How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

looksee

Can we please stop talking about atheism as a basis for education. As I have said before this is not about atheism, and it is wrong to talk about atheist schools. We are discussing secular schools. Atheist schools suggests actively teaching anti-god concepts, this is not the case. If schools had a neutral focus and only taught religion as a theory subject to all the children, within the normal constraints of the timetable for any subject, we would not be having this discussion.

All that is sought is the removal of religious affiliation from national school admissions policies, and classroom teaching to move away from the dogma of any particular faith and the time spent instructing children in the ritual of the Catholic church. That is church business, not the business of the state schools.

A state school is one that has been paid for, built, staffed and maintained by the state, using a state curriculum and inspected and supervised by the state. This currently includes probably two thirds of all schools in the country. The only issue being that they have been handed over to religious patronage. If the political will were there they could be taken back into state control, the classroom hours that have been gifted to the church be reabsorbed into education and admission to schools be made open to all children.

The fear mongering about state schools being inferior to the current situation just does not stand up. The patrons currently are only concerned to maintain the religious ethos, this does not improve in any way the quality of teaching, teaching standards are maintained by the state.

While I have no issue with building new ET schools, and it is feasible in urban areas, suggesting that increasing the number of these schools is the solution is just papering over the cracks in the system. The school buildings, teachers and structures are already there scattered evenly, if thinly, throughout the rural areas. These are the areas of real 'no choice' that need to be addressed.

RainyDay

expectationlost wrote: »

rubbish, its called the permanent state

I don't understand this - could you expand please?

looksee wrote: »

All that is sought is the removal of religious affiliation from national school admissions policies, and classroom teaching to move away from the dogma of any particular faith and the time spent instructing children in the ritual of the Catholic church. That is church business, not the business of the state schools.

That would be a great start, but it is certainly not all that is sought by me. We cannot leave religious patron bodies in control of state-funded schools.

expectationlost

RainyDay wrote: »

I don't understand this - could you expand please?

policy can only be done after they recognise the problem, Labour doesn't recognise the problem they keep saying that the constituency would be breach if they did major changes they don't recognise that the constitution is currently being breached.

Mary63

State schools are definitely inferior or maybe the schools with religious ethos are superior look see.

You only have to look at the league tables and the progression onto third level level eight courses to see that.

The best and brightest in every primary school go onto schools with a religious ethos where there is a choice,the demand for the loreto schools and the Christian Brothers schools is phenomenal,some parents take to camping out overnight to get their child a place.There definitely wouldn't be the same pool of highly academic children in the community schools unless this is the only choice of school available.Parents will put their thinking caps on and go for the best school available and they won't care what patron is in place,they couldn't care less.

Parents will look at the results from the community schools in their area and if faced with losing their school or dumbing down to this level in order to achieve a secular education which they don't want anyway,they will revolt.The politicians know this and that is why every promise made to change the system is diluted.There is no demand whatsoever for secular education in this country,never has been and never will there be.The ET schools will fill places because they are trendy and parents like the idea of getting inside the classroom and calling teachers by their first names.The vast majority of the parents though put their children forward for baptism,communion and confirmation and if the ET school doesn't work out for whatever reason they will happily move to the catholic school down the road.

PopePalpatine

Once again, have you EVER considered the socio-economic backgrounds of the students attending those table-topping schools, or are you just regurgitating bollocks from the Legatus Lackeys?

Mary63

Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money we throw at DEIS schools,it won't make a whit if difference.You only have to look at the horribly obese four year olds eating crisps on their way to school to know what sort of a home they grow up in,most wouldn't even know what a book was.They probably don't even go to school most Mondays because no one will get up out of bed to take them.

These children because they cant learn then prevent everyone else around them learning and they drive teachers to a nervous breakdown,no point in even calling the parents,they are even worse.Why wouldn't any half decent parent want to make sure their child is in a different school and who wouldn't camp out to make sure their girl didn't get into a lore to school with other ambitious girls like herself,the alternative is pushing a buggy at fifteen years of age.

its no wonder parents are so attached to the school with the religious ethos,most would be thrilled if there was some way of weeding out those who don't want to be in any school at all,none of us look at the bigger picture really,we want to focus on our own child and do the best we can for them.

Pherekydes

Wealth=brains=wealth.

Why am I not surprised?

PopePalpatine

And how many schools with a religious ethos are rooted to the bottom of the league tables, I wonder?

One eyed Jack

Pherekydes wrote: »

Wealth=brains=wealth.

Why am I not surprised?

Perhaps because you understand that parents who are well educated also take an interest in their children's education, and send their children to schools where they will receive the education their parents want for them.

That's why offering more opportunities is a good thing, as opposed to restricting parent's choices to the local schools which may not be able to provide the education the parents want for their children.

Even in the leaflet you provided earlier on in the thread, it said that no one particular policy had better outcomes than another, and that both sides were divided more by their political ideologies, and both sides could produce evidence to support their own views.

Pherekydes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps because you understand that parents who are well educated also take an interest in their children's education, and send their children to schools where they will receive the education their parents want for them.

That's why offering more opportunities is a good thing, as opposed to restricting parent's choices to the local schools which may not be able to provide the education the parents want for their children.

Even in the leaflet you provided earlier on in the thread, it said that no one particular policy had better outcomes than another, and that both sides were divided more by their political ideologies, and both sides could produce evidence to support their own views.

Parents, in the main, send their kids where they can afford to send them.

I went to a fairly religious primary school which was the closest, but was also located in a relatively poor area of Dublin (at the time). None of my family went to college from school. It was simply not affordable.

Mary63

I am really tired of that socio economic argument,it doesn't take too much brain power to know that if you have too many children and too little money the outcome for your family won't be ideal.

We are spending vast sums of money on DEIS schools,we are even providing breakfast for these children.The social welfare payments in this country are generous and I don't believe anyone can't afford a packet of porridge to cook a healthy breakfast for a primary school aged child.

I bet if you went into these so called disadvantaged socio economic households you would see vast quantities of alcohol and cigarettes on display,it would be interesting to see the local shops takings on these products over the last two week period.You can bet too the children have the latest tablets,the latest xboxes and every house has a sky package.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Why will handing everything over to the State (as suggested by Samaris) help? What will we end up with then? Some lowest common denominator Irish form of communism in which the schools are crap and run for the benefit of the staff, but at least we can pat ourselves on the back because they are "equal"?

There you have the single biggest challenge to any organisation setting up non-denominational schools. First, you have to convince people that they'll be better than the devil they know ; and second, you have to prove it. Unfortunately, the example of our two nearest neighbours tends to indicate that the opposite is the case.

My children were/are educated first in the UK and in France. The former has plenty of non-denominational schools, the latter has an aggressive policy of excluding religion from education. What's the outcome? The "religious" schools are invariably over-subscribed and come out top in just about every evaluation of social and academic performance.

So you'll still have parents getting their children Christened to be further up the selection ladder, and inevitably, the religious schools will cream off the higher achievers, leaving the non-denominational schools needing to invest in additional resources just to remain "average". The playing field is not in the least bit level, and no amount of lobbying government to introduce "equality" will change what parents will do to make sure their children come out on top.

Which then raises the question: why are "religious" schools/parents consistently more productive than their secular counterparts, even when the latter have had over 100 years to close the gap (e.g. in France)?

One eyed Jack

Pherekydes wrote: »

Parents, in the main, send their kids where they can afford to send them.

This is true, but the way some people are talking in this thread, it's as though parents who can afford to send their children to better schools should be made to feel like they're doing a disservice to society by not sending their children to the local school where their children will not receive the education they want.

I went to a fairly religious primary school which was the closest, but was also located in a relatively poor area of Dublin (at the time). None of my family went to college from school. It was simply not affordable.

That's really not the case any more though with all sorts of assistance available to students who want to go on to third level education. The problem with some schools as was pointed out by Mary is that some of them do not have the same academic and sports ethos as other schools, and socioeconomics plays a bigger part in this than religion. Secular schools won't fix this problem.

Shrap

Mary63 wrote: »

Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money we throw at DEIS schools,it won't make a whit if difference.You only have to look at the horribly obese four year olds eating crisps on their way to school to know what sort of a home they grow up in,most wouldn't even know what a book was.They probably don't even go to school most Mondays because no one will get up out of bed to take them.

These children because they cant learn then prevent everyone else around them learning and they drive teachers to a nervous breakdown,no point in even calling the parents,they are even worse.Why wouldn't any half decent parent want to make sure their child is in a different school and who wouldn't camp out to make sure their girl didn't get into a lore to school with other ambitious girls like herself,the alternative is pushing a buggy at fifteen years of age.

its no wonder parents are so attached to the school with the religious ethos,most would be thrilled if there was some way of weeding out those who don't want to be in any school at all,none of us look at the bigger picture really,we want to focus on our own child and do the best we can for them.

Jaysus wept, you're lovely. I know who I'd prefer to spend time with, between yourself and the families you describe so charitably and with such deeply nuanced opinion :rolleyes: It would all be so simple if you were in charge, eh Mary?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

While I have no issue with building new ET schools, and it is feasible in urban areas, suggesting that increasing the number of these schools is the solution is just papering over the cracks in the system. The school buildings, teachers and structures are already there scattered evenly, if thinly, throughout the rural areas. These are the areas of real 'no choice' that need to be addressed.

I disagree with you, so up with my opinions you'll have to put.

The best way to make progress is to improve the situation for everyone, not to improve it just for your own belief system.

You wish to make all schools secular. I wish to extend the presence of non-religious schools. They are philosophically quite different standpoints, they lead to different solutions for tackling the problems, and one is as valid as the other.

Nodin

Mary63 wrote: »

Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money ....................

You know that rubbish is utterly discredited Victorian nonsense with no validity whatsoever?

RainyDay

expectationlost wrote: »

policy can only be done after they recognise the problem, Labour doesn't recognise the problem they keep saying that the constituency would be breach if they did major changes they don't recognise that the constitution is currently being breached.

So that's where the policy work needs to focus then - get Labour, Green, SF to recognise the problem and build momentum towards a solution.

Mary63 wrote: »

State schools are definitely inferior or maybe the schools with religious ethos are superior look see.

You only have to look at the league tables and the progression onto third level level eight courses to see that.

The best and brightest in every primary school go onto schools with a religious ethos where there is a choice,the demand for the loreto schools and the Christian Brothers schools is phenomenal,some parents take to camping out overnight to get their child a place.There definitely wouldn't be the same pool of highly academic children in the community schools unless this is the only choice of school available.Parents will put their thinking caps on and go for the best school available and they won't care what patron is in place,they couldn't care less.

Parents will look at the results from the community schools in their area and if faced with losing their school or dumbing down to this level in order to achieve a secular education which they don't want anyway,they will revolt.The politicians know this and that is why every promise made to change the system is diluted.There is no demand whatsoever for secular education in this country,never has been and never will there be.The ET schools will fill places because they are trendy and parents like the idea of getting inside the classroom and calling teachers by their first names.The vast majority of the parents though put their children forward for baptism,communion and confirmation and if the ET school doesn't work out for whatever reason they will happily move to the catholic school down the road.

It's hard to know where to start on this. There are actually nuggets of truth here, but you seem to be very confused on cause and effect - and a few facts.

First of all, the league tables don't measure the achievements of pupils or teachers. They measure the ability of parents to pay for 3rd level education. So it's not going to be much of a surprise that the fee-paying religious schools will come out top of this list. This is not an indication of the superior quality of the schools - it indicates much broader socio-economic stuff about the ability of the parents to fund education and broader educational activities.

The Christian Brothers hasn't existed for quite a while now, and the reports of parents sleeping out for places in Loreto are a thing of the past. When you come out with nonsense like "There is no demand whatsoever for secular education in this country,never has been and never will there be" - it is just so way off the wall that I'm left wondering who you are trying to convince, us or yourself?

Mary63 wrote: »

I am really tired of that socio economic argument,it doesn't take too much brain power to know that if you have too many children and too little money the outcome for your family won't be ideal.

We are spending vast sums of money on DEIS schools,we are even providing breakfast for these children.The social welfare payments in this country are generous and I don't believe anyone can't afford a packet of porridge to cook a healthy breakfast for a primary school aged child.

I bet if you went into these so called disadvantaged socio economic households you would see vast quantities of alcohol and cigarettes on display,it would be interesting to see the local shops takings on these products over the last two week period.You can bet too the children have the latest tablets,the latest xboxes and every house has a sky package.

So just to be clear, the many parents and families who queue up daily for meals at the Capuchin centre in Dublin and the Cork Penny Dinners are doing it just for the craic - they really can afford to eat properly without this support, but they suffer the indignity of getting a free meal just because they are lazy - that is your Christian position on this, right?

CelticRambler wrote: »

There you have the single biggest challenge to any organisation setting up non-denominational schools. First, you have to convince people that they'll be better than the devil they know ; and second, you have to prove it. Unfortunately, the example of our two nearest neighbours tends to indicate that the opposite is the case.

My children were/are educated first in the UK and in France. The former has plenty of non-denominational schools, the latter has an aggressive policy of excluding religion from education. What's the outcome? The "religious" schools are invariably over-subscribed and come out top in just about every evaluation of social and academic performance.

So you'll still have parents getting their children Christened to be further up the selection ladder, and inevitably, the religious schools will cream off the higher achievers, leaving the non-denominational schools needing to invest in additional resources just to remain "average". The playing field is not in the least bit level, and no amount of lobbying government to introduce "equality" will change what parents will do to make sure their children come out on top.

Which then raises the question: why are "religious" schools/parents consistently more productive than their secular counterparts, even when the latter have had over 100 years to close the gap (e.g. in France)?

Fee-paying schools don't cream off the high-achievers - far from it. Look at the top results in the Leaving Cert and the Young Scientists and you don't see the private schools dominating these. The only thing they dominate are the Rugby competitions.

Shrap wrote: »

Jaysus wept, you're lovely. I know who I'd prefer to spend time with, between yourself and the families you describe so charitably and with such deeply nuanced opinion :rolleyes: It would all be so simple if you were in charge, eh Mary?

It's the Christian way, don't you know....

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree with you, so up with my opinions you'll have to put.

The best way to make progress is to improve the situation for everyone, not to improve it just for your own belief system.

You wish to make all schools secular. I wish to extend the presence of non-religious schools. They are philosophically quite different standpoints, they lead to different solutions for tackling the problems, and one is as valid as the other.

There is a third option - take religion out of all state funded schools. If you want a religious education, you pay for it.

PopePalpatine

RainyDay wrote: »

It's hard to know where to start on this. There are actually nuggets of truth here, but you seem to be very confused on cause and effect - and a few facts.

The term "Gish Gallop" comes to mind when reading Mary's posts.

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Cheers. I'm not meaning to have a go at you either, so apologies if I'm coming across that way.




Best of luck with your choice, whatever it turns out to be, but make sure to get your child(ren) on the list ASAP, because all ET schools operate a first come first served policy.

Your point about location is significant. Part of the problem is a lack of non-religious schools, but the bigger part (IMO) is that the availability of non-religious schools very much depends on where you find yourself. That's why my preference is to find ways of increasing choice all around the country, rather than insisting that every school has to go non-religious.

Have a look at this link, which lists ET schools (I don't know if the list is 100% up to date). There are a good few around Dublin, but aside from that they are thin on the ground, and there are none at all in several counties. Also, unless you live in certain parts of Dublin, Cebridge or Drogheda, there are no non-religious secondary schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educate_Together#List_of_Primary_Schools

I would say that in the short term, the emphasis should be on getting non-religious primary schools (whether under ET operation or run by someone else) into those towns and counties that don't have them or that have very few of them.

Others may disagree with this view, but primary schools are much more important than secondary schools. If you get a youngster to 12 years old with a solid foundation in atheism, a secondary school won't change that. So that means that (in the short term at least) the important thing for secondary schools is to make sure that they can't discriminate in selection on religious grounds. Having said that, I should point out that none of the kids I've known from the local ET school and from around my estate have ever had any difficulty getting a secondary school place, and that's on the south side of Dublin. Mind you, as the link also shows the number of ET secondary schools is about to increase significantly.

No worries at all Ulysses.

We've put the little ones name down for the next nearest ET school just to sure.

There is a lot of sense in what your suggesting. Afterall, wasn't it the Jesuits who said "give me the child and I'll give you the man".

There is certainly a large number of places with no access to a secular primary school school.

JRant

Mary63 wrote: »

Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money we throw at DEIS schools,it won't make a whit if difference.You only have to look at the horribly obese four year olds eating crisps on their way to school to know what sort of a home they grow up in,most wouldn't even know what a book was.They probably don't even go to school most Mondays because no one will get up out of bed to take them.

These children because they cant learn then prevent everyone else around them learning and they drive teachers to a nervous breakdown,no point in even calling the parents,they are even worse.Why wouldn't any half decent parent want to make sure their child is in a different school and who wouldn't camp out to make sure their girl didn't get into a lore to school with other ambitious girls like herself,the alternative is pushing a buggy at fifteen years of age.

its no wonder parents are so attached to the school with the religious ethos,most would be thrilled if there was some way of weeding out those who don't want to be in any school at all,none of us look at the bigger picture really,we want to focus on our own child and do the best we can for them.

That's just a downright nasty post.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree with you, so up with my opinions you'll have to put.

The best way to make progress is to improve the situation for everyone, not to improve it just for your own belief system.

You wish to make all schools secular. I wish to extend the presence of non-religious schools. They are philosophically quite different standpoints, they lead to different solutions for tackling the problems, and one is as valid as the other.

It would be good if you would actually read what I am saying. I am asking for the National schools system to be made secular. All the actual religious schools (the ones that were mostly originally built as fee paying schools for the parents that could afford it) remain religious. The National school system is a different set up and is only 'religious' because the church(es) took them over as patrons, not because the churches ever put any funding into them.

silverharp

RainyDay wrote: »

Fee-paying schools don't cream off the high-achievers - far from it. Look at the top results in the Leaving Cert and the Young Scientists and you don't see the private schools dominating these. The only thing they dominate are the Rugby competitions.

in a city like Dublin you are going to have "herding" , if you look below, the top 20 schools in South Dublin shows a high % of fee paying schools if going to college is the definition of "high achievement". The next kind of herding will be into non fee paying schools like Mucross Park which is a school that there would be a lot of competition to get into so they tend to keep their own virtuous circle going
As such though no school in Ireland has "secret" teaching methods that gives them the edge. most of the advantage is being surrounded by other kids who are being prepped for college.



http://www.schooldays.ie/articles/about-school-league-tables#sd

Fleawuss

A good thread Taken with previous ones around the topic it gives a good sense of the arguments on all sides.
In terms of making progress the first thing is that this is a political matter. The next thing to accept is that politics is the art of the possible. Starting from there it has to become an issue around which there are serious pressures and that means Dail seats at risk, or European funding, or binding European judgements.

expectationlost

RainyDay wrote: »

So that's where the policy work needs to focus then - get Labour, Green, SF to recognise the problem and build momentum towards a solution.

well I should say Labour knows the problem but refuses to say it, in government, which would the same if SF or when GP were in gov.

RainyDay

JRant wrote: »

That's just a downright nasty post.

It's more than that, actually - it is exactly the kind of attitude that propagates ongoing educational inequality across generations. It makes sure that the kind of inequality that Mary criticises is guaranteed to continue for future generations, as any kids from that environment who have a modicum of talent or ambition will be beaten down with Mary's 'they're all the same' argument.

expectationlost wrote: »

well I should say Labour knows the problem but refuses to say it, in government whic would the sme if SF or when GP were in gov.

Whatever way you want to phrase it - this is where the policy work needs to be done.

silverharp wrote: »

in a city like Dublin you are going to have "herding" , if you look below, the top 20 schools in South Dublin shows a high % of fee paying schools if going to college is the definition of "high achievement". The next kind of herding will be into non fee paying schools like Mucross Park which is a school that there would be a lot of competition to get into so they tend to keep their own virtuous circle going
As such though no school in Ireland has "secret" teaching methods that gives them the edge. most of the advantage is being surrounded by other kids who are being prepped for college.



http://www.schooldays.ie/articles/about-school-league-tables#sd

Actually, to be more specific, the trend that you outline is limited to south Dublin, where 4 out of the top 20 schools are non-fee paying. The situation is flipped in north Dublin, where 4 out of the top 20 schools ARE fee-paying. This confirms that it is clearly a socio-economic issue, not a religious one.

expectationlost

RainyDay wrote: »

It's more than that, actually - it is exactly the kind of attitude that propagates ongoing educational inequality across generations. It makes sure that the kind of inequality that Mary criticises is guaranteed to continue for future generations, as any kids from that environment who have a modicum of talent or ambition will be beaten down with Mary's 'they're all the same' argument.


Whatever way you want to phrase it - this is where the policy work needs to be done.

Ruiari Quinn was Minister for Education he had polices it didn't work now he thinks the only way to change it is to get rich person to fund a campaign http://www.equateireland.ie/

CelticRambler

RainyDay wrote: »

Fee-paying schools don't cream off the high-achievers - far from it. Look at the top results in the Leaving Cert and the Young Scientists and you don't see the private schools dominating these. The only thing they dominate are the Rugby competitions.

All the examples given are in an Irish context which makes a nonsense of any comparison. That's why you need to look outside Ireland to see what can/might/does happen. Strip out fee-paying "public" schools in the UK, and there are dozens of different establishments to choose from. In my area, without exception, the top performers (judged by any parameter you choose) were the religious schools. The "post-code lottery" is a serious business for parents, who will pay extra for a house in the catchment area of a Catholic or CoI school regardless of whether or not they practice the religion.

In France, the religious schools are private, but families can get financial assistance if they make a good-enough case, and the whole notion of "private education" in France is completely different to how it is in Ireland (or the UK) - just as going to boarding school is perfectly normal for huge numbers of country children.

So referring back to a post on page one, if those who are pro secular education constantly and repeatedly make this into a "them" and "us" argument, using distorted examples from what they themselves say is a dysfunctional system, they'll get nowhere.

You can't argue for secular schools, then base your proposal entirely on being against religion. The case must be made on the grounds of educational value, nothing else. For that, you need to find examples of unambiguous excellence in secular schools in other countries, ones where Irish people have some idea of what (family) life is like.

Mary63

And yet again the vast majority of adults in this country are a la carte Catholics and they don't want a secular form of education,there is no way around this obstacle and its laughable to think there are enough people demanding secular education to put any Dail seat in jeopardy.

Ruairi Quinn is history,he achieved absolutely nothing for all the time he spent in Government,the Catholic Church ran rings around him.How much redress money did they actually pay or did they lose every last penny to Anglo Irish.How many church buildings have been handed over in compensation,Irish people know all about this scandal and they still baptise their children and still when asked in census forms will say they are members of the Catholic church.

Where is Ruairi Quinn going to find any rich person to fund the secular education campaign,the rich want segregated education so they pay vast sums of money for this.All the private schools are run by religious orders either Church of Ireland or by Catholic Orders and all are very successful,they have to be or they wouldn't survive,parents will not pay fees to schools which don't get top results.The private schools are also light years ahead of other schools in terms of results,sports facilities,funding,they aren't hampered by the bureaucrats in Marlborough Street and there is no way on earth parents are going to allow their schools to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

What does herding mean,I don't understand this point.

Fleawuss

Mary63 wrote: »

And yet again the vast majority of adults in this country are a la carte Catholics and they don't want a secular form of education,there is no way around this obstacle and its laughable to think there are enough people demanding secular education to put any Dail seat in jeopardy.

Ruairi Quinn is history,he achieved absolutely nothing for all the time he spent in Government,the Catholic Church ran rings around him.How much redress money did they actually pay or did they lose every last penny to Anglo Irish.How many church buildings have been handed over in compensation,Irish people know all about this scandal and they still baptise their children and still when asked in census forms will say they are members of the Catholic church.

Where is Ruairi Quinn going to find any rich person to fund the secular education campaign,the rich want segregated education so they pay vast sums of money for this.All the private schools are run by religious orders either Church of Ireland or by Catholic Orders and all are very successful,they have to be or they wouldn't survive,parents will not pay fees to schools which don't get top results.The private schools are also light years ahead of other schools in terms of results,sports facilities,funding,they aren't hampered by the bureaucrats in Marlborough Street and there is no way on earth parents are going to allow their schools to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.

What does herding mean,I don't understand this point.

If I read you right you are saying that parental support for denominational education is based not on faith but on a fear that a secular education means every local spanner destroys the standards for everyone else.

RainyDay

expectationlost wrote: »

Ruiari Quinn was Minister for Education he had polices it didn't work now he thinks the only way to change it is to get rich person to fund a campaign http://www.equateireland.ie/

Personally, I'm not sure funding the campaign is the real limiting issue. Committed volunteers can do very effective policy work, perhaps better than paid professionals - but it is not easy.

CelticRambler wrote: »

All the examples given are in an Irish context which makes a nonsense of any comparison. That's why you need to look outside Ireland to see what can/might/does happen. Strip out fee-paying "public" schools in the UK, and there are dozens of different establishments to choose from. In my area, without exception, the top performers (judged by any parameter you choose) were the religious schools. The "post-code lottery" is a serious business for parents, who will pay extra for a house in the catchment area of a Catholic or CoI school regardless of whether or not they practice the religion.

In France, the religious schools are private, but families can get financial assistance if they make a good-enough case, and the whole notion of "private education" in France is completely different to how it is in Ireland (or the UK) - just as going to boarding school is perfectly normal for huge numbers of country children.

So referring back to a post on page one, if those who are pro secular education constantly and repeatedly make this into a "them" and "us" argument, using distorted examples from what they themselves say is a dysfunctional system, they'll get nowhere.

You can't argue for secular schools, then base your proposal entirely on being against religion. The case must be made on the grounds of educational value, nothing else. For that, you need to find examples of unambiguous excellence in secular schools in other countries, ones where Irish people have some idea of what (family) life is like.

International comparisons are difficult, but I'm a bit bemused as to why you reject Irish experiences in a debate on Irish education.

Please do share details of the UK rankings and ratings that show the religious schools as being streets ahead. It would be interesting to see more detail on these.

Mary63 wrote: »

And yet again the vast majority of adults in this country are a la carte Catholics and they don't want a secular form of education,there is no way around this obstacle

I don't suppose there is any chance you would let us know how you come to speak for 'the vast majority'? Do you judge their opinions based on chats at the church gate or what?

recedite

Mary63 wrote: »

What does herding mean,I don't understand this point.

That's because you've been eating too many crisps, Mary.

Mary63 wrote: »

Brains are genetic popepalatine and if your socio economic background is poor its because your parents haven't much brain cells,you therefore won't have much brain cells either and it doesn't matter how much money we throw at DEIS schools,it won't make a whit if difference.You only have to look at the horribly obese four year olds eating crisps on their way to school to know what sort of a home they grow up in..

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

There is a third option - take religion out of all state funded schools. If you want a religious education, you pay for it.

That isn't a third option, even if you think it is.

The choices are between increasing the extent of secularism in the country's schools and removing religion from the country's schools altogether.

Whether you want to achieve the former or the latter determines how you'll go about it.

If you want to achieve the latter, and remove religion for all schools in the country, then the way to do it is to get your money together and fund a court case with the right people and the right issue at its centre. If you do that and you win, then you win, and you avoid having to persuade a load of people to do something that they might be willing to do but that they might find disruptive.

If you want to achieve the former, and increase the extent of secularism in the country's schools then you have to get talking to the people who have a stake in those schools already, including existing parents. Many of those parents will get your point, even though they are Christians, because they will understand that discriminating against children on the basis of religion is wrong. If you persuade those parents of your case, then they'll become advocates for your position even though they are part of the religious majority. And because there are more of them than there are of you, they'll influence politicians in a much more effective way than you will by yourselves.

But you won't get those parents on board by hectoring them about how wrong they are.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

It would be good if you would actually read what I am saying. I am asking for the National schools system to be made secular. All the actual religious schools (the ones that were mostly originally built as fee paying schools for the parents that could afford it) remain religious. The National school system is a different set up and is only 'religious' because the church(es) took them over as patrons, not because the churches ever put any funding into them.

You opened a debate in the hope that it would turn into an echo chamber with everyone agreeing with you.

Sorry to disappoint you.

It is evident that you have a fundamentalist view of this and want religion out of the school system altogether.

So that means you're not in the business of persuasion, but in the business of winning and imposing your view on the system regardless of what parents of children in the system think.

That being the case, you know the answer to your question. You are highly unlikely to get moderate parents to go along with your fundamentalist stance, so persuasion is pretty much not an option for you. To get your way, you have to get your money together and fund the right court case. Then if you win, you win.

xband

What I don't get is why these bits of the Irish Constitution are not taken seriously:

Article 42.3°2

The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

*** Doesn't directly oblige, but you might have to drive a huge distance or become a primary / secondary teacher and teach your own children! (Not a very realistic option in this day and age)

Article 44

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

*** Sort of does by funding the teaching of religion as an interwoven part of the curriculum.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

*** you can't access state services on an equal footing i.e education if you're not the majority faith.

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

*** How is that compatible with that old fashioned 1960s text about weaving religious instruction into every aspect of school ?
---

The current system would seem to be fairly incompatible with those objectives and in lots of de facto ways, walks all over those rights.

The constitution also needs to be updated to recognise non religious people. It leaves glaring omissions as if non religious people either don't exist or matter.
That being said, I wonder if you could argue that atheism *is* to be treated as a religious denomination in terms of rights in this context. You could probably take a reasonable case to argue it should be an implied right.

I think we need to be putting together a slush fund for a Supreme Court case tbh.

This stuff has been left unchallenged for far too long.

expectationlost

RainyDay wrote: »

Personally, I'm not sure funding the campaign is the real limiting issue. Committed volunteers can do very effective policy work, perhaps better than paid professionals - but it is not easy.

which do you think the government will entertain, Ruairi Quinn has decided which.

xband

I just think we at least need a happy medium where secular education is accessible to everyone.

Throwing out the religious would be a bit harsh and in Ireland, probably unrealistic but we shouldn't be building any new religious schools, yet we did as we have not moved on to any new model other than sponsors.

*ALL* new or merged schools that are going to be public and state funded should be secular, community schools and there should be a route to becoming that for any school that wishes to drop its denomination. There may well be community schools that want to go that route already.

And secular education should be fully accommodated in existing schools by modifying the curriculum so that everyone's needs can be met. All it means is moving religious instruction to the end of the day and providing some kind of cover for other kids to do something else - maybe an optional set of classes.

It needs to be an extra curricular activity well even if it's going to be within the school day.

I think we have to realistically accept we are where we are and begin a process of change that's actually reasonable.

My view is we need to draw a line in the sand though and have a new model that things can be built upon, without the need for "sponsors" at all.

I like ET but I don't think that another sponsor is a way out of this. The state itself needs to provide these things and we need a model for that. We don't have one right now.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

You opened a debate in the hope that it would turn into an echo chamber with everyone agreeing with you.

Sorry to disappoint you.

It is evident that you have a fundamentalist view of this and want religion out of the school system altogether.

So that means you're not in the business of persuasion, but in the business of winning and imposing your view on the system regardless of what parents of children in the system think.

That being the case, you know the answer to your question. You are highly unlikely to get moderate parents to go along with your fundamentalist stance, so persuasion is pretty much not an option for you. To get your way, you have to get your money together and fund the right court case. Then if you win, you win.

If your basic premise was correct we might have something to discuss.

RainyDay

Deleted User wrote: »

That isn't a third option, even if you think it is.

Any particular reason why you think this is not an option?

expectationlost wrote: »

which do you think the government will entertain, Ruairi Quinn has decided which.

Ruairi is gone, or will be in a couple of months. Either way, no one individual in any party would have a monopoly of wisdom on this.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

If your basic premise was correct we might have something to discuss.

Of course we don't have anything to discuss. My view is different to your own, and you simply won't engage because you want to replace one dominant ethos with another - your own. Nothing you've said in this thread even hints at anything else.

If that's your view, then you know that your best option is to find the right case and help fund it in the High Court and on appeal to the Supreme Court, or else go the human rights route to the ECHR. Then when you win you can celebrate.

expectationlost

RainyDay wrote: »

Ruairi is gone, or will be in a couple of months. Either way, no one individual in any party would have a monopoly of wisdom on this.

no but a rich man can create one

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

Any particular reason why you think this is not an option?

It's nothing to do with what I think. It's not an option. The fundamentalists here are an exact mirror of what they claim to detest most - religious fundis. They want to force parents to send their kids to schools of their design, whether those parents like it or not. Saying to parents that they can pay to bypass the fundamentalists is not a valid option because the overwhelming majority don't have the kind of money that would be necessary.

The best approach to this problem is to recognise that we are where we are, and to develop things from there. That means that schools should be prevented from discriminating on entry on the basis of religion, that all new schools should be non-religious in nature, and that steps should be taken to convert existing "ethos" schools to non-religious schools using whatever incentives the state can devise, particularly in those parts of the country that have less choice than others.

RainyDay

Deleted User wrote: »

It's nothing to do with what I think. It's not an option. The fundamentalists here are an exact mirror of what they claim to detest most - religious fundis. They want to force parents to send their kids to schools of their design, whether those parents like it or not. Saying to parents that they can pay to bypass the fundamentalists is not a valid option because the overwhelming majority don't have the kind of money that would be necessary.

Your analysis is not correct. Your description of the 'fundis' is not generally correct - yes, there are some people at that extreme end of the spectrum, but the vast majority just want to educate their kids in a way that doesn't have them feeling left out at key milestones.

The 'pay for the religion' option would be relatively close to the UK model. The very wealthy may pay for private schooling. Others can pay for Sunday school or after-school time or whatever. It's not a huge leap.

Mary63

As far as I can see looksee wants to replace one ideology with her own ideology and I can't for the life of me see what her ideology has to offer.

She is complaining that her wishes aren't being accommodated and yet she wants someone(anyone)to make an executive decision to make our national schools secular thereby upsetting a huge amount of parents who don't want a secular anything for their children.Who gains from this scenario.

What happens if the ethos schools withstand the incentives ulysses,they have withstood any persuasion so far,the divestment proposals have died a death because no school wanted to become secular.Do we now identify existing schools and tell them they are being divested in the teeth of parental opposition.Do you seriously think the small Church of Ireland schools will agree to becoming secular,from what I know of my protestant friends and their strong attachment to their ethos I really can't see this happening.I can see them going all the way to the European Court of Human rights to prevent this happening and they will be a lot more successful in fundraising than Athiest ireland will ever be because there is a huge level of distrust about Athiests,people associate that ideology with backwardness and veganism and they don't want their children exposed to what they perceive as cults.

The UK model isn't a suitable model for us to copy,we are a catholic country,we need to look to Spain and portugal and see how their education system works,they are catholic countries too.

RainyDay

Mary63 wrote: »

The UK model isn't a suitable model for us to copy,we are a catholic country,

Are you sure Mary? 63% of us voted for marriage equality this year despite church opposition.

PopePalpatine

Mary63 wrote: »

I can see them going all the way to the European Court of Human rights to prevent this happening and they will be a lot more successful in fundraising than Athiest ireland will ever be because there is a huge level of distrust about Athiests,people associate that ideology with backwardness and veganism and they don't want their children exposed to what they perceive as cults.

You're projecting again. :rolleyes:

The UK model isn't a suitable model for us to copy,we are a catholic country,we need to look to Spain and portugal and see how their education system works,they are catholic countries too.

Funnily enough, they were also repressive conservative Catholic countries up until the 1970s.

Despite that, as of 2009 only 26% of Spanish schools are privately-run state-funded schools, and I'd hazard a guess that hasn't changed much since. The article doesn't say whether those schools are denominational, though. The corresponding Wikipedia article on education on Portugal doesn't say whether there's a denominational education system there, though.

Zaph

Mary63 wrote: »

we are a catholic country

The sooner people stop spouting this nonsense and accept that we once were a Catholic country but are now quite clearly a secular country, the sooner we can move on and get important stuff like education sorted. There is room for schools with both a religious and a secular ethos, but those clinging onto the former need to accept that they are not what the majority want any more and they need to up the pace of the divestment process.

Mary63

We most certainly are not a secular country zaph,if we were atheist children wouldn't have a problem getting into Catholic schools.

We are as far from secular as we can get,we still hold all our important ceremonies in church,baptisms,communions,confirmations,weddings and funerals.Most of us are buried in consecrated church grounds.We are born in hospitals run along religious ethos grounds and we die in the same hospitals and most of us and our relatives want the last rites performed on us before we die.Traditions die hard and parents even though they mightn't go to church regularly still want traditions handed on to their children and the school is where they expect these traditions to be taught.

I don't want education sorted,I have been told to stop speaking for everyone else so you can stop speaking for me.

How can we up the pace of the divestment process when most parents didn't even bother replying to the questionnaire,they probably didn't even read past the first line.The ones that did reply said no thank you and hands off our school.They would have contacted their local TD to make sure he or she worked behind the scenes to make sure their school wasn't divested,if it was this would mean the catholic children wouldn't get first dibs on the places and this is what matters to most parents at the end of the day,the school round the corner doesn't have as good a name and they will take the atheist children to put bums on seats.

The Equality campaign was run as a social media campaign rainy day and it was quite astonishing that forty per cent of the electorate voted no not that sixty per cent voted yes.The YES side had the Government behind them,the entire media outlets,the unions,even the ex President of Ireland and still almost half the electorate said no.

xband

Interesting that you bring up maternity hospitals. I was born in the Coomb in Dublin, one of the largest maternity hospitals in the country and its not religious and never was.

CUMH in Cork, where all Cork babies born in hospital are born and also one of the largest and busiest maternity facilities in the state is also not any particular religious denomination. (Unless you count Corkonian as a religious belief).

HSE run hospitals are all usually just hospitals. It's only "voluntary" hospitals like the Mater, St Vincent's, The Mercy etc that aren't.

St James's, despite the name isn't religious either and St Lukes was founded by the Irish Cancer Society.

Quite a lot of broad assumptions being made in your post about the healthcare system there! It's not by any means all religiously run. Yes, they've access to visiting chaplains etc to serve religious patients, but they're not all religious institutions.

Many of the other things you mention above are largely because of lack other options.

Being buried in non concentrated ground was rather tricky until recently.
We don't have access to many secular hospices which is s bit of an issue as the population is more diverse population.

An increasing number of couples are also opting for non religious weddings. The last 4 I was at were in hotels with a non religious solminiser.

xband

Mary63 wrote: »

They would have contacted their local TD to make sure he or she worked behind the scenes to make sure their school wasn't divested,if it was this would mean the catholic children wouldn't get first dibs on the places and this is what matters to most parents at the end of the day,the school round the corner doesn't have as good a name and they will take the atheist children to put bums on seats.

That would basically be sectarianism / severe religious discrimination. But, with schools it's "ah sure it's our culture".

So was sexism in the workplace - we changed.
Go back to the 1970s and women had to "retire" from the civil service when they got married etc etc etc

Things changed. There's no reason education needs to be some sacred cow lost in the 1800s.

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

Your analysis is not correct.

Don't be silly. Of course it's correct. There are a million kids in Irish schools, and something like 2% of those are in fee schools. Forcing parents who don't have the money to pay for Christian ethos schools when there are already Christian ethos schools in the country simply isn't an option.