School patronage

expectationlost

expectationlost wrote: »

Analysis: Divestment of Catholic schools remains insignificant http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/analysis-divestment-of-catholic-schools-remains-insignificant-1.2423468#.VkHcTAZVPNA.twitter via @IrishTimes again he says only one Catholic school has divested when the Minister says it was 7
https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2015-10-06a.115
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13R1okxdWxoxvtefMWkmluRxKJ46tDvzhVOIB6d88dg0/edit?usp=sharing

another Catholic school provides site for non-denominational patron


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-school-provides-site-for-non-denominational-patron-1.2433408 kilkenny makes 8 ish

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I typed system in error, I was referring to the schools. As I have said several times, National Schools were provided by the government of the day in the 1800s, they had religious patrons, but that is not the same as the church owning the schools..

Hmm. Well, to your new question "If the Department of Education regards National Schools as being 'owned' by various religious bodies, what hope is there of ever getting any kind of equality in education?" I'd say firstly, they hardly 'regard' them as being owned; they surely know who owns which buildings that house schools? Secondly, why should who owns the building make a difference? I should think the patron of the school has more input into how the school operates than the landlord does.

looksee wrote: »

What I am now asking is the same as you, at what stage did the state give the schools into the ownership of the religious orders/church? As I quoted above, the Department is saying that they are owned by the church. I have written to the office of the Minister for Education and requested this information.

I never asked any such thing. I asked you is there any reason to think that state-owned National Schools became the property of religious orders. Or more particularly, is there any evidence that any did. You're starting from the assumption that the State gave ownership of schools to religious orders, I'm asking what the basis of your assumption is.

looksee

The vast majority (96%) of primary schools in Ireland are owned and under the patronage of religious denominations and approximately 90% of these schools are owned and under the patronage of the Catholic Church.

I already said, this quote is on the Dept of Education website.

And this is from a website for schools http://www.askaboutireland.ie/learning-zone/primary-students/5th-+-6th-class/history/my-school-history/national-schools-in-the-1/

In 1831 primary education came to Ireland. This meant that children no longer had to attend fee paying schools or charity schools. Instead they could attend a local primary school. A National Board of Education was set up and a national system of primary schools began in Ireland. The government gave a grant which paid for almost all of the building costs of new national schools as well as the salaries of the teachers. Any area that wanted a school had to apply for a grant to build it.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I already said, this quote is on the Dept of Education website.
And this is from a website for schools http://www.askaboutireland.ie/learning-zone/primary-students/5th-+-6th-class/history/my-school-history/national-schools-in-the-1/

Is that your evidence that the State gave schools into the ownership of religious orders, or are you trying to make a different point now?

Peregrinus

looksee wrote: »

I typed system in error, I was referring to the schools. As I have said several times, National Schools were provided by the government of the day in the 1800s, they had religious patrons, but that is not the same as the church owning the schools.

But, more to the point, it's not inconsistent with the churches having owned the schools from day 1, is it?

looksee wrote: »

What I am now asking is the same as you, at what stage did the state give the schools into the ownership of the religious orders/church?

That's not the same as what I'm asking. You're asking "at what stage did the state give the schools into the ownership of the religious orders/church?" I'm asking "why you think this ever happened?" None of your quotes from the Dept of Ed website suggest that it did.

looksee wrote: »

As I quoted above, the Department is saying that they are owned by the church.

Which is consistent with them always having been owned by the church, isn't it?

looksee wrote: »

I have written to the office of the Minister for Education and requested this information.

Let us know when you get a response. But I'll bet you a pint that the answer is that most or all schools now owned by the church have never been in state ownership.

In post #2944 you quote from the Dept of Ed website to the effect that "the government gave a grant which paid for almost all of the building costs of new national schools as well as the salaries of the teachers". While it depends on the exact terms on which the grant is given, the usual arrangement with grants is that the State does not end up owning whatever assets are purchased or improved with the grant money.

Last year, for example, the state handed out a grant to the FAI which was spend on constructing or improving soccer grounds in Cork, Galway, Clones and Westport. The end result was not that the state acquired ownership or part-ownership of the grounds - they are still owned by the league (in Cork and Galway) or by individual clubs (in Clones and Monaghan).

If the State wants to buy an asset, it can just buy it - no need for any grant to a third party. If they're making a grant, they almost certainly don't want to buy the asset. What they usually want to do is get the owner of the asset to accept conditions or limitations on how the asset is used.

Bristolscale7

A Comparative History of Church-State Relationsin Irish Education
Tom O’Donoghue and Judith Harford, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 55, No. 3 (August 2011), pp. 315-341

By the early nineteenth century, the Catholic Church insisted that instruction in Catholic doctrine should be available in state-subsidized primary schools (In 1825, for example, a royal commission recognized that the religious and moral instruction in the existing government-subsidized primary schools, those run by the Society for the Education of the
Poor in Ireland, was not compatible with the principles and discipline of the Catholic Church). The position was promoted by a number of very prominent Irish Catholic MPs, most notably Daniel O’Connell, Thomas Spring-Rice, and
Thomas Wyse, and was supported by Lord Anglesey, the lord lieutenant, and
by Lord Stanley, the chief secretary, who acted as the main exponents of
government policy on Ireland in Parliament. Gradually, over the next thirty
years, the churches, both Catholic and Protestant, gained control of primary
school education following the establishment of the National System of Primary Education in 1831. The principal objective of this system was to offer
an elementary education to Catholics and Protestants together in the same
schools to instill mutual tolerance and respect. Local clergy of every domination separately instructed their respective students in religious doctrine. Provision was made for periods of separate instruction in religious doctrine to be given by the local clergy of every denomination that had children in the school. A new National Board of Education was charged with the allocation of building and salary grants to local schools established and managed by patrons in the community and run according to certain conditions. Initially, the Protestant churches opposed the new system, arguing that the separation of religious instruction from the rest of the curriculum was unacceptable. From the 1850s onward, the new ultramontanist-oriented Catholic bishops, led by Cardinal Cullen (O’Carroll 2009), also worked to destroy the principle of mixed education (Titley 1983, 5–6). Soon, Catholic children were attending schools in which the patron was the local bishop and the manager was the local priest.

Fairly straightforward: agree to the conditions to become patrons and receive the $$ to build schools then undermine and destroy the system.

Meanwhile, the Irish Catholic bishops and representatives of the Protestant churches were pressing to ensure that the small number of secondary schools in Ireland, which catered to the middle classes, would be kept free from state control and be entitled to state assistance. The Intermediate Education Act of 1878 introduced indirect state involvement in the financing of secondary education through a payment-by-results mechanism. This legislative act aligned with the Church’s aim of producing the future leaders of the country by securing higher education for the expanding Catholic middle classes (Harford 2009) while relieving the schools’ authorities of any accountability.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/no-school-refusal-for-children-based-on-religion-state-agency-1.2433688

No school refusal for children based on religion – State agency
Legal change needed to end discrimination against unbaptised, minority faith children

School admission laws should be changed to ensure no child is refused a school place on the basis of their religion, the State’s human rights advisory body has told the Government.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has recommended that existing laws be changed in order to eliminate discrimination in school admissions against children of minority faiths or no faith.

The recommendations are contained in the State body’s observations on the new Admissions to Schools Bill (2015), which is due to go before the Oireachtas shortly for debate. Some 96 per cent of primary schools are controlled by religious patrons, including 90 per cent by the Catholic Church.

Discrimination
In its observations, the commission says the new legislation provides a vital opportunity to revise a clause in the Equal Status Acts which permits schools to discriminate on the basis of religion.

It says jurisprudence regarding the European Convention on Human Rights, criticism by regional and international human rights bodies and a lack of diversity of schools for both minority faith and non-faith children underscores the need for change.

While the Constitution protects the right to denominational education, the commission says the new Bill could still comply with the provision by providing case-by-case exemptions – to be granted by the Minister for Education – where it is proved to be essential to maintaining the ethos of the school.

Circumstances
It says further detail in relation to the operation of this derogation could be stipulated in regulations, emphasising the “very exceptional circumstances” in which it would be permitted.

Minister for Education Jan O’Sullivan is to place the admissions Bill before the Oireachtas in the coming weeks.

Ms O’Sullivan has signalled support for setting aside 10 per cent of school places for the children of past pupils, down from a 25 per cent quota suggested by her predecessor, Ruairí Quinn.

The commission, however, recommends that such a rule should be prohibited on the basis that it could discriminate against families without historical ties to a school, as well as migrants and other minorities.Another recommendation is that schools ensure general religious classes – outside faith formation – should avoid “indoctrination”.

The changes seem good but the teachers and bishops will fight them like mad, they don't do change well at all.

School gives land to other patron

Ireland’s oldest Catholic secondary school, St Kieran’s College Kilkenny, has provided a site to a non-denominational patron for two other schools in the city.

The site has been handed over by St Kieran’s to the Department of Education and Skills, which has granted funding for new buildings on the campus to accommodate 350 secondary pupils.

The two schools are Kilkenny Vocational School, which has been located on the St Kieran’s campus since 1979, and Coláiste Pobal Osraí established in 1991. Both are run by the Kilkenny and Carlow Education and Training Board.

The patron of St Kieran’s and Bishop of Ossory Séamus Freeman said that the move would “further guarantee a greater educational choice for parents and students in the surrounding area”.

Bristolscale7

While the Constitution protects the right to denominational education, the commission says the new Bill could still comply with the provision by providing case-by-case exemptions – to be granted by the Minister for Education – where it is proved to be essential to maintaining the ethos of the school.

That's the crux. Doesn't the Minister have better things to do with her time than arbitrate individual cases of discrimination?

Absolam

I'd be dubious about how Constitutional it is to create legislation that only allows a Constitutional right to be exercised by exception; I imagine it would need to be well phrased indeed in order to work.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

I'd be dubious about how Constitutional it is to create legislation that only allows a Constitutional right to be exercised by exception; I imagine it would need to be well phrased indeed in order to work.

It's already the case, under the Employment Equality Act, that a religious school can discriminate on the grounds of religion in hiring decisions "where it is reasonable to do so in order to maintain the religious ethos of the institution". And, in admission decisions, under the Equal Status Act it can refuse admission on religious grounds where "it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school"

Under the current laws, in each case it would be the board of management who would take the decision, in the first instance, that it was reasonable/necessary to discriminate on religious grounds to mantain the ethos. Any one aggreived by that decision - a teacher not hired, an applicant not admitted - would need to head off to court to challenge the view taken by the board of management.

What the HREC seems to be suggesting, at least with respect to admission decisions, is that the Minister should be interposed here. A school wishing to employ religion as a criterion in admission decisions would need to get sign-off from the Minister. Anyone aggrieved by the Minister's decision - whichever way it went -could still go to court to have it reviewed, but they would be challenging the Minister's decision, not the board's.

I think the policy behind this suggestion is obvious. A Catholic school will rarely get approval to adopt religious preference in admission criteria since, even if there is no religious preference, the reality of the situation in Ireland is that the overwhelming bulk of applicants will be Catholics. But a school for a minority religion will find it much easier to get approval. A Jewish school in Ireland, for example, would very rapidly cease to have a particularly Jewish character if it was obliged to admit without reference to religion.

Orion

Peregrinus wrote: »

that it was reasonable/necessary to discriminate on religious grounds to mantain the ethos. Any one aggreived by that decision - a teacher not hired, an applicant not admitted - would need to head off to court to challenge the view taken by the board of management.

It's more complicated than that Peregrinus. It would be very hard to challenge it as the relevant sections of the Acts have already been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. They don't need to prove that your beliefs are against the ethos of the school - just have to say they believe it. And for teachers it's not even in work - if you are divorced, gay, atheist, that's enough even if you don't bring your personal life into school - just being one of those is enough and they have the force of law behind them. Time this changed.

expectationlost

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/no-school-refusal-for-children-based-on-religion-state-agency-1.2433688


The changes seem good but the teachers and bishops will fight them like mad, they don't do change well at all.

IHREC submits views and recommendations on the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015

Issued : 18 November 2015

http://www.ihrec.ie/news/2015/11/18/ihrec-submits-views-and-recommendations-on-the-edu/ would have throught would have done so ages ago

In respect of education admissions and the religious exemption clause: The Commission recommends that the Equal Status Acts be amended to give effect to the principle that no child should be given preferential access to a publicly funded school on the basis of their religion. The proposed amendment could include an individualised derogation granted by the Minister for Education and Skills in the case of a specific school where refusal to admit a student is proved to be essential to maintain the ethos of the school. (Pars 15-24 Observations)

http://www.ihrec.ie/publications/list/ihrec-observations-on-education-admission-to-schoo/ extremely detailed as you would expect,

it seems like apart from the above paragraph, in the next sections they are trying to turn the Admissions bill into a guarantee of what will and won't be taught in the classroom, which the government has refused to touch in this bill.

PopePalpatine

It's being discussed on The Last Word right now between Paddy Monaghan and...Fidelma Healy-Eames. This should be fun.

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's being discussed on The Last Word right now between Paddy Monaghan and...Fidelma Healy-Eames. This should be fun.

There isn't a drug known to mankind which could make anything with Fidelma fun.

looksee

At least there is a sign of progress, hopefully it will actually be achieved. One aspect of enrollment at schools that I absolutely do not understand is the 'parents went to the school' preference. Siblings certainly, but what does having parents that went to a particular school have to do with admissions?

Hotblack Desiato

The 'siblings used to go to the school' one doesn't make sense either. Siblings currently attending the same school is a boon to parents who might otherwise have to make two school runs.

Just another reason why single-sex schools are a stupid idea

Hotblack Desiato

Apparently there was a demonstration at the Dail on this precise topic today. Who knew :rolleyes:

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, in admission decisions, under the Equal Status Act it can refuse admission on religious grounds where "it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school"
<...> A Catholic school will rarely get approval to adopt religious preference in admission criteria since, even if there is no religious preference, the reality of the situation in Ireland is that the overwhelming bulk of applicants will be Catholics. But a school for a minority religion will find it much easier to get approval. A Jewish school in Ireland, for example, would very rapidly cease to have a particularly Jewish character if it was obliged to admit without reference to religion.

Orion wrote: »

It's more complicated than that Peregrinus. It would be very hard to challenge it as the relevant sections of the Acts have already been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. They don't need to prove that your beliefs are against the ethos of the school - just have to say they believe it.

This would be pretty much my thinking; right now the patrons are exercising their Constitutional right, which has been held to be exercisable in this fashion by the SC. Interposing the Minister would arguably make the Minister the arbiter of a Constitutional right despite the SC ruling. Further, it might be argued that by assuming the authority to determine whether a Constitutional right may be valid in a particular circumstance the Minister is usurping the SCs position as the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution of Ireland.

Peregrinus

expectationlost wrote: »

. . . it seems like apart from the above paragraph, in the next sections they are trying to turn the Admissions bill into a guarantee of what will and won't be taught in the classroom, which the government has refused to touch in this bill.

Technical problem there. The Bill has already been introduced into the Oireachtas, and it has a long title that is very specific - unusually so, I think

"An Act to make provision, in the interests of the common good, that a school recognised in accordance with section 10 of the Education Act 1998 shall prepare and publish an admission policy and that such policy shall include a statement that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a student to the school on specified grounds, and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may issue a direction to a board of management in relation to the admission of students to a school and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may appoint an independent person to comply with such direction, and to provide that in certain circumstances the National Council for Special Education or the Child and Family Agency may designate a school or centre for education which a child is to attend, and for those and other purposes to amend the Education Act 1998, the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, and to provide for related matters."

The signficance of this is that any attempt to propose amendments which would address matters not within the scope of the long title will be ruled of order.

So if you want to address, e.g., curriculum issues you can't do it in this Bill. If the Goverment wanted to address them along with admission issues, it would have to withdraw this Bill and draft and introduce a new one. If the opposition, or backbenchers, want to address curriculum issues, and put down amendments to do so, they are likely to be ruled out of order.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

This would be pretty much my thinking; right now the patrons are exercising their Constitutional right, which has been held to be exercisable in this fashion by the SC. Interposing the Minister would arguably make the Minister the arbiter of a Constitutional right despite the SC ruling. Further, it might be argued that by assuming the authority to determine whether a Constitutional right may be valid in a particular circumstance the Minister is usurping the SCs position as the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution of Ireland.

I don't think there's a fundamental problem with interposing the Minister. State agencies (and even private individuals) are constantly in the position of having to make, and implement, explicit or implicit decisions about the constitutional rights of others. Anyone aggrieved has recourse to the courts. The SC is the final arbiter, not the first arbiter.

Inserting the Minister into the process doesn't usurp the SC's function, unless there is an attempt also to prohibit recourse to the courts for those aggrieved by the Minister's decision.

What constitutional right are school patrons exercising? Rights with regard to education are very firmly placed by the Constitution in the hands of parents, not patrons. I suppose you could argue that the patrons are exercising the right of association - choosing who may, and who may not, participate in the school - but I think there's a general acceptance that this right may often come below other rights in the constitutional hierarchy, in the event of a clash.

Orion

Absolam wrote: »

This would be pretty much my thinking; right now the patrons are exercising their Constitutional right, which has been held to be exercisable in this fashion by the SC. Interposing the Minister would arguably make the Minister the arbiter of a Constitutional right despite the SC ruling. Further, it might be argued that by assuming the authority to determine whether a Constitutional right may be valid in a particular circumstance the Minister is usurping the SCs position as the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution of Ireland.

That's not true. The SC just ruled that the legislation was not repugnant to the constitution. They don't give an opinion on whether the legislation was necessary or required by the constitution. Legislation can be amended without recourse to the SC. There is no constitutional right to this religious exemption - the constitution just doesn't say it can't exist.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the policy behind this suggestion is obvious. A Catholic school will rarely get approval to adopt religious preference in admission criteria since, even if there is no religious preference, the reality of the situation in Ireland is that the overwhelming bulk of applicants will be Catholics. But a school for a minority religion will find it much easier to get approval. A Jewish school in Ireland, for example, would very rapidly cease to have a particularly Jewish character if it was obliged to admit without reference to religion.

That is one possible result.
Another one, which would affect far more people, is that if an unbaptised atheist or Hindu applied for a place in a state funded denominational school, the school would have to show for each individual applicant that the child represented a real threat to the ethos of the school. So it shifts the burden of proof onto the Patron. That could make the "normal" priority admissions policies that are so commonplace today totally unworkable.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

That is one possible result.
Another one, which would affect far more people, is that if an unbaptised atheist or Hindu applied for a place in a state funded denominational school, the school would have to show for each individual applicant that the child represented a real threat to the ethos of the school. So it shifts the burden of proof onto the Patron. That could make the "normal" priority admissions policies that are so commonplace today totally unworkable.

The HREC recommendation is for ministerial exemptions "in the case of a specific school", not "in the case of a specific applicant", so I don't think the HREC envisages what you are suggesting. I think what the HREC envisages is a submission by a particular school that, given their character and circumstances, it's reasonable for them to treat religion as a criterion in its admission policy.

That's not to say that you couldn't propose the alternative, requiring an applicant-by-applicant derogation. But (a) I don't think the HREC is proposing that, and (b) I don't think it would find favour with Ministers. The Minister doesn't want to be involved in micromanaging individual pupil admissions. And, in the example I gave of the Jewish school, it would be a stupid waste of time for her to do so.

There's one other slant on this that's worth bearing in mind here. This isn't a simple binary, where the only options are that religion is (a) totally disregarded, or (b) a criterion which overrides all others. Under the regime the HREC is proposing, there's plenty of room for negitiations between the Minister and an individual school not just about whether religion should be a factor, but about how signficant a factor it is to be. In other countries it's quite common for religion to give you an edge in school admissions, but not an overriding edge. For example, you can have a rule that 25% of places (or any other percentage less than 100%) must be awarded without reference to religion. Or you can allow religion to be the deciding factor as between two applicants who both live in the catchment area, but a within-area applicant will always get in before an outside-area applicant. Or, well, pretty well anything. The combinations and permutations are almost limitless.

Orion

You're very right Pereginus. There are limitless options. No enrolment policy is ever going to be 100% fair - there are too many factors to decide on. Even ET's first come first served policy limits opportunities to people moving to an area. But if a policy is in black and white and adhered to strictly then it's untouchable.

However I completely disagree with religion being a factor whatsoever in any state funded school. If people want to indoctrinate their children let them organise it themselves. In my kids' ET school parents arranged religious instruction classes outside of school hours - used the school building as it's handy but not part of the school day. But state funded discrimination needs to stop - it's an anachronism and doesn't reflect modern Irish society.

Orion

Absolam wrote: »

This would be pretty much my thinking; right now the patrons are exercising their Constitutional right,

Actually just spotted this. They are exercising their legal right not their constitutional right. The law provides for this - The constitution just doesn't have any clause in it that would prohibit it.

expectationlost

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)

503. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills if she will clarify a situation (details supplied) regarding access to school places; and if she will make a statement on the matter https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-11-17a.1227&s=%22School+Patronage%22#g1229.r


The establishment process for new schools is a transparent, independent process that provides parents with an opportunity to express their preferred type of school. https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-11-17a.1274&s=%22School+Patronage%22

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)

545. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills the current policy in respect of diversity in school patronage; and the steps she will take to ensure the demand from parents for multidenominational and non-denominational education will be met in the short term and in the medium term, given the high level of dissatisfaction with the limited options available in many areas at present. [40716/15]
Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)

As the Deputy will be aware, the Programme for Government gives a commitment to move towards a more pluralist system of patronage for our schools. In this context, the government established a Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector. The Forum advised on how the education system can provide a sufficiently diverse number and range of primary schools catering for all religions and none and also advised on the practicalities of transferring/divesting patronage for individual primary schools where it is appropriate and necessary. Arising from the work of the Forum, eight new primary schools have opened under the patronage divesting process and work is continuing to advance choices in other identified areas.[pathetic] I am engaging with the Catholic bishops in order to re-invigorate the patronage divestment process.

New schools are established to meet demographic need. In the past ten years the total pupil enrolment in first and second level schools has risen by almost 100,000 pupils. Enrolment levels are still rising annually at both levels and are projected to rise by some 44,000 pupils in 2018/19 compared with current levels. This level of increase has meant that the available financial resources have to be prioritised towards ensuring that every child has access to a physical school place. It is simply not practical for every student to be provided with access to a place in a school operated by a patron of their choice. [would you tell tell that to the catholics minister?]

The new school establishment arrangements introduced in 2011 place a strong emphasis on parental choice. In any area identified as requiring a new school it is open to all patron/prospective patron bodies to make application for patronage under the patronage determination process. Since 2011, 42 new schools have opened (24 primary and 18 post-primary). 39 of these schools have a multi-denominational ethos.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2015-11-17a.1345&s=%22School+Patronage%22#g1346.q

expectationlost

Peregrinus wrote: »

Technical problem there. The Bill has already been introduced into the Oireachtas, and it has a long title that is very specific - unusually so, I think

"An Act to make provision, in the interests of the common good, that a school recognised in accordance with section 10 of the Education Act 1998 shall prepare and publish an admission policy and that such policy shall include a statement that the school shall not discriminate in its admission of a student to the school on specified grounds, and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may issue a direction to a board of management in relation to the admission of students to a school and to provide that in certain circumstances the patron or Minister may appoint an independent person to comply with such direction, and to provide that in certain circumstances the National Council for Special Education or the Child and Family Agency may designate a school or centre for education which a child is to attend, and for those and other purposes to amend the Education Act 1998, the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, and to provide for related matters."

The signficance of this is that any attempt to propose amendments which would address matters not within the scope of the long title will be ruled of order.

So if you want to address, e.g., curriculum issues you can't do it in this Bill. If the Goverment wanted to address them along with admission issues, it would have to withdraw this Bill and draft and introduce a new one. If the opposition, or backbenchers, want to address curriculum issues, and put down amendments to do so, they are likely to be ruled out of order.

you never fail repeat what i already said in a more long winded way

expectationlost

Petition
Current Details
Reference Number: P00029/15
Status: Being Examined For Compliance With Standing Orders
Name of Petitioner: Mr. Paddy Monahan
Petition Title: Petition for equal school access for all children, regardless of religion, and repeal of section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000
Submitted By: Individual

http://petitions.oireachtas.ie/online_petitions.nsf/Published_Petitions_EN/39A327A993B3068780257F010039834F?OpenDocument&type=published+petition&lang=EN&r=0.58609903105211 could take a while

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The HREC recommendation is for ministerial exemptions "in the case of a specific school", not "in the case of a specific applicant"

Yes, on closer inspection of the actual wording used in the report I agree;

In making this recommendation, the Commission is mindful of the protection afforded to denominational education by the Constitution as an expression of parental choice and the State’s duty to respect and support that choice. However, the Commission considers this principle could be incorporated by means of an individualised derogation granted by the Minister for Education and Skills in cases of specific schools where it is proven that the operation of the principle of equal access to publicly funded education is essential to maintain the ethos of the school, and where no other alternative means are reasonably available to the State authorities in that particular case.

I have no idea what they mean by "other alternative means". Does anybody have any thoughts on what it could mean?

The horsetrading that would occur as a result of this derogation or part-derogation would lead to problems IMO, and would invite corruption in political circles regarding which schools were allowed to use the derogation and to what extent. At its heart, it is a fudge which is the direct result of recognising (wrongly IMO) that the state has a duty to financially support religious denominational education. There is indeed a constitutional obligation to respect and protect denominational education as an expression of parental choice. That obligation can be fulfilled by allowing private denominational schools to exist and to practice their discrimination.

And then there is also the State’s duty to provide for free primary education. And the state's duty to cherish all the children of the nation equally. And the prohibition on endowing any religion. All of these worthy ideals can be accomplished very simply by the state providing or funding strictly non-discriminatory primary schools, whose ethos is free of any particular religious or political agenda which would deter any section of the population from attending.

Hotblack Desiato

The way forward is not yet more segregation and ghettoisation masquerading as 'diversity of patronage'.