School patronage

StonyIron

You'd achieve massive cost savings by merging urban schools for a start! Often there are umpteen in any given area (Each with a principal, vice principal, buildings costs, etc) all based on segregation by gender or type of nun/priest that ran the place.

Also, I'm not really sure that these offices do all that much in terms of administration of schools.

HR should be a function of the Public Appointments Service anyway, for transparency.
Payroll is effectively done by the Dept of Education anyway...

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

Who are you talking about? We pay for teachers already, we pay for DES already, we don't need to pay for anything else. We don't pay for ET's admin function.

If you think that principals are ringing up the diocese every week for direction on how to do their job, then :pac:

Absolam

Penn wrote: »

That sounds closer to Eastenders than our school patronage system

It does, I think the toys analogy was easier!

Penn wrote: »

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.

I get that, but the flaw is talking about The Church as if a single entity is what's involved here, when it's not. You're actually talking about a number of different religious orders and congregations and various trusts and other bodies, not just 'The Church'. Some of those bodies have paid their bill in full, and some had no bill to pay whatsoever; there were only 18 bodies involved and over 80% of what was owed had already been handed over back in 2009, with no indication of unwillingness to pay at some point. So some (if not all) religious bodies have no reason whatsoever other than their own missions, to transfer either ownership or patronage to anyone; even the ones that do owe money aren't in a position to be strong armed on patronage, only ownership (and even that's a BIG maybe).
And that's before you even get to the fact that there is no obligation, moral or legal, on the State to provide non-denominational education to children, nor is there any indication that it has any desire to do so. In fact, quite the contrary; the State has an obligation to provide for education and is obliged to respect the right of parents to provide for the religious education of their children in schools recognised or established by the State. And so far the State has demonstrated a readily apparent desire not to provide education directly by continuing and refining the patronage model.

Penn wrote: »

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.

Though I think we can agree that we're not talking about two entities; we do have laws governing how people living in houses and contracted by marriage dispose of assets, but we actually have different laws about how education is run. The State isn't looking to divorce the Church from education; some athiest/secularists are looking to separate religious bodies from educational institutions. There's a pretty big difference.

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.

Well, that's just not true. You're entitled to ownership when you buy something, and the State hasn't bought those schools. Religious (and non religious ) bodies who are patrons of schools are required to contribute to maintenance and running costs, even if they don't own them; it's one of the reasons patronage is an attractive model for the State because it reduces the cost. But even if the body did own the school, and paid none of the costs, the State as a tenant (which is a closer analogy than wife or boyfriend, if still not accurate), like any other tenant never becomes entitled to ownership. It's just not part of the deal, and even the State doesn't get to rewrite deals retrospectively (unlike the good King Henry as pointed out in the other thread on that subject). The Church (or the actual religious body that owns the property) could pay nothing whatsoever towards whatever activity is conducted on it's property for centuries, and there would still be no case for ownership being simply given to someone else.

Absolam

StonyIron wrote: »

You'd achieve massive cost savings by merging urban schools for a start! Often there are umpteen in any given area (Each with a principal, vice principal, buildings costs, etc) all based on segregation by gender or type of nun/priest that ran the place.

That notion has been put forward before; the reductio ad absurdum being a single one size fits all school in Athlone somewhere, which would absolutely minimise the overhead of having umpteen schools around the nation. We could make it a giant high rise with the DoE on the top floor.
However, the thing is that the reason there are umpteen schools in areas is because there is a perceived need for them. The DoE has a commitment to providing diversity in education, and opens new schools on the basis of a need for school places, as well as whether a proposed school under the prospective patron would provide for extending or strengthening diversity of provision in each area having regard to the views of parents. Tacking another building onto an existing school wouldn't extend or strengthen diversity in the area (though it would reduce overhead for expansion of places). I suspect not opening a new school when more places are needed in an area well served by Catholic schools would not be to the taste of those looking for a more secular education for their children in the area...

StonyIron

Perceived being the important word in the previous post.

A more community approach would actually mean more resources available for rural schools.

In many suburban areas the number of schools is absolutely ridiculous. Yet there are rural areas going without proper facilities largely because they're being squandered by a perceived need for about 7 different types of national school in one suburb.

The need is to provide X schools per capita in a geographical area.

What we have is schools being provided to suit the needs of religious institutions, parental snobbery and 19th century sexism. That's a totally different thing.

The need is to provide good quality education for every citizen of this country. The reality is we've a patchy system that's run to meet religious agendas.

Absolam

StonyIron wrote: »

Perceived being the important word in the previous post.

Yes perceived is important; the DoE perceives the need for a number of school places based on the population, and a need for diversity based on parents wishes. Parents perceive the same things. I suspect parents who wish for a secular education for their children, when looking at 98% of schools having a religious ethos also perceive a need for diversity, whilst they perceive a need for those places to be close to where they live and work. Do you not think so?

StonyIron wrote: »

A more community approach would actually mean more resources available for rural schools. In many suburban areas the number of schools is absolutely ridiculous. Yet there are rural areas going without proper facilities largely because they're being squandered by a perceived need for about 7 different types of national school in one suburb.

If the resources are finite (and they pretty much are) giving more resources to rural schools (which really has nothing to do with establishing secular schools) will result in urban schools having less resources. Which is grand if they currently have empty classrooms, but I don't think anyone is suggesting there is an oversupply of school places in urban areas, are they?

StonyIron wrote: »

The need is to provide X schools per capita in a geographical area. What we have is schools being provided to suit the needs of religious institutions, parental snobbery and 19th century sexism. That's a totally different thing.

Well, a need would be to provide x school places where x is the number of children requiring school places in a catchment area. But there is no indication that that is not the DoEs primary criterion when opening schools. Nor is there any indication that privately owned schools opening to suit the needs of religious institutions, parental snobbery and 19th century sexism where there is no need for school places are receiving funding from the DoE.

StonyIron wrote: »

The need is to provide good quality education for every citizen of this country. The reality is we've a patchy system that's run to meet religious agendas.

Well, the DoE has a need to provide for good quality education; they even have a role in ensuring it reaches a minimum standard. Parents have a need to provide good quality education for their children; if they choose to do so via a patchy system that's run to meet religious agendas, that's up to them. Just as it's up to parents who don't choose to do so to find or create a system that suits them.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who are you talking about? We pay for teachers already, we pay for DES already, we don't need to pay for anything else. We don't pay for ET's admin function.

We don't need to pay for ETs admin function because they are not under State patronage, but that's what's being proposed here, that the State take over the patronage of 92% of schools. ET are a tiny organisation managing less than 8% of the schools in Ireland. I don't think it's costing them nothing. Yet you're suggesting it would cost the State very little to administer all schools? Surely you can see that just isn't feasible in the current economic climate? The government hardly provides the necessary funding for education as it is, and you think they could provide funding to administer 92% of schools for very little? At bargain basement prices, you can expect a bargain basement standard of education, and many parents wouldn't be happy with that, let alone be willing to pay more for it.

If you think that principals are ringing up the diocese every week for direction on how to do their job, then :pac:

If you think they're not, and if you think the Diocese aren't also liasing with the DES and other organisations in running and managing all the schools in the Dioceses', then lol indeed. They're all in constant contact with each other.

I'm still waiting to hear where this magic pot o' gold is going to come from to turn the education system in Ireland on it's head overnight when the vast majority of parents don't want that, they're satisfied to maintain the status quo.

vicwatson

Ive a question, if the RCC own a school building, and the taxpayer comes along and builds snd pays for an extension or indeed a new school - who now owns the new property?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We don't need to pay for ETs admin function because they are not under State patronage, but that's what's being proposed here, that the State take over the patronage of 92% of schools. ET are a tiny organisation managing less than 8% of the schools in Ireland. I don't think it's costing them nothing.

ET do not manage these schools - the schools manage themselves via the BOM and the parent body
All ET do is help schools get established, write policy, and promote the concept of inclusive education in the media etc. There's no need for a patron body to do any more, UNLESS they want to micromanage - to ensure a religous agenda is constantly pushed, for instance?

Yet you're suggesting it would cost the State very little to administer all schools? Surely you can see that just isn't feasible in the current economic climate? The government hardly provides the necessary funding for education as it is, and you think they could provide funding to administer 92% of schools for very little?

Yet again we have a claim that churches are substantially funding schools under their patronage. I have yet to see anyone even attempt to substantiate such a claim.

Please set out, with figures, details of your claim that the RCC is via administration costs or otherwise, substantially funding education in Ireland.

I'm still waiting to hear where this magic pot o' gold is going to come from to turn the education system in Ireland on it's head overnight when the vast majority of parents don't want that, they're satisfied to maintain the status quo.

Whether the parents (most of whom have no choice, and have never been asked what their free choice would be) want it or not doesn't make the status quo of our education system just or fair.

Absolam

vicwatson wrote: »

Ive a question, if the RCC own a school building, and the taxpayer comes along and builds snd pays for an extension or indeed a new school - who now owns the new property?

Wouldn't it depend on the deal between the taxpayer and the RCC? It's rare for anyone to allow someone to build on their property without some sort of contract in place.

recedite

Its a building grant, so RCC owns the extension.
Its the same as if you built an extension on your house and I donated the money for it. You would own the house and the extension. And I'd be a fool.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its a building grant, so RCC owns the extension.
Its the same as if you built an extension on your house and I donated the money for it. You would own the house and the extension. And I'd be a fool.

Well, maybe. Grant aid is subject to contract, and I haven't seen the contract set out for such things. And Grant aid implies that not the full requirements of the project are provided by the State. I'm not sure vicwatson was alluding to those specific instances where a religious ethos school might build an extension or school with aid from the DoE though; the question seems a bit broader in scope.
The State certainly would be foolish not to at least demand a capital stake it something it builds, but I do seem to remember some rather ridiculous financial arrangements around the M50, so I wouldn't be confident of a lack of foolishness....

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Its a building grant, so RCC owns the extension.
Its the same as if you built an extension on your house and I donated the money for it. You would own the house and the extension. And I'd be a fool.

Your words, rec, not ours!

It depends on the terms on which the grant is advanced. I think generally there would be an obligation to repay the grant (with interest?) if the building ceases to be used as a national school.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think generally there would be an obligation to repay the grant (with interest?) if the building ceases to be used as a national school.

I don't know, but even then there would probably be time limit. And even if that were the case it would have no impact on the actual ownership of the extension.
Compare to people who bought a house in recent years under the social and affordable housing provisions. If they sell the house for profit within a certain number of years, they are supposedly liable to pay back the difference between the original market price and the discounted purchase price. But they would still own the house 100%.

Icepick

StonyIron wrote: »

Perceived being the important word in the previous post.

A more community approach would actually mean more resources available for rural schools.

In many suburban areas the number of schools is absolutely ridiculous. Yet there are rural areas going without proper facilities largely because they're being squandered by a perceived need for about 7 different types of national school in one suburb.

The need is to provide X schools per capita in a geographical area.

What we have is schools being provided to suit the needs of religious institutions, parental snobbery and 19th century sexism. That's a totally different thing.

The need is to provide good quality education for every citizen of this country. The reality is we've a patchy system that's run to meet religious agendas.

Rural areas should get rid of small schools if they want more facilities.

expectationlost

heres the new curriculum The Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland (2015) http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/religious-education/re-curriculum-for-ireland.html
a lot of docs

robindch

expectationlost wrote: »

The Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland (2015)

From Book 4, page 129:

"The Relationship between Faith and Reason"

Would just love to see what this might encompass.

As for the whole document? What a dismal waste of time.

expectationlost

robindch wrote: »

From Book 4, page 129:

"The Relationship between Faith and Reason"

Would just love to see what this might encompass.

As for the whole document? What a dismal waste of time.

i think some people are very easy on this kind of thing, and I am kinda too, people say ah sure it just a myth for toddlers, but ask the church if it is.

Hotblack Desiato

You have to laugh - the Veritas links include 'wysiwyg'

With religion, what you see is most certainly not what you get!

What you see - nothing
what you get - catholic control of education, health services and reproductive rights :mad:

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

From Book 4, page 129:
"The Relationship between Faith and Reason"
Would just love to see what this might encompass.

At a guess I'd say it might include (if not encompass) aspects of the philosophies of St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, though JP II wrote an encyclical on the subject, so you'd think he'd get a bit of a look in. I suspect the Curriculum content may be somewhat simplified, given the age group it's aimed at, though it may extend to a little more than a myth for toddlers (you'd hope, anyways).

Interesting article on the subject here (if anyone considering content a little more extensive than primary school level is interested).

expectationlost

is this article just badly written

Separating Preaching from Teaching by LEAH FLANAGAN
http://www.universityobserver.ie/comment/separating-preaching-from-teaching/

Absolam

expectationlost wrote: »

is this article just badly written

Separating Preaching from Teaching by LEAH FLANAGAN
http://www.universityobserver.ie/comment/separating-preaching-from-teaching/

Well... there's a few poorly constructed sentences, and some badly chosen words here and there. It certainly presents a biased view as if the view were factual information, which I'd personally consider to be poor writing, if not poor in a strictly literary sense.
That said, I see 'articles' containing far worse writing on a daily basis. Grading out of ten I'd give it a six.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

From Book 4, page 129:

"The Relationship between Faith and Reason"

Would just love to see what this might encompass.

As for the whole document? What a dismal waste of time.

You'd love to see what this might encompass, but you think actually reading a document that might discuss what it encompasses would be a dismal waste of time?

Is this attitude intended as an ironic exemplifcation of the link between Atheism and Reason?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

You'd love to see what this might encompass, but you think actually reading a document that might discuss what it encompasses would be a dismal waste of time?

Not really, I suggested that the entire publication is a "dismal waste of time". Going back and looking at it again a few minutes ago, I think I was excessively polite.

FWIW, I did flick through the whole document and couldn't find any explanation for "reason" as it might fit into catholic theology, nor could I establish why there were so many references to something called "critical" reasoning from a religious organization, as in the following masterfully meaningless waffle:

Blah f'kn blah wrote:

The curriculum will take into consideration children's feelings, values and attitudes towards that which is being taught. The contemporary social and cultural context is complex and young children regularly encounter attitudes and values incompatible with those promoted in the Catholic school. As a result, children may question the worldview of the curriculum, especially in senior classes. Hence the importance placed on encouraging critical reasoning and real engagement with children's culture in the curriculum. Programmes based on this primary Religious Education curriculum will have the task of inculturation and cultural adaptation as a primary goal (GDC 109-110, 170, 180, 192-3). Children will be taught that the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium) is an important factor in understanding the moral tradition.

The Christian Morality strand contains concepts which enable education in the true meaning of relationships and sexuality to be integrated into the Catholic Religious Education curriculum. In this way, 'formation in chastity and timely information regarding sexuality' can be provided 'in the broadest context of education for love' (HS 70).

"true meaning of relationships and sexuality"? Not noticeably humble, I have to say.

One eyed Jack

robindch wrote: »

Not really, I suggested that the entire publication is a "dismal waste of time". Going back and looking at it again a few minutes ago, I think I was excessively polite.

FWIW, I did flick through the whole document and couldn't find any explanation for "reason" as it might fit into catholic theology, nor could I establish why there were so many references to something called "critical" reasoning from a religious organization, as in the following masterfully meaningless waffle:"

Reads very much to me like "pray the gay away, and if that doesn't work, you're just not putting in the effort!"

true meaning of relationships and sexuality"? Not noticeably humble, I have to say.

It'll be interesting to see how they square the new religious curriculum with this -


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/education/schools-told-make-uniform-rules-for-transgender-pupils-31589676.html

expectationlost

Absolam wrote: »

Well... there's a few poorly constructed sentences, and some badly chosen words here and there. It certainly presents a biased view as if the view were factual information, which I'd personally consider to be poor writing, if not poor in a strictly literary sense.
That said, I see 'articles' containing far worse writing on a daily basis. Grading out of ten I'd give it a six.

its seems to be critical of the mixing of religion and education

Rather than searching for secular schools, it seems that more people are now recognising the place for religion and faith in our society. It has always been an integral part of our culture and heritage.

it seems to be lets concrete religion into any new state schools play book

However, it is a struggle to paint the illusion of the Church being highly protective of its schools. On the contrary, they are seeking to work in tandem with the state to see the amalgamation of Church and state schools.Despite slow progress and resistance from many Catholic families, some of them are beginning to hand over patronage to non-denominational, independent organisations such as Educate Together.

not really

Hotblack Desiato

Many people are now looking to adopt a “supermarket” religion, picking and choosing whatever aspects appeal to them most.

Many people are looking to leave religion behind them entirely - despite the flawed Census question, non-belief is the fastest growing 'religion' in Ireland - but this is not mentioned.

Although there is, and probably will forever be, support for religion and faith in our country

Argument from tradition.

However, a pressing issue that has arisen is the fact that there are little to no alternatives for non-religious parents. In some cases, in rural communities, it is unfortunately not unheard of for families to have their children baptised purely to offer them a better chance at a good education.

It's not a 'good' education, it's any education at all - and it is far from being only a rural issue. What few ETs there are in urban areas are inaccessible for many people and oversubscribed in any case.

The demand [for ETs] since May 22nd has soared.

The demand for ETs has been soaring for years.

Rather than searching for secular schools, it seems that more people are now recognising the place for religion and faith in our society.

Empty unevidenced assertion.

It has always been an integral part of our culture and heritage.

Argument from tradition.

Instead of shielding our children from that, it might be time to educate them from a wider, more objective lens.

Implying that non-religious education is narrow and not objective, somehow.

The concept of multi-denominational education is to enlighten children to the teachings of faith and religion from all around the world. Rather than limiting a child to one viewpoint, it gives the child an opportunity to grow up surrounded by the beauty of all religions.

Yes, the beauty of what brought us ISIS, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Bethany Home. Good times.
Religions are all about (a) money (b) power (c) an in-group of chosen people and an out-group of, at best less favoured, at worst less human, people. Nothing beautiful at all at indoctrinating kids with such values.

This, in turn, nurtures a more inclusive atmosphere within a classroom, preventing any child from being marginalised from the rest of the school community. Educate Together define multi-denominational as being: “all children having equal rights of access to the school, and children of all social, cultural and religious backgrounds being equally respected.” It is difficult to find fault with a community that treats everybody as equal.

ET are multi-d because the law obliges them to teach religion.
There is no evidence presented for the assertion that multi-d is more inclusive or equal than non-denominational education.

However, it is a struggle to paint the illusion of the Church being highly protective of its schools.

Not if you look at deeds, rather than words.

On the contrary, they are seeking to work in tandem with the state to see the amalgamation of Church and state schools.

They are doing no such thing.

Despite slow progress and resistance from many Catholic families, some of them are beginning to hand over patronage to non-denominational, independent organisations such as Educate Together.

They are not, have not, and will not 'hand over' schools. A school isn't just a building, it has a principal, a staff and a roll of pupils.
Offering an empty building with a restrictive lease (Dublin) or a dilapidated shell (Mayo) is not 'handing over a school' in any meaningful sense.

Following the Marriage Equality referendum, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin called on the Church to take a “reality check”. It seems they might be looking to do so.

On the contrary, they are recoiling as fast as they can from the suggestion that this 'moment of clarity' might actually provoke review never mind change.

It is a relief to see such open-mindedness in esteemed members of the Roman Catholic religion. “We tend to think in black and white,” he stated. “But most of us live in the area of grey, and if the church has a harsh teaching, it seems to be condemning those who are not in line with it.”

If?
The Pope Francis PR offensive has been exposed as a sham. Diarmuid Martin means well (IMHO - up to a point) but has no intention of RC schools no longer making up the majority of schools in his diocese, not that he would be let anyway.

Today, in Ireland, we are celebrating individuality, diversity and adulating those who veer away from the status quo. We are becoming an inclusive society, one devoid of prejudice and discrimination.

Unless you're a child of non-RC parents looking for an education that will (a) let you in at all (b) respect the values of your family (c) not try to indoctrinate you (d) not waste your time colouring when religion class is on

Until the Church is willing to align itself with our values, it will be difficult for us to entrust our children to them. Too many taboos are cultivated on the basis of a religious ethos in Catholic schools, marginalising students from the rest of the community. If our schools begin to comply less astringently with religious beliefs, they might become more welcoming places for young people.

The RC church will never align itself with 'our values' as far as the vast majority of Irish people, as we now are, are concerned.

Hotblack Desiato

expectationlost wrote: »

it seems to be lets concrete religion into any new state schools play book

Yes, the sham of ETB 'community' schools where catholicism still dominates, and pupils are segregated at religious indoctrination time.

recedite

Who says you can't have your cake and eat it?
Nuns sell extra land to Dept of Education for their RC school.

Stephen Donnelly, Social Democrat TD for Wicklow and East Carlow, is delighted to share the news that the future viability of St. Brigid’s National School in Greystones has been secured with a last-minute deal between the convent and the Department of Education and Skills.
St. Brigid’s has very little land – in fact its space per student is just one quarter of the Department’s guidelines. This means that kids can’t run in the school, that break times have to be phased and that there aren’t the facilities for much sporting activities.
The Holy Faith Order informed the school earlier this year of its intention to sell the convent and the adjoining lands of 0.6 acres. The purchase of the convent and lands by the school was seen as the only possible opportunity to secure its long-term viability. The board of management and Deputy Donnelly have been in on-going communication with the Minister and senior Department officials in a bid to secure public money to purchase the building and land for the school.
Due to initial resistance however, the convent lands were due to be sold at auction today by Savill’s in Buswells Hotel in Dublin. However, last night, Savill’s contacted interested bidders to inform them that the auction was cancelled.
Speaking in Greystones today, Deputy Donnelly stated:
“I spoke with Savill’s this morning, and they have confirmed to me that the Department has gone sale agreed on the land. I’m delighted with this last minute deal, which will come as a huge relief to the children, to their parents, and to the entire town. Huge credit must go to the school principal, Sr. Kathleen, and to the Board of Management, chaired by Mr. Tom Sherlock.”

Nice one Sr Kathleen, now you can control the school "ethos" from a nice villa in the south of France, while Joe Public pays for everything. Ownership of the school won't change because technically there would be still some small part of the original school structure still left that was paid for privately by the nuns or "the parish" back in the day.
The whole thing has a whiff of blackmail about it.
The school.

expectationlost

Books
Catholic education and the future of faith
Catholic Primary Education in a Pluralist Environment by Anne Hession (Veritas, €14.99)
- See more at: http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/catholic-education-and-future-faith#sthash.EkFhtgVo.dpuf

writer says can't separate us must keep evangilising to all in our schools