How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No idea what your point is here...

Wrong thread, haven't had my morning coffee yet :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It came about as a result of the RCC injecting itself into every facet of Irish society and a Government that even then hadn't the hands to wipe their own backside, so they outsourced all State services, including health and education to the religious orders and still do to this day because they haven't a pot to piss in and can't be dealing directly with the administrative headaches if they had to take on and manage State services themselves.

This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)

The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.

The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)

The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.

It's true of course that the State pays all of the above, but the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools. That's paid for by the Trustees of the schools.

The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.

It's no stretch of the imagination to assume that those nuns kept all the profits for themselves.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's true of course that the State pays all of the above, but the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools. That's paid for by the Trustees of the schools.

Could you explain further? Who are the trustees of schools? What costs do you mean?

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Could you explain further? Who are the trustees of schools? What costs do you mean?

The Trustees of Catholic schools at least are the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, and the costs I'm talking about are the staff in the Diocesan offices who manage the schools on behalf of the Bishops.

robindch

One eyed Jack wrote: »

[...] the costs I'm talking about are the staff in the Diocesan offices who manage the schools on behalf of the Bishops.

I'd love to see some information about how much general management actually going on, compared, say to the amount of "ensuring that kids are told that the RCC's view of the world is gospel" and "preparation for the nativity play and communion".

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is nonsense (except for the RCC injecting itself into every facet of society bit.)

Funny... I was just thinking that was the nonsense bit! It's a bit disingenuous to say the Catholic Church injected itself every facet of society; Christianity and later Catholicism has been a part of society for pretty much as long as there has been a society in Ireland; certainly since long before the disparate kingdoms became a single society. Accepting that religion has always been a part of our society and has shaped both it and our moral and ethical viewpoints. The Church hardly injected itself in; it has always pretty much always been a part, and society has never been slow to ask the Church for guidance in all that time (and I'm certainly not saying that has always been a good thing for Ireland, just that most members of society felt it was essential).

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The state built most of the national schools, the state paid the teachers, the state paid maintenance and running costs, as it does today. Same with hospitals, staff and running costs paid for by the state. The explanation is not financial. Staff who were members of religious orders still got paid by the state, they sacrificed their pay cheques to their order by their own choice, it didn't save the state a penny.

But the State didn't build all of the National Schools (or provide all of the land for them), or pay all of the maintenance and running costs. There's no doubt the religious orders have played a significant part in the development of an education system in Ireland. To say otherwise is simply revisionism for revisionisms sake. The Churches' involvement in education and health have saved the State more than a penny.. or even two.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The horrors of Tuam took place even as the council was paying the nuns for the upkeep of the women and children incarcerated there. What happened to this money, along with the profits from slave laundries and baby sales has never been explained, but it certainly wasn't spent on the welfare of these unfortunate people apart from the barest possible minimum.

Would you be inclined to say that had the State built and maintained these institutions it would have spent less? Personally I think it's unlikely.

The fact is, if the State were to take ownership (by which I mean pay for, rather than steal) all schools, and emplace equivalent management systems and support structures to replace those provided by religious orders now, it would cost no small amount. It would still have to fulfil its constitutional obligations with regards to parental choice and religious education, which I think means it would be prohibited from enforcing the kind of exclusively secular education some posters are wishing for. I'm all for spending as much money as possible on improving our education system (particularly 3rd level access), but I'm nowhere near convinced this would be money well spent.

Personally, I think we can achieve secular education by revising the Rules for Schools to remove any requirements referring to religious elements (as well as all the archaic rubbish such as coal for classrooms etc) and implementing a State curriculum of religious education which conforms to all other curricula. That removes the perception of the possibility of objections to secular patronage, and requires religious patrons to teach an objective (if not necessarily anti-theist) curriculum on religions. None of which would require legislation, let alone a referendum.

Educational equality on the other hand, I think requires a lot more fleshing out in terms of what it actually is before we decide if we want it, need it, or can reasonably achieve it. As a starter for ten, I don't see why parents should be obliged to use co-educational schools if they want and could avail of same sex schools. I don't see why parents of special needs children should be obliged to only give their children equal education, when they require far more elaborate education. I think we need to give some careful thought to what 'equal' really means in practice.

One eyed Jack

robindch wrote: »

I'd love to see some information about how much general management actually going on, compared, say to the amount of "ensuring that kids are told that the RCC's view of the world is gospel" and "preparation for the nativity play and communion".

There's quite a bit more to managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school, but you could do worse than call them up and ask them exactly what the hell is it they do anyway -

http://education.dublindiocese.ie/meet-the-team/

Kiwi in IE

Personally as a parent, if the state won't/can't fix the fact it unconstitutionally endows the Catholic religion within the education system anytime soon, I would be happy enough for now if the religious nonsense ceased to 'infiltrate the school day' and had an allotted time slot where all religious instruction were done, either at the beginning or end of the day, so I could realise my constitutional right to remove my child from religious indoctrination with relative ease.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Personally as a parent, if the state won't/can't fix the fact it unconstitutionally endows the Catholic religion within the education system anytime soon, I would be happy enough for now if the religious nonsense ceased to 'infiltrate the school day' and had an allotted time slot where all religious instruction were done, either at the beginning or end of the day, so I could realise my constitutional right to remove my child from religious indoctrination with relative ease.

Aw c'mon... 'unconstitutionally endows' is entirely ridiculous at this stage. Everyone knows the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's simply not the case.
We know there's no reference to 'infiltrate the school day', nor is there a constitutional right to remove a child from religious indoctrination with relative ease (or even a reference to indoctrination in the Constitution).
Throwing snarl words to the gallery really doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of how to achieve secular schools, does it? It just perpetuates miscomprehension.

StudentDad

Unfortunately I can't remember the title of the book. Published fairly recently (past several years). It explored the development of primary/national schools in Ireland in the 19th century. What struck me was the attitude of the RC church toward the construction of such schools. From what I read anyway the RC church had little or no interest in education until the CofI and other bodies started building national schools and accepting kids from any denomination.

To my mind anyway schools ought to be neutral in terms of religion where they are receiving state funding. I have no objection to schools with a religious ethos as long as they fund themselves and adhere to the state curriculum.

SD

robindch

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's quite a bit more to managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school [...]

Good link, but I'm not seeing much more than catholic dogma in the general job descriptions of a department run by a priest:

Dublin Diocese wrote:

Promoting partnership in Religious Education between Home, School and Parish to help children develop a living relationship with Jesus Christ. [...] Providing resources and pastoral support to religion teachers and chaplains. Inservice for teachers and faith days for chaplains are also organised.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

[...] but you could do worse than call them up and ask them exactly what the hell is it they do anyway

Possibly not a bad idea in theory, but last time I called the archbishop's house, they confirmed verbally an item of Vatican dogma which was crucial to helping resolve a family dispute. However, they refused point-blank to confirm in writing which was most curious of them - either they'd been trolled before and didn't want to waste the time or else they were frightened by random callers requesting with infinite patience, info on some immensely tedious catholic nonsense.

Absolam

I wonder if they won't set down written dogma because the Holy See prefers to keep control of that sort of thing? You'd probably have ample opportunity for schism if various Bishops offered (even slightly) different interpretations of dogma, particularly in writing. It would be interesting to see if the Press Office of the Holy See (or some such) sends out official dogma confirmations to petitioners. You might have to make the request in writing to get a reply in writing though.

xband

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's true of course that the State pays all of the above, but the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools. That's paid for by the Trustees of the schools.

Executive management of the school is mostly carried out by the principal and (if the school isn't tiny) vice principal and the board of management sits like a non exec board.

The Department of Education manages the curriculum, monitors standards etc etc

What management does the sponsor so exactly that isn't to do with "ethos"

?

xband

Absolam wrote: »

Aw c'mon... 'unconstitutionally endows' is entirely ridiculous at this stage. Everyone knows the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's simply not the case.
We know there's no reference to 'infiltrate the school day', nor is there a constitutional right to remove a child from religious indoctrination with relative ease (or even a reference to indoctrination in the Constitution).
Throwing snarl words to the gallery really doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of how to achieve secular schools, does it? It just perpetuates miscomprehension.

Care to quote the case as I'm not sure that those things have ever faced a court challenge and are a still bot constitutionally tested

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's quite a bit more to managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school, but you could do worse than call them up and ask them exactly what the hell is it they do anyway -

http://education.dublindiocese.ie/meet-the-team/

Could you tell us what this involves? Principals do a lot of the management, alongside BOMs. What is the legal role of trustees?

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Aw c'mon... 'unconstitutionally endows' is entirely ridiculous at this stage. Everyone knows the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's simply not the case.
We know there's no reference to 'infiltrate the school day', nor is there a constitutional right to remove a child from religious indoctrination with relative ease (or even a reference to indoctrination in the Constitution).
Throwing snarl words to the gallery really doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of how to achieve secular schools, does it? It just perpetuates miscomprehension.

​44 (2,1) reads:
​‘Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order, guaranteed to every citizen.’

​44 (2,2) reads:
​‘The State guarantees not to endow any religion.’

​44 (2,3) reads:
​‘The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.’

​44 (2,4) reads:
​‘ Legislation providing State aid shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denomination, 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.’

I seem to know the Irish constitution better than many Irish people!

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's quite a bit more to managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school, but you could do worse than call them up and ask them exactly what the hell is it they do anyway -

http://education.dublindiocese.ie/meet-the-team/

lazygal wrote: »

Could you tell us what this involves? Principals do a lot of the management, alongside BOMs. What is the legal role of trustees?

The patron does absolutely none of the actual management of a school (in most cases, with the exception of schools where the principal is actually a member of the patronage) - they merely do the hiring and firing (just signing off in lots of cases, especially in small schools) of the Board of Management, which thereafter "shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue and may be sued in its corporate name.". In other words, all management responsibility in the eyes of the state is with the Board of Management and not the patron.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/51/section/14/enacted/en/html

The parent's representatives are the only board members not appointed by the patron (which is how come I ever got on a B.O.M., being somewhat less approving of the RCC ethos than the priest and the bishop would have liked).

Other than that, it IS all about maintaining "ethos"........oh, and "supportive/supervisory" roles. "In accordance with the Education Act and the Articles of Management, the Trustees appoint all members to the Board of Management and delegate to them the overall management of the school. However, the Trustees play a general supportive/supervisory role in relation all matters of ethos, finance and property." http://atcs.ie/downloads/
(according to the Association of Trustees of Catholic Schools http://atcs.ie/)

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

The patron does absolutely none of the actual management of a school (in most cases, with the exception of schools where the principal is actually a member of the patronage) - they merely do the hiring and firing (just signing off in lots of cases, especially in small schools) of the Board of Management, which thereafter "shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue and may be sued in its corporate name.". In other words, all management responsibility in the eyes of the state is with the Board of Management and not the patron.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1998/act/51/section/14/enacted/en/html

The parent's representatives are the only board members not appointed by the patron (which is how come I ever got on a B.O.M., being somewhat less approving of the RCC ethos than the priest and the bishop would have liked).

Other than that, it IS all about maintaining "ethos".

As I suspected. This role is about the control of eduction rather than administrative or legal necessity. The costs of which are a moot point, as the state should not be funding the administrative costs of outside agencies that have no legal role in running schools.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

As I suspected. This role is about the control of eduction rather than administrative or legal necessity. The costs of which are a moot point, as the state should not be funding the administrative costs of outside agencies that have no legal role in running schools.

Absolutely. I do not believe there is a single school in the country that would experience any crisis of management (however small) if the patronage disappeared overnight.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Could you tell us what this involves? Principals do a lot of the management, alongside BOMs. What is the legal role of trustees?

They provide training, support and resources to the Board of Management, and to the school, such as overseeing new staff appointments, school policies, school plans, school accounts, mediation in disputes, liaising with the department of education.

According to the definitions in the Governance Manual for Primary Schools, the Trustees are the persons who are parties to the lease of the school premises and are normally nominated by the Patron as Trustees of the school. The Trustees undertake that the buildings shall continue to be used as a primary school for the term of the lease and guarantee that the premises and contents are insured against fire and tempest.

In the case of Catholic schools, in most diosceses the school property and enterprise are held by the Dioscean Trust. In a congregation-owned school the Trustees are those legally named as such by the religious congregation. In the case of Convent, Monastery schools and schools owned by a Trust, while the Bishop is Patron, ownership may rest with the Dioscese, Congregation Trust or a Catholic Trust Body.

(Have it here in hard copy, but the manual is available online)


http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Boards-of-Management/Governance-Manual-for-Primary-Schools-2015-2019.pdf

lazygal

None of this requires separate funding from the state. And don't schools pay Catholic management bodies out of their state funding for services from Catholic bodies?

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They provide training, support and resources to the Board of Management, and to the school, such as overseeing new staff appointments, school policies, school plans, school accounts, mediation in disputes, liaising with the department of education.
http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Boards-of-Management/Governance-Manual-for-Primary-Schools-2015-2019.pdf

Well that's all very fluffy, isn't it?!

They provide training? Teachers go on training courses provided and paid for by the Dept. of Ed. - Am pretty sure they don't need to be told to go on them. Other than that, the training must be in "ethos", no?

Support and resources eh? Sounds great. What would they be then (other than the odd mass/prayer group/guidance in communion and confirmation)?

Overseeing new staff appointments, school policies, school plans, school accounts, mediation in disputes, liaising with the department of education - like I said, signing off on what the board of management actually does, all the time, in the general running of a school.

It is possible that they get involved in mediation, but in my experience it was the Chair of the B.O.M. who got permission from the patronage to bring in a professional mediator from the INTO/CPSMA (Catholic Primary Schools' Management Association) to do the mediating.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

Well that's all very fluffy, isn't it?!

It is in fairness, but I was only trying to answer lazygal's question as best I could by giving her the information that's available to anyone.

lazygal wrote: »

None of this requires separate funding from the state. And don't schools pay Catholic management bodies out of their state funding for services from Catholic bodies?

I've never heard of it, but if you have a link, I'd be interested in reading it.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is in fairness, but I was only trying to answer lazygal's question as best I could by giving her the information that's available to anyone.

Well I hope I have helped in that regard. However, as you can now see, there's quite a bit not a lot more to a trustees role in managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

Well I hope I have helped in that regard. However, as you can now see, there's quite a bit not a lot more to a trustees role in managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school.

And I don't see how the state not funding this is relevant. It's not a cost saving measure on the part of the Catholic church.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

Well I hope I have helped in that regard. However, as you can now see, there's quite a bit not a lot more to a trustees role in managing the schools than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of, the Catholic ethos of the school.

Well if you want to suggest that there's not a lot more to a trustee's role in managing the school than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of the Catholic ethos of the school, that's fair enough, I can't really argue with that as it's a matter of opinion, like the way my work colleagues often wonder what I do around here all day...

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if you want to suggest that there's not a lot more to a trustee's role in managing the school than just ensuring their adherence to, and maintaining of the Catholic ethos of the school, that's fair enough, I can't really argue with that as it's a matter of opinion, like the way my work colleagues often wonder what I do around here all day...

It's my opinion based on what the relevant documents I cited have actually said. I'm afraid it was your opinion that "the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools", (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98513382&postcount=354) but as we can now see, the State pays for all of the costs of managing the schools, and the Diocese sometimes puts it's hand in the pocket to bail out a failing school but other than that, all the Diocese provides is their own building (maintained by the state) and a lot of fluffy "support", mostly in the shape of ethos.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

It's my opinion based on what the relevant documents I cited have actually said. I'm afraid it was your opinion that "the State pays none of the costs of managing the schools", (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98513382&postcount=354) but as we can now see, the State pays for all of the costs of managing the schools, and the Diocese sometimes puts it's hand in the pocket to bail out a failing school but other than that, all the Diocese provides is their own building (maintained by the state) and a lot of fluffy "support", mostly in the shape of ethos.

The State clearly doesn't pay for all the costs of managing Catholic ethos schools then. It doesn't pay the members of the Board of Management for their role on the Board of Management, and it doesn't pay Diocesan staff for their roles in the management of Catholic ethos schools.

If the State were to take over the management of the schools, then I couldn't argue with you that the State pays all the costs of managing the schools.

Cabaal

Shrap wrote: »

all the Diocese provides is their own building (maintained by the state) and a lot of fluffy "support", mostly in the shape of ethos.

Thats not even the case for every school, my local school was rebuild at a cost by the state and funds raised by parents.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State clearly doesn't pay for all the costs of managing Catholic ethos schools then. It doesn't pay the members of the Board of Management for their role on the Board of Management, and it doesn't pay Diocesan staff for their roles in the management of Catholic ethos schools.

If the State were to take over the management of the schools, then I couldn't argue with you that the State pays all the costs of managing the schools.

By far and above the state pay the majority of the costs and if the state stopped paying the school would be closed more or less straight away...unless teachers will work for free or the parents want to raise the many thousands each week to pay them. (neither of which will happen, as we know teachers like to get paid and want their benefits or they'll strike)

As the state provides the largest amount of funds then its only logical they get to decide how and what the funds are spent on...its tax payer money after all and its irresponsible for the state to not have control over how its spent.

If the state was throwing money at any other organization without oversight and control of what and how its spent people would be outraged, but because its the catholic church people seem to think its fine and dandy.
:rolleyes:

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State clearly doesn't pay for all the costs of managing Catholic ethos schools then. It doesn't pay the members of the Board of Management for their role on the Board of Management, and it doesn't pay Diocesan staff for their roles in the management of Catholic ethos schools.

If the State were to take over the management of the schools, then I couldn't argue with you that the State pays all the costs of managing the schools.

Well that's because the Board of Management members are voluntary and are not paid for their role on the board. The teacher's representative is paid to be a teacher, not to be a board member. The Diocese pays their own staff, but as we can see, if they lost their so-called "management" of schools tomorrow, the State would incur no further costs as the B.O.M. and the State-paid teaching staff manage the actual running of the school.

Absolam

xband wrote: »

Care to quote the case as I'm not sure that those things have ever faced a court challenge and are a still bot constitutionally tested

Campaign to Separate Church and State v. Minister for Education (1998).

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

​44 (2,1) reads: ​‘Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order, guaranteed to every citizen.’
​44 (2,2) reads: ​‘The State guarantees not to endow any religion.’
​44 (2,3) reads: ​‘The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.’
​44 (2,4) reads: ​‘ Legislation providing State aid shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denomination, 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.’

I seem to know the Irish constitution better than many Irish people!

I'm not seeing the words infiltrate or indoctrinate in there though!

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats not even the case for every school, my local school was rebuild at a cost by the state and funds raised by parents.

In my secondary school funding for an extension was done the same way. This was in a convent school that sold off large tracts of very valuable land in Dublin in the 1990s and early 2000s, but our parents were plagued for requests for 'voluntary' contributions and donations.

IIRC there was a heated meeting one night about the funding of this extension when some parents asked where the money from the sales of lands had gone and why they were being asked to pay for something the state was funding but the church would retain as an asset. I can't remember what the upshot was.

The narrative that the church pays for the building and maintainance of schools buildings is quite incorrect.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

The narrative that the church pays for the building and maintainance of schools buildings is quite incorrect.

Yes, it is incorrect. The state and the parents pay for the maintenance of the school buildings, and the entire running costs. The church owns the building (in most cases) but has not paid for it, and incurs no costs.

We raised 35,000 over a few years, which was match-funded by the state, to refurbish our rat-infested dungeon of a building. Since then, we have done similar to bring in modern prefabs to make room for the entire junior cycle. Where was the patron/diocese/church in all of this? Entirely absent, apart from preaching from the pulpit about keeping faith strong in our schools.......

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Yes, it is. The state and the parents pay for the maintenance of the school buildings, and the entire running costs.

Weren't "Voluntary Additional Contributions' from parents done away with? Were patrons obligations to pay a percentage of maintenance and running costs done away with too?

Shrap wrote: »

The church owns the building (in most cases) but has not paid for it, and incurs no costs.

Is there any evidence for the Church owning school buildings (in most cases) but not having paid for them? I know a particular poster throws the opinion out there quite often, but never offers any evidence to back it up. I'd love to see some.

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

Is there any evidence for the Church owning school buildings (in most cases) but not having paid for them? I know a particular poster throws the opinion out there quite often, but never offers any evidence to back it up. I'd love to see some.

In most cases, the local community as a parish supplied the site and public funds paid for the school building. I have no idea how many schools this does not apply to, but I imagine that in cases where the school is connected with an adjoining convent or monastery, we can call those as having been paid for by the church (although if you go back far enough......that is also up for question).

In fairness to you, I'd also love to see a study done on all the school buildings in Ireland and who paid for them. Maybe there is one. I'll have a look later on. It is common knowledge in every parish I know however, that the community (as a parish, so you may or may not call that the diocese. I do not) donated the land and the State funded the building.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Campaign to Separate Church and State v. Minister for Education (1998).

I'm not seeing the words infiltrate or indoctrinate in there though!

I think you will find that a major problem that non religious/other religion parents have with religious schools is that religion 'infiltrates the school day'. Therefore it is near impossible to exercise our constitutional right to remove our children from religion. They can sit out the part where they do the 'Grow in Love' workbook, but religious indoctrination is not necessarily, and in some cases (Little Kiwis school included) not at all, confined to those sessions. I was told by one of my sons teachers that religion 'infiltrates' the curriculum when I enquired about our options.

Edit; Actually now I think about it 'infiltrate' was not the exact word that the teacher used on that occasion, it was 'permeate'. Religion permeates the school day. Infiltrate however is a synonym for permeate, since we seem to be focusing the discussion on the usage of words.

As for indoctrination, I did not at any stage suggest that the constitution uses the word, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here. My use of the word in the post you quoted was entirely in the correct context:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate


indoctrinate
verb in·doc·tri·nate \in-ˈdäk-trə-ˌnāt\

: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

Weren't "Voluntary Additional Contributions' from parents done away with? Were patrons obligations to pay a percentage of maintenance and running costs done away with too?

That was called a "local contribution" and has been done away with. However, in practice, both the parent's contribution and the local contribution are necessary to keep the school afloat. There was certainly no direct contribution from the diocese in our case, although the priest kindly read out the dates for voluntary work that I gave him, and let a collection box stand in the lobby.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

By far and above the state pay the majority of the costs and if the state stopped paying the school would be closed more or less straight away...unless teachers will work for free or the parents want to raise the many thousands each week to pay them. (neither of which will happen, as we know teachers like to get paid and want their benefits or they'll strike)

As the state provides the largest amount of funds then its only logical they get to decide how and what the funds are spent on...its tax payer money after all and its irresponsible for the state to not have control over how its spent.

If the state was throwing money at any other organization without oversight and control of what and how its spent people would be outraged, but because its the catholic church people seem to think its fine and dandy.
:rolleyes:

The State doesn't directly fund the schools. It provides for education through the Patronage system. If the State stopped providing for education, there would simply be a lot of unemployed teachers, unless the State became their employer. You're right, that won't happen.

The State doesn't have full control at all in any respect as to how the Government spends revenue from tax income. There's plenty of things the Government throws money at that people are angry about, it's simply a matter of priorities for people, and removing the RCC from the Patronage system just isn't a priority for most people.

lazygal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State doesn't directly fund the schools. It provides for education through the Patronage system. If the State stopped providing for education, there would simply be a lot of unemployed teachers, unless the State became their employer. You're right, that won't happen.

The State doesn't have full control at all in any respect as to how the Government spends revenue from tax income. There's plenty of things the Government throws money at that people are angry about, it's simply a matter of priorities for people, and removing the RCC from the Patronage system just isn't a priority for most people.

I thought the Louise O'Keeffe case showed that the state is the employer?

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

That was called a "local contribution" and has been done away with. However, in practice, both the parent's contribution and the local contribution are necessary to keep the school afloat. There was certainly no direct contribution from the diocese in our case, although the priest kindly read out the dates for voluntary work that I gave him, and let a collection box stand in the lobby.

Schools may call it something else but they still look for money from parents. I believe my old school now only gives locker keys to those students whose parents have paid the 'voluntary' contribution and regular reminders are sent home to those who don't pay it, along with suggested schemes of payments like €x per week/month and capping the payment based on siblings. If you ask the Department about anything to do with local policies or practices like this you'll get a pro forma letter that schools shouldn't do X or Y but such matters are a decision for the school and board of management.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

I thought the Louise O'Keeffe case showed that the state is the employer?

Did it?

I'm asking genuinely because as far as I'm aware, the Board of Management is the legal employer of the staff in the school.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State doesn't directly fund the schools.

What?! Ha ha. No.
There is no way you can twist reality to show that the Diocese pays for any of this. It's quite clear.

Running costs of schools

The State pays a direct capitation grant of €178 per student to each primary school. The State pays the teachers' salaries. Enhanced capitation grants are paid for children with special educational needs in special schools or who attend special classes in mainstream schools. Capitation grants are used for the day-to-day running of schools and for teaching materials and resources.

Primary schools also receive a grant for caretaking and secretarial services (called the Ancillary Services Grant Scheme) and this is €147 per student or €73.50 per student, depending on whether the school gets the full-rate or half-rate grant. A local contribution was formerly required but has now been abolished.

Each school also receives a book grant. This is €21 per pupil for DEIS schools and €11 per pupil for non- DEIS schools.

Each school gets a grant towards the cost of minor works.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

Schools may call it something else but they still look for money from parents. I believe my old school now only gives locker keys to those students whose parents have paid the 'voluntary' contribution and regular reminders are sent home to those who don't pay it, along with suggested schemes of payments like €x per week/month and capping the payment based on siblings. If you ask the Department about anything to do with local policies or practices like this you'll get a pro forma letter that schools shouldn't do X or Y but such matters are a decision for the school and board of management.

True. I've seen what the shortfall of funding looks like in a small rural school though, and it ain't pretty Our entire community know what it takes every year to keep it afloat, and we do volunteer. Of course the odd person won't, sometimes on principal, but I'd say nearly every school in the country is stuck between a rock and a hard place with having to "ask" for "voluntary" contributions.

lazygal

Shrap wrote: »

True. I've seen what the shortfall of funding looks like in a small rural school though, and it ain't pretty Our entire community know what it takes every year to keep it afloat, and we do volunteer. Of course the odd person won't, sometimes on principal, but I'd say nearly every school in the country is stuck between a rock and a hard place with having to "ask" for "voluntary" contributions.

I would find it very, very difficult to give money to a school controlled by a wealthy organistion like the catholic church. If this ends up being the type of school my children attend I'm not sure what I'll do. I would rather not give money to a school in order to maintain an ethos with which I do not agree and an asset over which the church claims ownership despite not having paid for it.

Shrap

lazygal wrote: »

I would find it very, very difficult to give money to a school controlled by a wealthy organistion like the catholic church. If this ends up being the type of school my children attend I'm not sure what I'll do. I would rather not give money to a school in order to maintain an ethos with which I do not agree and an asset over which the church claims ownership despite not having paid for it.

I know what you mean, but having sent my lads to the community NS (which happened to be RCC, surprise, surprise....), it was in practice a genuine community school and in practice only a school at all because the same community fully supports and needs it (and built the fecking thing in the first place!). It is ethos in name, in policy, on paper and bureaucracy (having to get the priest to say yes to stuff) and I also found that very hard to tolerate, especially when I was working so hard to save the place and mine was one of the few families the school couldn't help but actively discriminate against. Their hands were tied due to the patronage, and this contradiction was not lost on the community tbf. For me, it came down to helping save a school in a disadvantaged area that has been my home for 21 years.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

What?! Ha ha. No.
There is no way you can twist reality to show that the Diocese pays for any of this. It's quite clear.



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html

I didn't claim the Dioscese pays for any of that. It's not quite as clear as that article makes it out at all. What I said was that the State does not directly fund the schools. What I said was that the State provides for education through the Patronage system. I'm not twisting anything. Do you honestly think that wouldn't have been pointed out already if the State did directly fund the schools?

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't claim the Dioscese pays for any of that. It's not quite as clear as that article makes it out at all. What I said was that the State does not directly fund the schools. What I said was that the State provides for education through the Patronage system. I'm not twisting anything. Do you honestly think that wouldn't have been pointed out already if the State did directly fund the schools?

The State pays a direct capitation grant of €178 per student to each primary school. The State pays the teachers' salaries.

Are you suggesting that Citizen's Information have it wrong? Or that there is merely a more jesuitical way of looking at it?


Edit: Or maybe the teachers should be bringing their pay disputes to the diocese? Have I got that right? :rolleyes:

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

In most cases, the local community as a parish supplied the site and public funds paid for the school building. I have no idea how many schools this does not apply to, but I imagine that in cases where the school is connected with an adjoining convent or monastery, we can call those as having been paid for by the church (although if you go back far enough......that is also up for question).
In fairness to you, I'd also love to see a study done on all the school buildings in Ireland and who paid for them. Maybe there is one. I'll have a look later on. It is common knowledge in every parish I know however, that the community (as a parish, so you may or may not call that the diocese. I do not) donated the land and the State funded the building.

And in that case the Church (being the local community as a parish) owned the lands in the first place; and we have seen the various agreements where either the State or Churches paid for the buildings. You might want to argue that people giving money to their parish (which like it or not is part of a diocese) which spends it on land (or buildings) which it uses for a school means the people really own it, but they don't. The body that paid for it does; nobody is going to win an argument for the moral right of someone who gave their money away to own what was bought with it.
My point being firstly, that I think the State owns far more schools that people seem to think; just because the Churches have patronage of them doesn't mean they own them. Secondly, the idea that seems to floating around that the religious orders were gifted property by the State is ridiculous.