School patronage

PopePalpatine

Speaking of dreaming that it's 1937 again, the Litigious One was whinging in the Indo yesterday about the State being on a collision course with faith schools.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

Would it not be more extraordinary if parents weren't prepared to advocate for the kind of education they want to give their children?
I find it revealing that some people, rather than build something that suits them, would rather tear down something built by others. Dreadful example to set really.
Though claiming that not handing over the toys to the bully is 'hiding behind property rights and political philosophy' is last ditch stuff is particularly laughable... why would anyone not use their right to their property to retain it? Why should they subscribe to someone else's political philosophy?

No.. if you're reduced to claiming that someone is 'hiding' behind the fact that they own something rather than giving it to you, and that they're 'hiding' behind the fact that they have a different opinion to you, you know you've lost the argument already.

Let's give parents a real choice then: a secular school where all the funding and teaching time is given to secular subjects. A real choice is different from what has been offered.

The thing built by others is a two edged swords for the desperate defenders of religious patronage. A survey of capital expenditure and repair schemes grants since free education would be interesting. Just to quantify who has actually paid for the buildings.

Schools are more than property. When religious types are reduced to property rights to try to control education it is they who have lost the argument.

The RCC are limping into the future, utterly discredited and a risible relic from an era of ignorance. The only thing saving them from becoming a quaint oddity like the CofE is my generation and older. Their stooges and retired clerics can rant online but too many people have seen through them.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

Let's give parents a real choice then: a secular school where all the funding and teaching time is given to secular subjects. A real choice is different from what has been offered.

But you can do that any time you want; just build it. I'm certainly not stopping you. The Constitution is clear that education is a parental responsibility, the State can only step in if parents fail to provide a minimum standard of education. It's not up to the State to provide the choices parents want, it's up to the parents.

Fleawuss wrote: »

The thing built by others is a two edged swords for the desperate defenders of religious patronage. A survey of capital expenditure and repair schemes grants since free education would be interesting. Just to quantify who has actually paid for the buildings.

Sure; if religious institutions have no investment in the schools they're operating, whoever does own them can certainly decide who should operate them. I suspect you're not going to find any schools run by religious orders where they don't have a financial stake in them though. And if they have a stake they have a say.

Fleawuss wrote: »

Schools are more than property. When religious types are reduced to property rights to try to control education it is they who have lost the argument.

I think you offered that argument already; I don't think they are reduced to property rights to try to control education, but if you think that's the case then all you need to do is buy a load of property to have rights over and you can control education instead?

Fleawuss wrote: »

The RCC are limping into the future, utterly discredited and a risible relic from an era of ignorance. The only thing saving them from becoming a quaint oddity like the CofE is my generation and older. Their stooges and retired clerics can rant online but too many people have seen through them.

Meh... that's pure rhetorical nonsense. Who cares what your opinion of the Catholic Church is apart from you? It doesn't make any difference to the education we provide our children.

Fleawuss

Absolam wrote: »

But you can do that any time you want; just build it. I'm certainly not stopping you. The Constitution is clear that education is a parental responsibility, the State can only step in if parents fail to provide a minimum standard of education. It's not up to the State to provide the choices parents want, it's up to the parents.

Sure; if religious institutions have no investment in the schools they're operating, whoever does own them can certainly decide who should operate them. I suspect you're not going to find any schools run by religious orders where they don't have a financial stake in them though. And if they have a stake they have a say.
I think you offered that argument already; I don't think they are reduced to property rights to try to control education, but if you think that's the case then all you need to do is buy a load of property to have rights over and you can control education instead?
Meh... that's pure rhetorical nonsense. Who cares what your opinion of the Catholic Church is apart from you? It doesn't make any difference to the education we provide our children.

A rehash of the usual "we own it so that's that" approach. There is serious denial among clerics about the utter bankruptcy of what they have given their lives to. Many fine people as I said on another thread and I wouldn't want to see elderly religious who have tried to develop their communities and were often a voice of compassion in a local area thrown out of their homes. But the education issue won't go away and the state cannot fudge the issue forever. It would be good to see a pragmatic accommodation that acknowledged the neutral role the state must play among competing gods and no gods.

The Black Oil

Absolam wrote: »

But you can do that any time you want; just build it. I'm certainly not stopping you. The Constitution is clear that education is a parental responsibility, the State can only step in if parents fail to provide a minimum standard of education. It's not up to the State to provide the choices parents want, it's up to the parents.

Would you be singing this tune if Irish primary schools were 90% secular and Catholics (if they were the minority in the census) were seeking school places for their children? Ah shure, yis have churches, what do ye want special schools for? There's a field down there, hump off and build away.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

A rehash of the usual "we own it so that's that" approach.

So, what do you own that you're bringing to the table?

Fleawuss wrote: »

There is serious denial among clerics about the utter bankruptcy of what they have given their lives to. Many fine people as I said on another thread and I wouldn't want to see elderly religious who have tried to develop their communities and were often a voice of compassion in a local area thrown out of their homes.

Again... meh. Who cares what your opinion of the Catholic Church is apart from you? It doesn't make any difference to the education we provide our children. And it's not like anyone is offering you the opportunity to throw religious out of their homes.

Fleawuss wrote: »

But the education issue won't go away and the state cannot fudge the issue forever. It would be good to see a pragmatic accommodation that acknowledged the neutral role the state must play among competing gods and no gods.

It won't go away because no one is going to make it go away for you. However if you want a particular kind of educational establishment and you are prepared to invest your time, raise the money, and make it happen, presto, problem solved.

Absolam

The Black Oil wrote: »

Would you be singing this tune if Irish primary schools were 90% secular and Catholics (if they were the minority in the census) were seeking school places for their children? Ah shure, yis have churches, what do ye want special schools for? There's a field down there, hump off and build away.

You know, I think I would. Though perhaps I'd avoid the pejorative rhetoric; I'd probably stick with if you want it build it, you're entitled like everyone else. I don't see why anyone should be given special treatment; if a parent wants to provide a particular kind of education for their child, as long as it meets minimum standards I'm all for it. I like the fact that we give parents the freedom to determine how their children will be brought up within reasonable limits.

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

I don't see why anyone should be given special treatment

Except, presumably, the voluminous special treatment provided both free of charge and free of any obvious legal accountability, to the catholic church.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

Except, presumably, the voluminous special treatment provided both free of charge and free of any obvious legal accountability, to the catholic church.

No, I don't think the Catholic Church should get special treatment, vague and allusory as the notion might be. Nor do I think one kid should get to take the other kids toys just because they think they're the new cool kid. Or even because they feel somehow entitled to take other kids toys.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

No, I don't think the Catholic Church should get special treatment, vague and allusory as the notion might be. Nor do I think one kid should get to take the other kids toys just because they think they're the new cool kid. Or even because they feel somehow entitled to take other kids toys.

What if one kid is consuming soup! should the other kid be forced to 'take the soup' too?

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

What if one kid is consuming soup! should the other kid be forced to 'take the soup' too?

That depends; if you don't want them to consume the soup don't put them where people have decided their kids should consume soup. If you do, don't expect the other parents to go along with you demanding their kids don't consume soup just in case your kids like the look of it.

recedite

I gave an example of a brand new state-owned secondary school where pupils will take the protestant soup.
The only other secondary school in this town (Greystones) is privately owned by a RC trust fund, the Le Cheile trust. In that school, pupils take the catholic soup.
Both schools are fully funded by the taxpaying public. Both school uniforms have a large crusader cross on the school jumper (although of two different designs) which presumably would be almost as offensive for a child of middle eastern muslim origin to wear on his/her clothing as a swastika would be for a jewish child.

So there are two different issues here;
1) The public funding of such schools at a similar rate to secular schools.
2) The allocation of new state-owned schools to religious cults, whereby the cult then manages the school while the state pays for it.

StonyIron

The Black Oil wrote: »

Would you be singing this tune if Irish primary schools were 90% secular and Catholics (if they were the minority in the census) were seeking school places for their children? Ah shure, yis have churches, what do ye want special schools for? There's a field down there, hump off and build away.

The issue is that a secular school doesn't have any religious ethos to impart. They're neutral ground. They're not going to be something that's offensive to Catholics any more than the local secular Garda station, library, city hall etc etc are.

Nobody is suggesting setting up an atheist school. That's something else entirely and would have an agenda.

Atheism and secularism are being confused here a lot.

A secular school simply has no religious agenda at all. It's not Catholic, not Protestant, not Muslim, not Jewish, not anything other than your local school.

If the kid is Catholic, or anything else - the school simply has no role in that anymore than your local supermarket has.

You need to provide for your own religious education for your children in the context of Sunday school at a church or something like that. If that's something you want to do.

The problem is the state is imposing a catholic ethos institution on everyone regardless of their religious or non religious background.

A secular school simply fits everyone religious, non religious, atheist or anything else. It's simply a school.

So, I would have my doubts that most parents would be panicking and rushing off to setup catholic schools to educate their children separately!

What exactly would the point be?! To protect them from the community?

A better analogy to the current situation would be what if 90% of schools were say Islamic Schools, but mostly fairly laid back about it, just the odd pray now and then and maybe a bit of referencing religion throughout the day.

The other 7% were say Baptist schools and then you'd 3% educate together.

And you were Catholic.

You can see the "choice" that the Irish state gives non Catholic kids when you swap the religions around a bit.

Penn

Absolam wrote: »

No, I don't think the Catholic Church should get special treatment, vague and allusory as the notion might be. Nor do I think one kid should get to take the other kids toys just because they think they're the new cool kid. Or even because they feel somehow entitled to take other kids toys.

- Guy meets girl.
- Girl moves into house Guy owns.
- Few years down the road, Girl starts paying all the rent and bills, and does all the housework and upkeep of the house. Guy contributes a little bit if and when he can.
- Guy keeps set rules about the house even though he's not really paying the mortgage/bills on it any more.
*cut to 40 years later*
- Guy owes Girl €50,000 for something unrelated to the house.
- Guy refuses to give up ownership of the house as a way of paying back both the money he owes and the fact that the Girl has been paying all the bills for 40 years.
- Guy maintains that because his family want him to keep the house, it's his, but that Girl can have the rotting garden shed. And also that the Girl should pay half the money he owes her because reasons.

Sound fair to you? Does that sound like "a kid thinking it can take another kid's toys"?

StonyIron

Simplest solution would be for the state to build state owned new schools and to no longer provide new school buildings for private religious state funded schools.

In 30 years or so the system would change.

Or, to only provide new buildings, contingent upon the school being nationalised.

Honestly think we need to nationalise the national schools! It's long, long overdue. We're already paying for them.

Also many schools were fully state funded from day one. It's only the very oldest that weren't. Quite a bit of mythology around.

In a lot of cases it's more like "girl buys house and pays for everything - Parish priest puts name on deeds".

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I gave an example of a brand new state-owned secondary school where pupils will take the protestant soup.
The only other secondary school in this town (Greystones) is privately owned by a RC trust fund, the Le Cheile trust. In that school, pupils take the catholic soup. Both schools are fully funded by the taxpaying public. Both school uniforms have a large crusader cross on the school jumper (although of two different designs) which presumably would be almost as offensive for a child of middle eastern muslim origin to wear on his/her clothing as a swastika would be for a jewish child..

I don't think anyone is arguing religious schools don't promote a religious ethos though. That's pretty much the point of them?

recedite wrote: »

So there are two different issues here;
1) The public funding of such schools at a similar rate to secular schools.
2) The allocation of new state-owned schools to religious cults, whereby the cult then manages the school while the state pays for it.

Well 1) doesn't seem to be an issue for parents who want their children to religious schools. In fact, it's not an issue for parents who want their children to attend secular schools, since they get similar funding. So... what's the issue?
2) Seems pretty good for parents who want their children educated in that cult? And since the State has a tender process that includes showing a demand for a patron from parents who will use the school, if the cult can't show a demand from parents, it won't get patronage. So... what's the issue?

expectationlost

Schools pledge end to 'first come, first served' enrolment http://www.herald.ie/news/schools-pledge-end-to-first-come-first-served-enrolment-31565973.html

fair enough, its only between the ET schools
Lucan Common Enrolment System
http://www.lucaneastet.ie/featured/very-important-new-lucan-common-enrolment-system-for-educate-together-schools/

http://www.lucaneastet.ie/policies/enrolment-policy/

Absolam

Penn wrote: »

- Guy meets girl.
- Girl moves into house Guy owns.
- Few years down the road, Girl starts paying all the rent and bills, and does all the housework and upkeep of the house. Guy contributes a little bit if and when he can.
- Guy keeps set rules about the house even though he's not really paying the mortgage/bills on it any more.
*cut to 40 years later*
- Guy owes Girl €50,000 for something unrelated to the house.
- Guy refuses to give up ownership of the house as a way of paying back both the money he owes and the fact that the Girl has been paying all the bills for 40 years.
- Guy maintains that because his family want him to keep the house, it's his, but that Girl can have the rotting garden shed. And also that the Girl should pay half the money he owes her because reasons.
Sound fair to you? Does that sound like "a kid thinking it can take another kid's toys"?

So.. you're saying the guy should have entered into a legal agreement with the girl? Sounds like a plan......
Though to my toys example, I don't think your new analogy really holds up. Maybe if it's the guys daughters that owe the money, and one of the girls sons (who might be the son of the guy.. he looks a bit like him, but..) is trying to take the house on the basis that he knows someone owes someone money for something, so anyways he likes the house and he wants it? That maybe gets a little closer to the mark I think...

expectationlost

Parents to get more involved with education http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-involved-in-religious-education-as-pope-visit-approaches-31566498.html

The church is urging parents to engage with their children in weekly homework that pupils will bring from school, under a new programme published yesterday.

However, families can opt out of receiving the homework page if they are not of the Catholic faith.

For the first time in the history of primary religious education, the bishops have published a structured curriculum for schools to observe.

The new curriculum also brings - for the first time in Catholic primary schools - the allocation of time to learn about other faiths during religion classes.

From first class onwards, pupils will have classes in inter-religious education, starting with two-and-a-half hours over the year. The time allocation will increase as they move up through senior classes.

The Grow In Love syllabus, the introduction of which started with junior and senior infant classes this month, is more specific about teaching Catholicism from the first days in school than the previous Alive O series.

Catholic Bishops publish new religious curriculum that has more emphasis on teching children catholic faith

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2015/09/29/launch-catholic-religious-education-curriculum-programme/


Grow in Love
http://education.dublindiocese.ie/2015/06/26/grow-in-love/

havn't found a downloadable copy yet http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/religious-education/primary-school/grow-in-love.html

here's a presentation, lots of talk of other faiths, no mention of no-faith http://www.ippn.ie/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=4939&cf_id=24

http://www.kandle.ie/important-information-update-catholic-preschool-primary-religious-education-curriculum-ireland-grow-love/

more relevant for us is the guidelines put out earlier http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2015/03/12/launch-catholic-primary-schools-changing-ireland-sharing-good-practice-inclusion-pupils/

that said its up to the department of education to arrange for opt-outs

Penn

Absolam wrote: »

So.. you're saying the guy should have entered into a legal agreement with the girl? Sounds like a plan......
Though to my toys example, I don't think your new analogy really holds up. Maybe if it's the guys daughters that owe the money, and one of the girls sons (who might be the son of the guy.. he looks a bit like him, but..) is trying to take the house on the basis that he knows someone owes someone money for something, so anyways he likes the house and he wants it? That maybe gets a little closer to the mark I think...

That sounds closer to Eastenders than our school patronage system

All I'm saying is that with the huge amount of money the State have put into the schools (which were originally set up by the Church), plus the fact the Church owes the State a huge amount of money for the child abuse payments, the Church and the State should agree on a deal to transfer patronage (not necessarily ownership, but patronage) of the schools over to the State, because the State should be providing non-denominational education to children without the input of the Church.

The reason I compared it to a house situation is because if two people are living together and one, despite not owning the house or being on any legal documents, can prove substantial contribution to paying for and upkeep of the house, they are entitled to ownership rights based on what they've paid. That's how it works with divorces etc where only one name might be on the mortgage.

Similarly, the money spent by the State for schools, education, upkeep etc, should easily entitle them to ownership. They fund the school, not the Church. They pay for the upkeep, not the Church. They pay for extensions etc, not the Church. What do you think the ratio of the Church's contributions (and I mean the Church itself, not the Church holding fundraising from the parish) to a general school are (including value of land etc) to what the State has paid for it (including staff wages, insurances etc)? Genuine question.

StonyIron

Well, there really needs to be an ultimatum here.
These institutions are providing a public service with public money and excluding people from using it.

That simply isn't good enough.

Effectively they are acting as an outsourcer for state education services. The state needs to start dealing with them as such.

If you want to compare it to a relationship, the state is the submissive partner suffering from Stockholm Syndrome who can't see it's acting like a complete door mat.

At the end of the day, the state is the one with the cheque book, the ability to raise tax, the democratic mandate. The church is simply an outsourcer.

inocybe

expectationlost wrote: »

Parents to get more involved with education http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-involved-in-religious-education-as-pope-visit-approaches-31566498.html


Ha, extra homework for the religious kids - that's going to backfire.

Fleawuss

inocybe wrote: »

expectationlost wrote: »

Parents to get more involved with education http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-involved-in-religious-education-as-pope-visit-approaches-31566498.html


Ha, extra homework for the religious kids - that's going to backfire.

It's an attempt to shore up their "education" by claiming its broader than their faith. It's politically adept and designed to offer the politicians s fig leaf for their dignity.

One eyed Jack

Penn wrote: »

Similarly, the money spent by the State for schools, education, upkeep etc, should easily entitle them to ownership. They fund the school, not the Church. They pay for the upkeep, not the Church. They pay for extensions etc, not the Church. What do you think the ratio of the Church's contributions (and I mean the Church itself, not the Church holding fundraising from the parish) to a general school are (including value of land etc) to what the State has paid for it (including staff wages, insurances etc)? Genuine question.

Quite a bit actually from an administrative point of view. The Bishops are the patrons of Catholic ethos schools, but the schools themselves are managed by the diocesan office on behalf of the Church. The State isn't funding those staff wages, admin costs, etc. The Diocese of the Church funds those costs.

The State is in no hurry to pick up the administrative headache tab.

StonyIron wrote: »

Well, there really needs to be an ultimatum here.
These institutions are providing a public service with public money and excluding people from using it.

That simply isn't good enough.

There surely does need to be an ultimatum - do you want to cover the extra admin costs that the State would incur if it were to take patronage of all National and Secondary schools?

The parents survey says parents want to maintain the status quo. Should we start listing all the services provided and paid for by our taxes, the services we have a choice to use but do not, and then claim we are excluded? I'm excluded from claiming unemployment assistance. The fact that I'm employed is irrelevant, apparently. That's the argument you're making.

Effectively they are acting as an outsourcer for state education services. The state needs to start dealing with them as such.

If you want to compare it to a relationship, the state is the submissive partner suffering from Stockholm Syndrome who can't see it's acting like a complete door mat.

At the end of the day, the state is the one with the cheque book, the ability to raise tax, the democratic mandate. The church is simply an outsourcer.

That's quite true, and education isn't the only service outsourced by the State either, nor is the Church the only management organisation. The State can't write cheques with money it doesn't have in it's coffers, and in order for the State to take on all the extra costs of administration involved in schools and education, well, who do you think should be faced with the real ultimatum here?

expectationlost

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Quite a bit actually from an administrative point of view. The Bishops are the patrons of Catholic ethos schools, but the schools themselves are managed by the diocesan office on behalf of the Church. The State isn't funding those staff wages, admin costs, etc. The Diocese of the Church funds those costs.

The State is in no hurry to pick up the administrative headache tab.





There surely does need to be an ultimatum - do you want to cover the extra admin costs that the State would incur if it were to take patronage of all National and Secondary schools?

The parents survey says parents want to maintain the status quo. Should we start listing all the services provided and paid for by our taxes, the services we have a choice to use but do not, and then claim we are excluded? I'm excluded from claiming unemployment assistance. The fact that I'm employed is irrelevant, apparently. That's the argument you're making.






That's quite true, and education isn't the only service outsourced by the State either, nor is the Church the only management organisation. The State can't write cheques with money it doesn't have in it's coffers, and in order for the State to take on all the extra costs of administration involved in schools and education, well, who do you think should be faced with the real ultimatum here?

of course they can its called borrowing governments do it all the time, I think education would a top reason to do so.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

Parents to get more involved with education http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/parents-to-get-involved-in-religious-education-as-pope-visit-approaches-31566498.html

“A school catechetical programme alone, no matter how rigorous, will not secure the handing on of the faith. It will succeed only insofar as it builds upon the lived faith experience of the young people in their homes and family.”
The new programme, Grow in Love, has taken great care to emphasise the role of the family, offering a simple and attractive book to be brought home so that the family can continue what has done in school. This book offers opportunities for parents to review and chat with their children about the themes that have been covered in school.

Handing out extra homework to religious kids could be problematic for RCC alright.
But on the other hand we know that a large number of parents don't attend mass, but don't (or can't) opt their kids out of religious indoctrination either. Those kids probably see religion as something you do in school, but not in real life.
Hence this new program seems to be trying to broaden the reach of their indoctrination into the family home, while also hoping to rope in the parents while they are helping the kids with "homework" at home.
RCC has obviously weighed up the pros and cons, and seen more pros using this method in a society where families increasingly stay away from the weekly mass.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Quite a bit actually from an administrative point of view. The Bishops are the patrons of Catholic ethos schools, but the schools themselves are managed by the diocesan office on behalf of the Church.

This is bollox, to be blunt. Schools look after admin, admissions etc. themselves. There's no reason why a BOM has to be packed with representatives of a bishop, and they're voluntary positions anyway, so why not have parents choose them?

IF there is any additional cost it's a small price, well worth paying, just in recovering the wasted hours on sacramental preparation if nothing else it pays for itself.

One eyed Jack

expectationlost wrote: »

of course they can its called borrowing governments do it all the time

Could you expand on this? Where do you expect the State should be able to borrow from to pay highly educated staff, people from backgrounds in a number of professional disciplines, who have chosen to be employed by the Dioceses?

Consider that if you're suggesting the State manages even then to magically pull funds from... somewhere(!) employees of the Dioceses may not want to transfer employment to the Public Services Sector, and then that would leave the State in a position where it would have to fill those positions by offering these people a decent remuneration package, or would have to employ a whole new staff, and that would require decentralized local offices...

I'm working through the logistics here to show you that it's not as simple as the RCC divesting patronage of all RCC managed schools to the State. The State simply doesn't have the means to take the patronage of all RCC schools on!

expectationlost wrote: »

I think education would a top reason to do so.

I don't think at all that the State should borrow from anywhere to fund the cost of education and school management. I don't think you'd get much support from the electorate either if you were a politician advocating borrowing to pay for education either, because the first question the electorate would ask is -

"How do you propose to pay back what you're looking to borrow year on year to fund the ongoing cost of education?"

PopePalpatine

I just had a scary thought: Fr. Brian McKevitt could be on at least one school's BOM.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is bollox, to be blunt. Schools look after admin, admissions etc. themselves. There's no reason why a BOM has to be packed with representatives of a bishop, and they're voluntary positions anyway, so why not have parents choose them?

RCC ethos schools take direction from the Diocesan office and the DES in terms of their curriculum, admissions policies and administration (of which there's quite a bit, staffed by professionals with backgrounds in legal, HR and finance to name but three disciplines).

The BOM in a National school is made up as follows -

Who is on the board

The composition of the board of management for schools with more than one teacher is
•Two direct nominees of the patron
•Two parents of children enrolled in the school (one mother and one father) elected by the parents
•The principal
•One other teacher elected by the teaching staff.
•Two extra members agreed by the representatives of the patron, teachers and parents.

There are particular rules for boards of management for convent and monastery schools in relation to the teacher representatives. If the principal is a religious, the elected teacher-member must be a lay person and, if the principal is a lay person, it is recommended that the elected teacher-member be a religious. In one-teacher schools, there is one direct nominee of the patron, one teacher representative, one parent and one extra member proposed by these nominees.

There are certain criteria set out for choosing the 2 community representatives on the board of management.
•The people appointed must have a commitment to the ethos of the school. In the case of Catholic schools, they must have an understanding of and commitment to Catholic education as outlined in the Deed of Trust for Catholic Schools. For Church of Ireland schools, they must be members of that Church; in Presbyterian schools, they must also be church members and in Muslim schools they should be members of the Muslim community in Ireland (in all cases the patron of the school can decide otherwise). For Educate Together schools they must have a commitment to the ethos of the school.
•They must have skills that are complementary to the board's requirements
•They must be interested in education but normally should not be parents of students currently attending the school or teachers currently on the staff
•In Gaeltacht schools and Gaelscoileanna, they are expected to have a good knowledge of the Irish language.
•The need to maintain a gender balance must be a consideration

The patron appoints the chairman of the board.

The Rules set out in detail how the parents' representatives are to be chosen, including the notice to be given to all parents, how replacements are chosen, etc.

In general, members of the board may not hold any interest in the school property or get paid for serving on the board. The Education Act 1998 explicitly clarifies that being on the board does not confer any property interest on a board member. Employees, other than the teacher representatives, may not be on the board.

Source: Boards of management in primary schools


Hardly packed with representatives of a bishop, and the reason they're not simply chosen by parents is because the criteria for the formation of the BOM are set down in the Education Act.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

IF there is any additional cost it's a small price, well worth paying, just in recovering the wasted hours on sacramental preparation if nothing else it pays for itself.

There's no question there would be an additional cost to the State if it were to assume the administrative role of the Diocesan offices in the management of schools already under RCC patronage, and the idea that this cost would be small is, to be just as blunt - bollox.

Whether it would actually be worth paying, is a matter of opinion, contingent upon a number of factors, which would mean the cost is indeterminate. However, given that 92% of Irish National schools are under RCC patronage, even disregarding the fact that parents are satisfied to maintain the status quo, wasting hours on sacramental preparation, meaning that they think it's worth it already, presents quite the dilema for people who are trying to argue that the State should assume the management of all National and Secondary schools and arguing that it would pay for itself.

Logistically, it couldn't, not without significant investment in the form of funding. Where those funds are supposed to come from seems to be anyone's guess?