Catholic party" by the international media.

Like you'll see a report about "the Catholic community" and then an SF politician representing them. So my automatic assumption is that they're more socially right wing than FF. however, I'm obviously misinformed.

I thought Labour was pro secular education but, they didn't do anything about it and are now defending the indefensible positions the state has always taken. That has really put me off them. They've been good on LGBT rights although, in the end FG seems to have woken up to the issue too.

I basically know if I vote FF or FG this secular schools issue will not be touched and I don't trust Labour on it anymore.

My gut instinct about SF isn't good due to the Troubles but, their policies on this are good.

So, again I'm stuck for a party to vote for. Maybe I'll just vote for independents or something. I'm getting to the stage I equally dislike all the options.

recedite

In the 1960s SF were regarded as marxist, but that has changed since.
There were always two sides to Irish nationalism; the socialist republican and the right-wing RCC fundamentalist supported faction.
It will be interesting to see them all vying to claim exclusive ownership of the 1916 commemorations next year. But in reality there were 2 different factions back then as well, and they could never have worked together. Connolly the socialist with his Citizen Army, and Pearse the fascist with his school for martyrs in Rathfarnham. If they had survived, these two would have got on like a house on fire, similar to the Nationalists and the Republicans in Spain during the 1930s.

Quadrature

Parallels to Franco's Spain and Ireland in the ultra conservative days are very striking.

Ireland may not have been a dictatorship, but it managed to elect a single party government (against all the odds, as the PR-STV voting system is basically designed to broaden representation). That government (series of) implemented social policies that were very similar to the Spanish dictatorship and engaged in corporatism with the Catholic Church in a very similar way.

Things like the Magdalene Laundries, the industrial schools, the censorship, the banning of divorce, contraception and abortion and the sheer power the church was allowed to obtain were very like what you'd see in a fascist state like Spain under the dictatorship or, that you're starting to see in Russia under Putin.

It's actually quite a shameful period of Irish history that I think we'll be looking back on without the green tinted glasses in a few decades when younger generations can analyse in a much colder light than academics who were brought up in it who might be writing now. We're still a generation away from being able to actually see it in perspective.

The schools are a legacy of that era really. They're something a modern Ireland needs to completely reform.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Quadrature

While the economy kept shrinking and emigration was going through the roof.

I know of plenty of my family members who emigrated because of the social backwardness of the old country in the 50s and right up to the 1980s.

Moving to the more progressive costal parts of the U.S. mostly but also Canada and even Britian and France.

Emigration here wasn't entirely about economics although we tend to dress it up that way. A lot of people just couldn't wait to get the boat/plane, particularly the more liberal and adventurous who just couldn't hack it here.

I think that made matters 100X worse as the ultra conservativism concentrated and went totally unchallenged for decades.

It's actually very similar in the U.S. Bible Belt. Progressive people tend to move to more liberal parts of the U.S. Or you get a few very separate and liberal cities surrounded by deeply conservative rural / small town communities (Texas is a good example of this).

Ireland being English speaking, and the cultural ties to North America in particular makes us nearly as mobile as someone living in Mississippi or Alabama really. There are and always were places to go and easily just blend into and get on with life.

So, you get a brain drain and a liberal drain that just leave you with a very narrow minded establishment that runs amuck.

We've really only started to correct that in the last 3 decades as the economy boomed and people stayed and stood it down.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

OK, excluded half-way through the process, if you want to be pedantic about it.

What part of the process did the other applicants participate in that SSI didn't?

recedite

The other applicants had their applications assessed for various criteria, including whether a similar school type was already available in the wider area, whether it would strengthen the diversity of different ethos types available in the local area, and what parental demand for the school they could demonstrate in the local area.

expectationlost

Educate Together pupils denied priority places
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/Irish_News/article1600368.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_08_29

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The other applicants had their applications assessed for various criteria, including whether a similar school type was already available in the wider area, whether it would strengthen the diversity of different ethos types available in the local area, and what parental demand for the school they could demonstrate in the local area.

That doesn't answer the question though; what part of the process did the other applicants participate in that SSI didn't? We already know from the documents that SSI failed to meet the criteria for assessment that the other patrons met, but you haven't shown how they were excluded from the (or halfway through the) process. They seem to have participated just as much as the other applicants, if less successfully.

Bristolscale7

expectationlost wrote: »

Educate Together pupils denied priority places
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/Irish_News/article1600368.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_08_29

I really don't understand why ET refuses to positively discriminate in favor of ET primary schools. A simple one page statement by the pupil on the core principles of ET would be enough to give the students ethos-based priority places. Parents and principals know this is an option open to ET but the national office lacks the chutzpah to implement the policy.

expectationlost

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I really don't understand why ET refuses to positively discriminate in favor of ET primary schools. A simple one page statement by the pupil on the core principles of ET would be enough to give the students ethos-based priority places. Parents and principals know this is an option open to ET but the national office lacks the chutzpah to implement the policy.

they were only allowed start secondary schools on the basis that they don't do that, they signed a written agreement with the dept of ed on that basis, the principals know that surely.

Bristolscale7

expectationlost wrote: »

they were only allowed start secondary schools on the basis that they don't do that, they signed a written agreement with the dept of ed on that basis, the principals know that surely.

Any contract/agreement that violates that law--the statutes governing admissions policies which explicitly allow discrimination based on ethos--cannot be upheld.

expectationlost

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Any contract/agreement that violates that law--the statutes governing admissions policies which explicitly allow discrimination based on ethos--cannot be upheld.

they asking to be able to accept people based on having been at a particular primary school, not based on ethos

Peregrinus

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I really don't understand why ET refuses to positively discriminate in favor of ET primary schools.

Possibly because it would be contrary to their own principles of equality and inclusivity, which explicitly require that all children should have equal rights of access to the school they run.

expectationlost

i still wonder what the catchements are based on, I just looked up all the secondary schools in D4,D6,D2 and none of them mention a catchement area in the ones that have admissions info, so if they don't why should a ET SS there follow one (other then that they said they would)

newer multi-dom schools that have area priorities
http://www.hansfieldsecondary.ie/

The current Admissions Policy states that places will be offered in the following priority order:

Students who reside permanently in Castaheany, Ongar, Hansfield, Phibblestown and Littlepace,
Students who, at the time of application, attend an Educate Together National School, and
All other applicants.

ardigllan http://ardgillancc.ie/Official/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Admissions-Policy.pdf has catchment area doesn't say anything about preferring ET Students
kishog http://www.kishogecc.ie/images/downloads/AdmissionsPolicy2016.pdf goes local, less local ET, then others

adamstown https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e6UNbutnCCZGNUMXzcp14ffcBeDPh6V-8XAeKlIHSeg/edit complicated, but similar to above
cpsetanta http://www.cpsetanta.ie/Portals/0/Website/Staff/Files/Setanta_Enrolment_1stYear.pdf siblings,localfeeder,local,others
http://www.gaelcholaiste.com/ siblings,has attended Irish School,staff,others,others who didn't go to Irish school but no more then 15%

recedite

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

I really don't understand why ET refuses to positively discriminate in favor of ET primary schools. A simple one page statement by the pupil on the core principles of ET would be enough to give the students ethos-based priority places. Parents and principals know this is an option open to ET but the national office lacks the chutzpah to implement the policy.

When the Dept. of Education/Taxpayer/State builds a new school, it is expected to cater for all members of the public equally, in whatever catchment area the school is built in. Any Patron wanting to manage the school must agree to this when they apply for the tender to manage the new school.

For primary schools, the catchment area is a named geographical area, as shown on a map.
For secondary schools, it is a named set of local primary schools (including all the local primary schools regardless of their ethos)

Once all the local kids have been offered a place, the school can then offer places based on "ethos" but ET knows that by then there will be very few places left.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly because it would be contrary to their own principles of equality and inclusivity, which explicitly require that all children should have equal rights of access to the school they run.

Well no, because these are the principals of non-local ET primary schools who are lobbying the Dept. for priority access to the new ET secondary school.
Which is essentially the same as denominational primary schools wanting priority access to a new publicly owned secondary school which happens to have fallen under the influence/patronage of a religious patron.

None of this applies to existing denominational schools which are owned by a religious sect/body/trust. They can still select according to religion, because (a) they own the place, and (b) because religious discrimination in publicly funded schools is unfortunately still allowed by law, to preserve their "ethos".

expectationlost

Secular body loses legal bid to become Cork school patron http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/secular-body-loses-legal-bid-to-become-cork-school-patron-352194.html

The judge said SSI was fully aware of the minister’s requirements with regard to a prescribed curriculum and other specific demands and had failed to meet them. [/QUOTE

doubt they got any more explaination then that but await full ruling

StonyIron

We shouldn't need all these sponsoring bodies. The state is more than well capable of running schools itself!

Why can't we just have secular, open state schools. They could be run by the state or, better yet it might be something local government could do and be accountable for.

Most countries run schools like that. They're often a function of the city, county or equivalent authority.

expectationlost

StonyIron wrote: »

We shouldn't need all these sponsoring bodies. The state is more than well capable of running schools itself!

Why can't we just have secular, open state schools. They could be run by the state or, better yet it might be something local government could do and be accountable for.

Most countries run schools like that. They're often a function of the city, county or equivalent authority.

well they were competiting against an education and training board http://www.etbi.ie/etbs/what-is-an-etb/

expectationlost

INTO http://www.standupprimary.ie/ a pre- budget and pre-election campaign, https://www.into.ie/ROI/NewsEvents/LatestNews/Title,36214,en.php theres probably a pre-buget submission somewhere to go along with this

its wants you to email your TD

Stand up for smaller classes
Stand up for fairer funding
Stand up for leadership
Stand up for primary teachers
Reversing disadvantage
Children with special needs

https://www.into.ie/ROI/NewsEvents/LatestNews/Downloads/StandUpPrimaryEd.pdf

I am writing as a concerned constituent to seek your support for primary education in next month’s budget for 2016.

Smaller Classes:
Smaller classes benefit young children. In smaller classes teachers can give attention to every child in the class. They can help all children reach their potential. Irish class sizes are the highest in the Eurozone. I ask you to support smaller classes in Budget 2016.

Primary School Funding:
Primary schools are not funded fairly. Despite being open longer than a second level school a primary school gets just over half the funding to meet similar running costs such as energy and insurance. The state pays 92c per pupil per day at primary and €1.77 per student at second level. With your support, Budget 2016 could close the funding gap.

School Leadership:
Primary school principals need your support in this budget. Teaching principals cannot do two jobs and need time free from class teaching to run the school. One day per week with substitute cover would give them the time to lead teaching and learning in schools. The current ban on promotion must be relaxed. If this happens primary schools will be able to deliver on schools ICT, include children with special needs and improve literacy and numeracy standards.

Children get one chance in primary education. Investment in primary education benefits everybody and has long term impact. That’s why in Budget 2016 I ask you to make primary your priority. I ask you to join with me to stand up for primary education.

it wants to send you updates but there is an opt-out there

website done by the same agency that did Labour websites and others similar unions and orgs

no mention of whether they'll want lots of differently religious schools or not

there is a long article in the SBP called 'Can we afford Educate Together' http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News+Focus/Can+we+afford+to+Educate+Together%3F/id/2c0c44df-6764-490c-bf4d-a43a0a950974 (paywall) its mostly just goes through how Educate is funded.

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

Secular body loses legal bid to become Cork school patron http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/secular-body-loses-legal-bid-to-become-cork-school-patron-352194.html

The judge said SSI was fully aware of the minister’s requirements with regard to a prescribed curriculum and other specific demands and had failed to meet them. [/QUOTE

doubt they got any more explaination then that but await full ruling

full rulling Secular Schools Ireland Limited -v- The Minister for Education and Skills & ors http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/9d48bf25e7589a8a80257ebc00490e78?OpenDocument

Decision
16. I think the application is misconceived. Although much of the argument by the applicant during the hearing was directed towards the constitutional rights of the applicant and its members in relation to the education of their children, there is in fact no dispute on these rights. The dispute concerns the exercise of those rights. In this regard the respondents have put in place a structure to do just that. The Minister obviously has to ensure that any patronage awarded is to appropriate persons who will guarantee to meet the established criteria. The Minister is bound to do so in order to ensure the proper education of children and the efficient disposition of scarce resources. This is the purpose of s. 10(2)(f) of the Act of 1998. In this regard there has been provided a modus operandi for application including seven criteria which any prospective school patron must meet. No case is made that these are unfair or unreasonable. On their face they appear to be eminently sensible and practical. I would consider that these are vital guarantees that must be obtained from any prospective patron to ensure the proper conduct of the school in question. I am satisfied that the applicant was made fully aware of the need to commit to these criteria. It is somewhat puzzling that the applicant has not even to date done so. I think the decision to declare the application invalid was correct and appropriate. If the applicant is serious about meeting the obligations of a school patron, it should have had no difficulty in giving such guarantees none of which in any way impinge upon their constitutional or other rights in relation to education. The officials are not required to go back to applicants whose applications are invalidly made in order to engage with them. The applicant was made fully aware of the requirements and failed to meet them. It is the author of its own problem. The application for relief is refused.

still get the feeling they wanted to be rejected

recedite

The SSI case seems to have been that the Dept. had no right to impose conditions on the school, that it's function was merely to recognise that the school had demonstrated parental support (the 98 signatures) and then provide the school with public funding.

But if this had succeeded it could have set a dangerous precedent, for example a school "for white people only" might get 98 supporters, but that does not mean it should receive public funding.
In the judgement, the SSI case is described thusly...

Article 42.1 provides that the parents are the “primary and natural educator of the child” and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to be the primary educator of their own child. The applicant submitted that the recognition of a patron is a constitutional right for parents to exercise. The Minister only has powers in terms of recognition under the Education Act 1998 (“the Act of 1998”) directly related to the fact that the State provides “for free primary education” under Article 42.5., and this power of recognition is based on parental preference.

IMO the constitutional right referred to is the right of parents to educate their children privately, but it does not necessarily translate into a right to receive public money for that education.
For example, a nut job could homeschool their child with an emphasis on the teachings of the KKK, or Mein Kamph or the Koran, and provided they also kept up with the mainstream curriculum that would be allowed.

But this whole argument is turned on its head by the religious discrimination that is allowed in denominational schools. There is an opt-out in equality legislation which allows for this particular kind of discrimination. The opt-out allows for the public funding of such schools. This is "justified" by parental demand and the support of a historical majority.

So perhaps that was the point all along; what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Unfortunately, the equality legislation and the dept. rules are written by geese, not ganders. Because geese are more common, and therefore have the majority.
I have to say though, if the point was to highlight the hypocrisy, it hasn't been communicated very clearly.

Another possible explanation is that it was all an experiment to see if public funding could be obtained for what would effectively be a privately-run school.

The solution to all this is to apply consistently a set of rules worthy of a Republic. Even if that requires a constitutional referendum to clarify that the State will only provide public funding for a school that is equally open to all children, regardless of race, religion, the parent's sexual preferences or marital status etc..

recedite

Meanwhile, over in London..

“The challenge has been to persuade parents that just because we have a Muslim majority now of over 90 per cent, we don’t have to be a Muslim school,”

Now that's my kind of Muslim.
Look at those mean eyes, don't mess with this guy

But for me it is straightforward – we have no religious denomination. If they wish to exercise their parental choice and go with a segregated model, then there are private Islamic schools in the area.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The SSI case seems to have been that the Dept. had no right to impose conditions on the school, that it's function was merely to recognise that the school had demonstrated parental support (the 98 signatures) and then provide the school with public funding.

Well, their case was that their application was refused, such refusal being beyond the powers of the Minister, and that their application being deemed invalid (which is at odds with the assertion their application was refused) should have meant they were afforded an opportunity to address the purported invalidity.
But I think the purpose of putting forward that case was so that they could offer the assertion that Dept had no right to insert itself into the Constitutional right of parents to choose how to educate their children (the 98 signatures) by determining the patron of the school. Which is a not unfair point of view, save that it's not the parents setting up the school, it's the DoE, and as was pointed out, the Minister in designating a school or a proposed school to be a school recognised for the purposes of the 1998 Education Act has the power to set conditions on that designation.

recedite wrote: »

But if this had succeeded it could have set a dangerous precedent, for example a school "for white people only" might get 98 supporters, but that does not mean it should receive public funding.
In the judgement, the SSI case is described thusly... IMO the constitutional right referred to is the right of parents to educate their children privately, but it does not necessarily translate into a right to receive public money for that education. For example, a nut job could homeschool their child with an emphasis on the teachings of the KKK, or Mein Kamph or the Koran, and provided they also kept up with the mainstream curriculum that would be allowed.

I can't see any argument for the 'dangerous precedent' notion; there's no basis, Constitutional, legal, or otherwise for their assertion that the Minister was attempting to exercise powers of recognition over patrons. The Minister clearly does have the legal power to place conditions on all patrons in the Education Act, and there was no evidence presented that that power was used to effectively include or exclude patrons on the basis of who they are, but rather it was demonstrably used to only allow further consideration of patrons who committed to 'eminently sensible and practical' pre-requisites for running a school.

recedite wrote: »

But this whole argument is turned on its head by the religious discrimination that is allowed in denominational schools. There is an opt-out in equality legislation which allows for this particular kind of discrimination. The opt-out allows for the public funding of such schools. This is "justified" by parental demand and the support of a historical majority.

But it's not turned on it's head if patrons of denominational schools commit to the same pre-requisites; it provides a minimum required standard for all patrons regardless of their commitments to political or religious agendas which is, as the Court said, eminently sensible.

recedite wrote: »

So perhaps that was the point all along; what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Unfortunately, the equality legislation and the dept. rules are written by geese, not ganders. Because geese are more common, and therefore have the majority.
I have to say though, if the point was to highlight the hypocrisy, it hasn't been communicated very clearly.

But there was nothing in the ruling about majorities. Had SSI made the same commitments as the other prospective patrons they could have moved forward in the process. Even in the judicial review they didn't make those commitments; they wanted the court (and the DoE) to accept that at no stage did they suggest or imply that they would not carry out any aspect of the legislatively described patronage instead. I can't see there would have been any sympathy for a new Evangelical Christian school that attempted that kind of evasive tactic. It's hard to highlight a hypocrisy that simply isn't present.

recedite wrote: »

Another possible explanation is that it was all an experiment to see if public funding could be obtained for what would effectively be a privately-run school.

Given their intransigence on committing to any requirements set out by the Minister it would say it's more likely they were looking to establish a platform from which to attack the way the DoE handles education in it's entirety. I think the notion probably wasn't even as much as half-baked though.

recedite wrote: »

The solution to all this is to apply consistently a set of rules worthy of a Republic. Even if that requires a constitutional referendum to clarify that the State will only provide public funding for a school that is equally open to all children, regardless of race, religion, the parent's sexual preferences or marital status etc..

I would have said the solution is to either comply with Ministerial requirements or fund your own school.
The DoE did pretty much consistently apply a set of rules worthy of a Republic though; there was nothing onerous or discriminatory, or unworthy of a Republic in the requirements SSI wouldn't commit to, which every other prospective patron did commit too. They were, as the review said, eminently sensible and practical.
Now had the Minister demanded that each patron commit to ensuring that "a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school" SSI made have had something to object to.... but that wasn't the case.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

. . . Now had the Minister demanded that each patron commit to ensuring that "a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school" SSI made have had something to object to.... but that wasn't the case.

This.

It seems to me that SSI were attacking completely the wrong target. If they had accepted all the other conditions and just rejected " willingness to operate by the rules and regulations laid down in various Department of Education and Skills circulars and operating procedures" on the basis that this required them to commit to Rule 68 and this was an infringement of their constitutional rights regarding both education and religion, I think they would have had a much stronger case.

I don't know why they didn't do that, to be honest.

Absolam

I don't know; it seems to me in theory the 1965 Rules for Schools are still in effect and might still be considered part of the DoEs operating procedures (they're not current circulars, and the version on the DoE website is a poor photocopy of an old booklet). But it's readily apparent that almost everything in those rules has been superseded and isn't current operating procedure. There's no evidence that Rule 68 is enforced; there's not even a mechanism for it. Whilst I agree with Bureaucrat No. 1 that technically correct is the best kind of correct, and the Rules for Schools have technically not been entirely revoked, I also think it would be difficult to maintain that they are current operating procedure for the Dept of Education.