Religion may be out of core curriculum for primary schools

lawred2

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/religion-may-be-out-of-core-curriculum-for-primary-schools-1.2918634

What's the relation between the NCAA and the DES? Who/what is the NCAA?

only being considered?

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

And then we wonder why children and adults here are getting so fat and unfit. The patronage model also means that schools are often ridiculously small. In towns and cities they're often divided by gender, religion, particular religious order etc. The result is tiny, badly resourced primary schools : no libraries, no gyms, no computer facilities, no science facilities, no educational psychological support etc etc and because all schools are more like versions of tiny rural schools, actual small rural schools struggle for funding. We can't actually afford to provide schools on the basis we are doing it. If we could they would be properly resourced and that clearly is not the case. Every time you create a new school you've a new principal to pay and all of the associated overheads with buildings and management. Resources are being spread as thinly as possible. The patronage model has driven they crazy level of fragmentation instead of having well resourced community schools. None of it is about ensuring that we get the best environment to educate children or for teachers to work ...It's all about appeasing various vested interests and religious bodies to keep everything split up and separate.

. I'm not convinced there's any evidence at all that that is true. Can you provide any? I suspect we have so very many small schools because we have a very small, and outside the cities, very sparse, population, which meant that schools were established in rural villages to cater for small populations, which meant small schools. If we were to continue down the route of 'local schools for local people' as espoused by some posters, that would mean more small schools with high overheads rather than less. Not that I think small school populations (particularly classes) are a bad idea. On the contrary, the higher the teacher to pupil ratio is, the better educated children are likely to be. That's a position that actually is supported by facts, if you're interested?

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Effectively we are state funding what amounts to private schools that are created on a totally ad hoc basis without any consideration for the costs or quality of outcomes. Why are we continuing to do this? I can understand the legacy issues but you would think we could have moved to an open model for all new schools managed locally and run by the Department of Education. Instead the state basically tied its own hands behind its back and doesn't go near running schools.

. I think the idea of a single giant state educational institute somewhere near Athlone has been put forward on the school patronage thread a few times, but it tends to get shouted down, despite the obvious cost advantages.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

I'd also add that NO other state service, including the hospitals that are owned by religious orders operate any kind of faith based priority access. Can you imagine if a major Catholic ethos hospital operated a waiting list system where public patients with catholic baptismal certificates got skipped ahead while non religious or other religions patients only got treated if the catholic queue was fully cleared.

of course NO other State funded service actually provides the service the education system does, so there's a clue there as to why it operates differently. And almost all the pithy comparisons to the health system can be found from about here, if you don't want to exercise your imagination overmuch. It's a couple of hundred pages, but you'll probably find quite a few more comparisons than you'd think of.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Or if Trinity gave you 200 bonus CAO points for having. Church of Ireland baptismal certificate. There would be uproar. Yet, in the school system ... That's grand.

. There was certainly a bit of a stir hereabouts when it was noticed that becoming a primary teacher has a lower bar if you belong to the CoI, it's true. But at least it was DCU and not Trinity, eh?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Indeed. People tend to assume equality is built into our constitution, but when you look at the actual wording, its a bit weaselly;
The first line is grand, but then comes the kind of caveat that Absolam so loves. Depending on your particular prejudice, you could argue that males and females have a different physical "capacity", people of different coloured skin have different "social functions", and religious schools and hospitals have their own special "moral" function. Switching from the Constitution to legislation is not much use either, because we find the religious schools having a specific exemption to equality law (the infamous section 7). Technically then, and surprisingly enough, the state does not properly guarantee equality to all of its citizens. It could be taken care of easily enough by removing/repealing that caveat in the second half of Article 40.

I think, in general, specificity is added in legal documents so that they can be made practicable rather than simply aspirational. Whilst the arguments you're offering might well be specious, it doesn't mean that in order to provide equality caveats may not be neccasary to make it workable. Absent the social function caveat, a worker might have a Constitutional right not to take instruction from his manager for instance, or absent the capacity caveat, an insane person would be as liable for their actions as a sane one. Generally, there is some reasoning behind the language used (particularly in the Constitution), and the reasoning, rather than an attempt to weasel out of what's being said, tends to be an attempt to be as equitable and just as possible.

GreenFolder2

The courses in DCU in question actually tie into the exact same problem: they were for educating teachers to work in the sectarian education system....

I'm sorry but I am frankly fed up reading and listening to excuses and exceptionalism being rolled out over and over.

It's patently obvious that the system is operating in a way that is inherently sectarian. It has been repeatedly criticised internationally and nationally, yet nothing changes. Or any changes are so miniscule that they're nearly not worth mentioning.

Schools were bizarrely exempted from vast amounts of equality legislation, which immediately raises a major red flag as it's fairly obvious they're incapable of complying (unlike every other employer provider of a public service)

Why exactly are we allowing this to just roll on?
Why is it good?
Who is it benefiting?
What social benefit is there in maintaining this status quo?

The whole thing makes absolutely no sense!

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

I've yet to see a single piece of legal opinon to support that supports that position. Can to provide one? Or, is this just speculation?

Well, hardly speculation; both statements are actually in the Constitution. As legal opinions go, it's the one that beats all really.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

I mean, the state could setup an alternative system of open schools, complying with all aspects or the Constitution and it doesn't seem to be under any obligation to fund anything, once those obligations are met. How those obligations are met is not specified.

It could indeed. It would still be obliged to provide for education, and to endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, because that's in the Constitution too, but there's no doubt that the State or anybody else who wants to spend the money to build new schools can compete with the denominational institutions any time they want to.

recedite

Lets look at the actual wording;

2. Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3. 1° 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.
2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
4. The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

It clearly envisages three types of education; home schooling, state schools, and "private and corporate" education.
Religious owned schools must surely fall into the third category. The state is not obliged to fund this category, but it should "endeavour" to "supplement" their costs, presumably with some unspecified amount of grant aid. The word "endeavour" is very weak; it implies that in tough economic times, any such funding could be cut completely.

Bristolscale7

The crux in the above is
"with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation." What's the right of the parents? Simply the basic one stated in 2? Or are these elaborated upon in another part of the constitution--maybe after the part that says a woman's place is in the home?

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

. ...

On the contrary, the higher the teacher to pupil ratio is, the better educated children are likely to be. That's a position that actually is supported by facts, if you're interested?..

I'm interested... have you a source for that cheers.

TheQuietFella

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

While still discriminating against non-believers for admissions.

Would ye ever f**k off with this sh*te!

If ye have an issue with Catholic schools find a place to live with options

and hey presto! If you can't shut up and put up!

The world doesn't have to bend to suit every idiot with a social disorder!

Apologies in advance Mods!

PopePalpatine

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Would ye ever f**k off with this sh*te!

If ye have an issue with Catholic schools find a place to live with options

and hey presto! If you can't shut up and put up!

The world doesn't have to bend to suit every idiot with a social disorder!

Apologies in advance Mods!

Translation: how can I weasel out of an infraction? :rolleyes:

recedite

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Apologies in advance Mods!

I think the Year of Mercy is over now.
Did somebody say 2017 has been designated the Year of Divine Retribution?

GreenFolder2

@TheQuietFella : You know in some contexts that would sound like a thinly veiled call for ethnic cleansing... "Can all the atheists etc please just move somewhere else ..."

A tendency towards fascism is probably a social disorder. Attempting to highlight social injustice isn't.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I'm interested... have you a source for that cheers.

Sure. Here's a meta-study from the US, and here's one from Ireland. They each refer to specific studies which I'm sure you can peruse at your leisure

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at the actual wording;
It clearly envisages three types of education; home schooling, state schools, and "private and corporate" education. Religious owned schools must surely fall into the third category. The state is not obliged to fund this category, but it should "endeavour" to "supplement" their costs, presumably with some unspecified amount of grant aid. The word "endeavour" is very weak; it implies that in tough economic times, any such funding could be cut completely.

I don't think it clearly envisages any such thing... if it did, wouldn't it place them all together in one clause? It envisages that education may be provided in (1) homes or in (2) private schools or in (3) schools recognised by the State or (4) schools established by the State. We can tell because all are listed as places where parents shall be free to provide this education, in a single clause.

And there is no prohibition on 2,3, or even 4 being religious owned schools. In fact, I think you wouldn't need to go far to find religious owned schools which fit categories 2, 3, and 4, would you? Certainly, the State must still endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, whatever that may be, but there's certainly no reason in the text to assume that it only entails supplementing the funding of a school (religiously owned or not). In fact, I'd be dubious that a school represents an educational initiative at all unless it's bringing something new to the educational field; an additional venue hardly seems to qualify as 'initiative'.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

The crux in the above is
"with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation." What's the right of the parents? Simply the basic one stated in 2? Or are these elaborated upon in another part of the constitution--maybe after the part that says a woman's place is in the home?

I's suggest it's all the rights of parents, but particularly:
1) The inalienable right of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
2) The freedom of parents to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
3) The right of parents not to be obliged by the State, 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.

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

A tendency towards fascism is probably a social disorder. Attempting to highlight social injustice isn't.

So.. posters who want to remove choice from parents and only allow children to attend secular State schools probably have a social disorder? I'm dubious, but it's an interesting assertion.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

It envisages that education may be provided in (1) homes or in (2) private schools or in (3) schools recognised by the State or (4) schools established by the State.

And there is no prohibition on 2,3, or even 4 being religious owned schools.

There is no prohibition mentioned, but there is another category specified as "private and corporate educational initiative" which seems a perfect fit. Why would you not include religious owned schools in this category?
Occam's Razor and all that.

On a separate point, all of that only refers to primary schools. There is no Constitutional obligation on the state to fund any secondary schools or third level institutions. That is a choice for successive elected members of the Oireactas to decide on.

For whatever reason, third level institutions tend to be state funded, but religious interference (discriminatory admission policies and routine religious indoctrination) is not usually tolerated.
Second level schools tend to be treated much as primary schools by the state.

GreenFolder2

Absolam wrote: »

So.. posters who want to remove choice from parents and only allow children to attend secular State schools probably have a social disorder? I'm dubious, but it's an interesting assertion.

Did I say that?

The poster suggested that people who didn't fit into Catholic schools should move somewhere else and that they were socially disordered....

If you want to just misquote me, it doesn't really make for much of a debate.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

So.. posters who want to remove choice from parents and only allow children to attend secular State schools probably have a social disorder? I'm dubious, but it's an interesting assertion.

Nobody said that. It would be unconstitutional.

But a common sense reading of the Constitution would allow parents a choice between home schooling, standard secular state schools, or subsidised "private and corporate educational initiative" to include religious schools, academy schools etc..

TheQuietFella

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

@TheQuietFella : You know in some contexts that would sound like a thinly veiled call for ethnic cleansing... "Can all the atheists etc please just move somewhere else ..."

A tendency towards fascism is probably a social disorder. Attempting to highlight social injustice isn't.

Ok! I have two tickets for the Liverpool v Manchester United game at Anfield seated in the Kop but I'm a United fan and I feel its my God given right to wear
my United shirt in amongst the Liverpool fans.

Would I be allowed and if I did would I get out alive?

That's not fascism but the reality of it!

PopePalpatine

Yep, because freely attending a football game is definitely equivalent to State-mandated education. :rolleyes:

You're also not painting your type in a positive light, either, if the equivalent of an atheist going to a Catholic school must stay quiet about their lack of religion for fear of being beaten to death by a mob which is the equivalent of the Catholics.

GreenFolder2

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Ok! I have two tickets for the Liverpool v Manchester United game at Anfield seated in the Kop but I'm a United fan and I feel its my God given right to wear
my United shirt in amongst the Liverpool fans.

Would I be allowed and if I did would I get out alive?

That's not fascism but the reality of it!

That's really not a remotely reasonable comparison or analogy.

Let's imagine you live in Ballytown, Co. Boring.
It has a population of say 25,000 and 6 supermarkets. Now, oddly enough these supermarkets are organised by religion. So, you've a choice between:

1. St Marks Supermarket for Men - (Catholic)
2. St Gertrude's Supermarket for Women (Catholic)
3. The Devine Supermarket of the Holy Stone of Clonrichard (Catholic Mixed)
4. St Wynfred's Church of Ireland Supermarket
5. The Community Supermarket (which happens to be Catholic but just sounds open)
6. St Gubnut's Food Market (Mixed Catholic)

Now there's a Shopping Together outlet located 45 miles away.

If you want to access these supermarkets you have to bring a baptismal certificate. If it doesn't match / you don't have one you have to wait until all the catholic / church of Ireland shoppers have completed their groceries, and maybe, if they feel like it, and you don't disturb them in anyway, they might let you in ... and you'll probably have to stay out of sight and only take whatever's left at the end of the day and you'll get an awful car parking space by a big puddle somewhere at the end of the car park.

So your choice is either drive 90 miles a day to and from the Shopping Together outlet in the next county, move, or fake being a devout catholic or protestant.

If you complain about this anywhere, a number of people will brand you a trouble maker, a moaner or tell you to more or less shut up / move.

They may even call you a threat to their lifestyles etc for daring to suggest that open and inclusive supermarket services (as available in most of the developed world) are something we should have.

PS: You also have the choice of just setting up your own farm, growing all your own food and not going to the supermarket. Now for most people this is totally impractical, but they claim that this is a perfectly reasonable solution and allows them to say that you are not in anyway being discriminated against.

Just swap the word school for supermarket, or better still library, garda station, NCT centre, GP, or any regularly used or public service and you will get a sense of how bad this situation is.

That's more or less what non-religious parents face in most of Ireland and often Educate Together is over subscribed where it does exist (which isn't actually all that many as a tiny % of the overall number of schools.)

TheQuietFella

Horse Radish^

GreenFolder2

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Horse Radish^

Sarcasm aside, it just shows how entrenched the refusal to even see that this situation is a problem is in Ireland.

beauf

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

...
Let's imagine you live in Ballytown, Co. Boring.
It has a population of say 25,000 and 6 supermarkets. Now, oddly enough these supermarkets are organised by religion. So, you've a choice ......

If I want to live in a certain area or work in a certain area live beside a rail line I would move to facilitate that. I'm not sure why that is impossible only where RC schools in Ireland is concerned.

I take the point that 99.9% of schools are RC and I think region has no place in a school. It should be extracurricular even in faith school. It should not be bound to the state.

That said it can hardly be surprise to anyone that their local school is RC. If I wanted to attend a school with the Jedi faith, I'd plan accordingly. Difficult as that is.

GreenFolder2

beauf wrote: »

If I want to live in a certain area or work in a certain area live beside a rail line I would move to facilitate that. I'm not sure why that is impossible only where RC schools in Ireland is concerned.

I take the point that 99.9% of schools are RC and I think region has no place in a school. It should be extracurricular even in faith school. It should not be bound to the state.

That said it can hardly be surprise to anyone that their local school is RC. If I wanted to attend a school with the Jedi faith, I'd plan accordingly. Difficult as that is.

You don't seem to realise it's FAR worse than that.

If you apply to a catholic school you simply get put to the bottom of the queue until all Catholics in the area accommodated first.

It is totally ridiculous that in 2017 we are still in a position where children are being put in positions like this.

Where do you suggest people go? Emigrate perhaps?

It's perfectly reasonable to be very annoyed about this situation and demand change. People are being discriminated against in the delivery of a public service they contribute to funding and in a way that would be utterly unacceptable in any other area of service provision.

The just move argument isn't really very acceptable.

Should Catholics here have just been less awkward and "taken the soup" and become protestants back in the 18th and 19th century? Think of how much trouble for the old establishment that would have saved ....

eviltwin

beauf wrote: »

If I want to live in a certain area or work in a certain area live beside a rail line I would move to facilitate that. I'm not sure why that is impossible only where RC schools in Ireland is concerned.

I take the point that 99.9% of schools are RC and I think region has no place in a school. It should be extracurricular even in faith school. It should not be bound to the state.

That said it can hardly be surprise to anyone that their local school is RC. If I wanted to attend a school with the Jedi faith, I'd plan accordingly. Difficult as that is.

That won't work. I put my son's name down for every ET in our area before he was even born. Despite that I only got offered one place because the other two work on a lottery system. So no amount of forward planning is going to help you in a situation like that.

GreenFolder2

Clearly the message being sent is : 'you're not *really* Irish so **** off to somewhere athiest... '

Sure America, Canada or England might suit ya better with your trouble making ways...

It's a long tradition in Ireland. For decades our divorcees, gay community, single moms, you name it ... anyone who wasn't a perfect 1950s model of conservativism of the catholic variety was basically frozen out and left.

Seems that legacy still exists in education.

At the very least the suggestion is that people shouldn't live in rural Ireland or small towns unless they're catholic.

Whether you'll admit it or not, this is serious state sponsored and fully institutionalised discrimination and basically sectarianism.

eviltwin

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Clearly the message being sent is : 'you're not *really* Irish so **** off to somewhere athiest... '

Sure America, Canada or England might suit ya better with your trouble making ways...

It's a long tradition in Ireland. For decades our divorcees, gay community, single moms, you name it ... anyone who wasn't a perfect 1950s model of conservativism of the catholic variety was basically frozen out and left.

Seems that legacy still exists in education.

Whether you'll admit it or not, this is serious state sponsored and fully institutionalised discrimination and basically sectarianism.

I'd say a lot of that attitude is more to do with ensuring people of certain ethnic backgrounds stay in other areas.

GreenFolder2

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say a lot of that attitude is more to do with ensuring people of certain ethnic backgrounds stay in other areas.

Probably a good dose of racism / xenophobia etc in it too. Almost certainly. They just don't even admit it to themselves and dress it up as just social conservatism.

Nice homogenous schools where people are kept separate.. Where have I seen that argument before ??

lazygal

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Probably a good dose of racism / xenophobia etc in it too. Almost certainly. They just don't even admit it to themselves and dress it up as just social conservatism.

Nice homogenous schools where people are kept separate.. Where have I seen that argument before ??

This is why I'm not keen on gaelscoileanna. Just yet another means of segregating children based on the whims of parents. The one in our area is incredibly difficult to access and excludes children based on their having special needs such as ADHD.

Hotblack Desiato

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

If you apply to a catholic school you simply get put to the bottom of the queue until all Catholics in the area accommodated first.

In many schools it's worse than that.
- catholics in the area first
- catholics OUTSIDE the area next
- non-catholics come last even though they live in the area

Demand from outside the area 'jumping the queue' is the reason why it's almost impossible to get a school place in areas like Dublin 6 without a baptismal certificate.

This is a disgraceful and unjust policy, and Diarmuid Martin could choose to end it in the morning, but he won't. In fact he instigated the policy of all catholic schools in his diocese putting catholics first. Not all give priority to catholics from outside their area as well, but many do.

Bristolscale7

lazygal wrote: »

This is why I'm not keen on gaelscoileanna. Just yet another means of segregating children based on the whims of parents. The one in our area is incredibly difficult to access and excludes children based on their having special needs such as ADHD.

This is ironic since the only children with such a diagnosis younger than 3rd class are the spawn of parents who could afford the €500 private diagnosis.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

There is no prohibition mentioned, but there is another category specified as "private and corporate educational initiative" which seems a perfect fit. Why would you not include religious owned schools in this category? Occam's Razor and all that.

Because it doesn't specify it as another category of a previous clause? Like you said; Occam's Razor and all that. If it's in another clause, which isn't about where parents may educate their children but actually about the support the State is required to provide for education, then there's no good reason to think it's an attempt to add a category to a different clause, but there's good reason to see it's a category relevant to the clause it's in.

recedite wrote: »

On a separate point, all of that only refers to primary schools. There is no Constitutional obligation on the state to fund any secondary schools or third level institutions. That is a choice for successive elected members of the Oireactas to decide on.

Sure. Though the fact that the State makes a minimum of three years post primary education compulsory does rather place an onus on the State to ensure it happens, which paying a substantial portion of the cost is an effective mechanism for.

recedite wrote: »

For whatever reason, third level institutions tend to be state funded, but religious interference (discriminatory admission policies and routine religious indoctrination) is not usually tolerated.
Second level schools tend to be treated much as primary schools by the state.

Well... tolerance of religious interference may not be an accurate description, but certainly religious institutions are less invested in specialised education which is not relevant to their aims, though where such education is relevant to their aims (teacher training, ecclesiastical studies etc) they are quite involved, aren't they? And even make use of denominational preference in entrance requirements.

beauf

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

You don't seem to realise it's FAR worse than that.

If you apply to a catholic school you simply get put to the bottom of the queue until all Catholics in the area accommodated first.

It is totally ridiculous that in 2017 we are still in a position where children are being put in positions like this.

Some RC schools operate a quota for non RC kids, to creative diversity in the school. So RC kids are not accommodated first. In an Educate Together School once you are on the list you know when you get in, many years in advance. Many RC schools operate a lottery or the catchments change, so you have no idea if you will get in, until the year before you start.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Where do you suggest people go? Emigrate perhaps? It's perfectly reasonable to be very annoyed about this situation and demand change. People are being discriminated against in the delivery of a public service they contribute to funding and in a way that would be utterly unacceptable in any other area of service provision.

The just move argument isn't really very acceptable.

The problem with that logic is that people can and do move for everything else.

People will move for housing, jobs, to be near family, to be in a better schools catchment, transport etc. But you can't move if you don't want RC religion. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

People who emigrate often come back to raise their kids in Ireland, or to go to Irish schools. They move.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Should Catholics here have just been less awkward and "taken the soup" and become protestants back in the 18th and 19th century? Think of how much trouble for the old establishment that would have saved ....

Even if Souperism was significant, and many suggest it wasn't. The fact that so many schools are RC and religion in young people is in rapid decline, suggests that attending a RC school isn't resulting in proselytism. In fact the opposite is occurring. So its just fear mongering that has no basis in reality.

The state should provide non religious education. No argument from me on that. But this idea that people are immobile and rooted to the local school doesn't make sense to me, when they can move for a multitude of other reasons.

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Did I say that? The poster suggested that people who didn't fit into Catholic schools should move somewhere else and that they were socially disordered.... If you want to just misquote me, it doesn't really make for much of a debate.

I didn't quote you at all? You claimed that a tendency towards fascism is probably a social disorder. I would say that forcing children to attend only secular State schools indicates a fascist tendency; it allows no option other than that preferred by a particular person. Therefore that person (or poster), by your definition, probably has a social disorder. No?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Nobody said that. It would be unconstitutional.

It certainly would be unConstitutional, but there are so many opinions put forward which would be unConstitutional. For instance;

recedite wrote: »

We could take a more more republican view, and just say all public schools are to be secular, like it or not; its for everyone's good.

recedite wrote: »

The only long term solution is to secularise all State funded schools, and not just their admission policies.

recedite wrote: »

The state should only fund non-discriminatory secular schools.

All of which tend towards the unConstitutional....

recedite wrote: »

But a common sense reading of the Constitution would allow parents a choice between home schooling, standard secular state schools, or subsidised "private and corporate educational initiative" to include religious schools, academy schools etc..

Well, no. A common sense reading wouldn't attempt to splice a phrase from one clause of the Constitution into another and pretend they're all supposed to go together. That's not common sense, that's making stuff up.

beauf

eviltwin wrote: »

That won't work. I put my son's name down for every ET in our area before he was even born. Despite that I only got offered one place because the other two work on a lottery system. So no amount of forward planning is going to help you in a situation like that.

At least with the ET you know you aren't getting in. Then you know have to explore other options. The ET system favours long time residents. Which I think makes sense. As otherwise its pointless to buy property or establish links in an area if you can can't get into a school.

The lottery system is the worst system IMO. However its becoming popular because is can't be accused of racism, or favoritism of any kind. Its has implications for long term fabric of communities though.

beauf

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

...
Seems that legacy still exists in education.

Whether you'll admit it or not, this is serious state sponsored and fully institutionalized discrimination and basically sectarianism.

Well of course, was that ever in question.

Its a historic legacy. So is why this thread is in English and not in Irish.

But RC is still the majority. But its declining rapidly. We've just not reached the tipping point yet.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

At the very least the suggestion is that people shouldn't live in rural Ireland or small towns unless they're catholic.

Its bit like the way they discriminate against sick people, or people who want to work in high tech companies. They can't live in rural Ireland either. Everything is in Dublin.

beauf

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd say a lot of that attitude is more to do with ensuring people of certain ethnic backgrounds stay in other areas.

Ironically many of the immigrants, are more religious than the Irish themselves. Which is an interesting dilemma. If they were to say have a quota for non religious applicants they could be seen to be discriminating against immigrants.

You can't have first come first served either as that discriminates against new arrivals also. Leading to a lack of diversity in the school.

So the only way is a lottery. But then that makes it impossible to plan your kids schooling. In theory if you have 4 kids they could all end up in different schools in a lottery situation.

GreenFolder2

This thread has decided one thing for me. I am emigrating. I was kind of putting it off for yesrs but there are some interesting jobs out there and I'm frankly sick the place and don't think I could sit through the impending 8th amendment referendum without getting some kind of blood pressure induced aneurysm listening to these arguments over and over.

Good luck with your parochial schools, parochialism, sectarianism, 5 year divorces, and all the other crap that goes on here.

Europe's Bible belt is an accurate description.

beauf

I thought moving wasn't an option....


That said I'd love to leave. I'm not sure where is better though. I'm kinda stuck though.

Confused mum84

Maybe you could move to Canada !! Hear lots of celebs are moving there since trump got in 😜

Everybody entitled to their opinion & you make some good points .. Having said that you seem intent on twisting other people's statements when they don't match your own

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

This thread has decided one thing for me. I am emigrating. I was kind of putting it off for yesrs but there are some interesting jobs out there and I'm frankly sick the place and don't think I could sit through the impending 8th amendment referendum without getting some kind of blood pressure induced aneurysm listening to these arguments over and over. Good luck with your parochial schools, parochialism, sectarianism, 5 year divorces, and all the other crap that goes on here. Europe's Bible belt is an accurate description.

Sounds familiar. You'll be in good company at least; lots of people have come and gone over the years and I think Ireland is the better for it.

Bass Reeves

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

This thread has decided one thing for me. I am emigrating. I was kind of putting it off for yesrs but there are some interesting jobs out there and I'm frankly sick the place and don't think I could sit through the impending 8th amendment referendum without getting some kind of blood pressure induced aneurysm listening to these arguments over and over.

Good luck with your parochial schools, parochialism, sectarianism, 5 year divorces, and all the other crap that goes on here.

Europe's Bible belt is an accurate description.

You are very lucky you seem to have the choice. Your choice of destination are many. I would suggest that you consider Iran, Afganastan, China, Saudi Arabia these are all sutible. Irish society is not perfect. Neither is it the intolerant society that some imagine. I remember when I was in national school a long time ago. I attended the local Catholic national school. There was some Protestant children there as well. At 12 pm every day these children left ta attended religious education in a building nextdpor from the local pastor. Now these lads played ball in the school yard and were never discriminated against IMO.

I think a lot of this so called discrimination is on the imagination of a certain group of intellectual's. It is this inability of some parents to be willing to accept the validity of there own beliefs that is often at the back of this. I was involved with a post primary school for a while. It had a religous ethos. Now there was a group of parents who had an issue with the ethos of the school. It was interesting in that they had bypassed community and technical school's for there kids to attend these schools. When this was pointed out to them they replied ''thid was a better school''.

While the situation is not ideal neither is it a bigoted sectarian divide. In a way I wish that religious education was removed from schools and that Communion and Confirmation preparation was removed from schools. The reason for this is that there is a creeping idealogy from some parents that while Catholic are not practicing that these parts of the faith are parties not religious events. It is interesting also that it is these parents that spend more on these events.

However it is also a fact that these schools were set up with a religious ethos and the governing bodies and the majority of parents wish it to remain as is. It is unlikely that any Constitutional challenge would succeed as the courts tend to recognise that public funds are limited and that parents have the choice to withdraw there children from that section of schooling. Imaginery discrimination would not be a valid reason to accept such a. Constitutional challenge.

In reality it is not possible for the state to satisfy all the whims of every individual. It is it duty to try as much as possible to with the restraints of public spending to provide services to the largest amount of the population possible and to prevent real discrimination not imaginary discrimination. We have become a too politically correct society at times. There are times when we all have to accept that '' when you join the army you wear the boots''

Bass Reeves

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

This thread has decided one thing for me. I am emigrating. I was kind of putting it off for yesrs but there are some interesting jobs out there and I'm frankly sick the place and don't think I could sit through the impending 8th amendment referendum without getting some kind of blood pressure induced aneurysm listening to these arguments over and over.

Good luck with your parochial schools, parochialism, sectarianism, 5 year divorces, and all the other crap that goes on here.

Europe's Bible belt is an accurate description.

You are very lucky you seem to have the choice. Your choice of destination are many. I would suggest that you consider Iran, Afganastan, China, Saudi Arabia these are all sutible. Irish society is not perfect. Neither is it the intolerant society that some imagine. I remember when I was in national school a long time ago. I attended the local Catholic national school. There was some Protestant children there as well. At 12 pm every day these children left ta attended religious education in a building nextdpor from the local pastor. Now these lads played ball in the school yard and were never discriminated against IMO.

I think a lot of this so called discrimination is on the imagination of a certain group of intellectual's. It is this inability of some parents to be willing to accept the validity of there own beliefs that is often at the back of this. I was involved with a post primary school for a while. It had a religous ethos. Now there was a group of parents who had an issue with the ethos of the school. It was interesting in that they had bypassed community and technical school's for there kids to attend these schools. When this was pointed out to them they replied ''thid was a better school''.

While the situation is not ideal neither is it a bigoted sectarian divide. In a way I wish that religious education was removed from schools and that Communion and Confirmation preparation was removed from schools. The reason for this is that there is a creeping idealogy from some parents that while Catholic are not practicing that these parts of the faith are parties not religious events. It is interesting also that it is these parents that spend more on these events.

However it is also a fact that these schools were set up with a religious ethos and the governing bodies and the majority of parents wish it to remain as is. It is unlikely that any Constitutional challenge would succeed as the courts tend to recognise that public funds are limited and that parents have the choice to withdraw there children from that section of schooling. Imaginery discrimination would not be a valid reason to accept such a. Constitutional challenge.

In reality it is not possible for the state to satisfy all the whims of every individual. It is it duty to try as much as possible to with the restraints of public spending to provide services to the largest amount of the population possible and to prevent real discrimination not imaginary discrimination. We have become a too politically correct society at times. There are times when we all have to accept that '' when you join the army you wear the boots''

Goya

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Good luck with your parochial schools, parochialism, sectarianism, 5 year divorces, and all the other crap that goes on here.

Europe's Bible belt is an accurate description.

Wow, it really isn't. What sectarianism? What about all the non parochial parts? You are talking about the Republic of Ireland right, and not parts of Northern Ireland/Scotland? Try Poland for religious zeal in Europe.

This kind of assessment of Ireland always seems to come from people who think they are SO open-minded.

robindch

Mod:

TheQuietFella wrote: »

The world doesn't have to bend to suit every idiot with a social disorder! Apologies in advance Mods!

That's not how apologies work.

Have a read of the forum charter before posting again if you want to avoid more cards.

Thanking youze.

Advbrd

robindch wrote: »

Mod:That's not how apologies work.

Have a read of the forum charter before posting again if you want to avoid more cards.

Thanking youze.

But he was such a quiet fella.

Advbrd

I would prefer no religion in school. It could be taught outside school. Having said that, my young lad is making his communion this year and looking forward to the party and bouncy castle. Yeah, I am a two faced twat but I couldn't give a toss.