The Equal Participation in Schools Bill

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

I only asked why the government should design the school system around parents who want religious segregatation in public schools?

I'm trying to understand if you would support such a policy as it was you who made that point.

That wasn't the point I was making at all. While you may see it that way, I don't. I support the right of parents to be able to choose what type of education they want for their children.

I would not support the idea of the State or local authorities forcing parents to send their children to schools to receive an education which is inconsistent with those parents wishes for their children.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That wasn't the point I was making at all. While you may see it that way, I don't. I support the right of parents to be able to choose what type of education they want for their children.

I would not support the idea of the State or local authorities forcing parents to send their children to schools to receive an education which is inconsistent with those parents wishes for their children.

Fine, but why should the State have public schools that for example have policy of 'Catholics only'?

I mean people wouldn't be happy if any other branch had such a policy so why should the public school get a pass?

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

...Apologies if it sounds like I'm evangelising (I am), but I firmly believe what ET are offering in terms of second level education in particular is a big step forward, and the students coming out will have a significant advantage over their peers as a result.

No I fully get the enthusiasm for it, I do, and I'm aware of programmes like Bridge 21 and the whole lot, but it's just a different model of education, so of course the outcomes are going to be different. I don't know if I would say one particular model has advantages over another, but I do know that the local ET school has too many disadvantages overall to have considered sending my child there to be educated.

I was reminded of it there about three weeks ago when one of the guys in work (he's Hindu) asked where would be the best school to send their child? Well shìt if the office of 20 somethings with no children didn't all chime in with the suggestions of the ET school...

I just said his best bet was to visit each of the different schools, talk to the Principals and teachers, he'll get a feel for himself which school may best suit him. And that's really what it comes down to - at national level is one thing, at local level it's a whole different ball game.

Snickers Man

smacl wrote: »

If you look at what relatively few secular schools we have in this country, primarily Educate Together, you'll see they are far more heavily oversubscribed than their religious ethos counterparts. At the same time, for many of them the bulk of the pupils are Catholic.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the bulk of pupils at ET schools are "from the Catholic tradition" but your point is very valid.

The real problem is with the word "discrimination" which seems to be usually intended to mean a "bad thing" which we should not encourage. But the simple fact is that any successful school HAS to discriminate. If you have more applicants than there are places available, you have to turn some kids away. That's discrimination. The only question is, on what grounds is it fair to discriminate?

Catholic schools can only turn non catholic kids away if there are no places available once all the catholic applicants have been accommodated. Does that sound unfair?

OK then, what SHOULD be the grounds on which oversubscribed schools can discriminate?

1)First come, first served?
Sounds good but it inevitably benefits long-standing stable communities who have been able to get their kids' names down on the waiting list from more or less the time they were born. Not good for immigrants in other words, whether they are from a different country or a different part of our own country.

2)Proximity to the school?
Again, sounds fair. Every district has its own school; every kid goes locally. In practice, this means that some schools being better than others, you are condemning some kids to attend a poor school for no other grounds than "post code lottery". How do people tend to react to this in the long term? By moving to areas near good schools so that their kids come inside the desirable catchment area. This is the system they have in Britain and the upward mobility of families towards "good school areas" is an identifiable trend.

Who would LOVE this method if it were brought in? The good burghers of Blackrock, Terenure, Donnybrook, Rathmines etc in Dublin. With the good schools they have they can rest assured that their children will be well taken care of. And the value of their properties will accelerate.

We hear a lot about "privilege" as something we should not encourage. This approach, however well meaning, would only make the already privileged even more so.

3) Entrance on merit; best schools get to pick the brightest students.
Sounds good in theory, in practice it only accelerates inequality.

4) No choice in school at all; you go wherever the department tells you

This is the one that the weird bedfellows of the unions, the dept of education and the left-wing parties can all agree among themseles is the best one because they get to argue among themselves, come to a half-assed agreement, insist that it is all in the best interests of the people and then pontificate to the rest of us about how we must do what we're told if we know what's good for us.

At which point one ceases arguing with these people and picks up the pitchfork.

One eyed Jack

Delirium wrote: »

Fine, but why should the State have public schools that for example have policy of 'Catholics only'?

I mean people wouldn't be happy if any other branch had such a policy so why should the public school get a pass?

I don't understand where you're going with this tbh. It cones across like you're attempting to use clever word play to misrepresent my opinion rather than take what I'm saying at face value. I'm really struggling to make head or tails of what you're asking here and I've already stated what I would and wouldn't support.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm only suggesting an explanation.

What ye guys do with that is up to ye.

What I did with it was suggest that there might be limits to what any group of parents should be allowed to enforce on the whole school, and that preventing another section of society from enjoying the same access to publicly funded schools should be one of those limits.

So what I'm asking is whether you think the explanation you put forward is a fair one, ie whether you think parents who want to avoid their children being schooled with Traveller children by blocking the Travellers from the school should have that right or not?

(In a publicly-funded state school, that is - if it's a private school where the state doesn't contribute, that's different.)

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't understand where you're going with this tbh. It cones across like you're attempting to use clever word play to misrepresent my opinion rather than take what I'm saying at face value. I'm really struggling to make head or tails of what you're asking here and I've already stated what I would and wouldn't support.

let's just put it down to a communication breakdown.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So what I'm asking is whether you think the explanation you put forward is a fair one, ie whether you think parents who want to avoid their children being schooled with Traveller children by blocking the Travellers from the school should have that right or not?

But...parents can't block other parents?

This is why I don't understand where this is going, because I said that parents may not wish to send their children to a school, and that's not the same thing at all as saying that parents with children already in the school have the right to block other parents from enrolling their children in the school? Parents don't make those decisions for the whole school?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just said his best bet was to visit each of the different schools, talk to the Principals and teachers, he'll get a feel for himself which school may best suit him. And that's really what it comes down to - at national level is one thing, at local level it's a whole different ball game.

Agreed, different schools suit different children without a doubt, and to a large extent the quality of education is heavily influenced by the quality of the teachers. At the same time, what is being taught is also very important, and my feeling is that the current traditional education system is failing our children badly as it is primarily focused on teaching them how to pass exams. Compare this to the skills being taught on a bridge 21 approach and you see things like how to communicate clearly, how to work collaboratively, how to research, how to present, how to use and effectively apply technology, etc... not to mention the fundamental importance of enjoying your work. Subjecting a child to five or six years of hard graft just to enter into a points race to get into a given 3rd level course seems like a rather pointless and cruel nonsense from where I'm sitting. To my mind, it is far more important to find out what they enjoy and as such will pursue enthusiastically such that they are likely to excel at it. Youngest also looks forward to school each day, which I consider hugely important, and something that many schools fail to emphasise.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But...parents can't block other parents?

This is why I don't understand where this is going, because I said that parents may not wish to send their children to a school, and that's not the same thing at all as saying that parents with children already in the school have the right to block other parents from enrolling their children in the school? Parents don't make those decisions for the whole school?

I thought that is what you were saying - because nobody is suggesting that parents can't remove their children from a school where they don't like certain other children being educated with theirs, there's no question of that.

The question is, when you said "some parents may not want (their children educated with children of other religions)" did you mean that publicly funded schools should therefore be allowed to restrict their intake to prioritize children of one religion? That's how I read what you said, but now you appear to be saying it just means they should be allowed to remove their children - but that's not been in doubt.

As to who makes the decision, that doesn't make any difference, but you're the one who brought in parental choice. But the question is one of principle, whoever makes that choice, whether it's a majority vote by parents, or a school board.

smacl

Snickers Man wrote: »

Catholic schools can only turn non catholic kids away if there are no places available once all the catholic applicants have been accommodated. Does that sound unfair?

Yes.

OK then, what SHOULD be the grounds on which oversubscribed schools can discriminate?

2)Proximity to the school?

This. If you feel that the schools in your community aren't good enough for your child, then perhaps you should look at participating a bit more to helping them improve. You're having a moan about privilege, but driving your kids to a posher school because you think the local one is full of scumbags is also a privilege that others in area may not be able to afford. If you seriously don't want your kids mixing with other kids in their own neighbourhood you should ask yourself what message you're sending out to your neighbours. First house we bought many moons ago was in a rough enough part of town. As it became yuppified the pattern was very much people driving to their doors, not socialising locally, and not letting their kids play on the street with other local kids. If this isn't an expression of privilege and social snobbery I don't know what is.

One thing that's certainly good for most kids is being able walk or cycle to school and friends houses and be able learn and explore their own locality. Getting the kids up at the crack of dawn to chuck them into the back on an SUV to be stuck in traffic for hours is unhealthy on a lot of levels.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I thought that is what you were saying - because nobody is suggesting that parents can't remove their children from a school where they don't like certain other children being educated with theirs, there's no question of that.

The question is, when you said "some parents may not want (their children educated with children of other religions)" did you mean that publicly funded schools should therefore be allowed to restrict their intake to prioritize children of one religion? That's how I read what you said, but now you appear to be saying it just means they should be allowed to remove their children - but that's not been in doubt.

As to who makes the decision, that doesn't make any difference, but you're the one who brought in parental choice. But the question is one of principle, whoever makes that choice, whether it's a majority vote by parents, or a school board.

I think I kind of see where the confusion may have arisen now.

I'm suggesting that parents who do not want to send their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience, shouldn't be forced to. I'm not making any moral judgement or otherwise on those parents conscience, that's entirely their own business how they choose to raise their own children in their own communities.

In those communities, they have as much right to apply for patronage of schools as any other patron body. The State is obliged to provide for education, and funding public schools through the patronage system is one way to do this. It's a model I for one agree with. I haven't yet seen an alternative I'd be able to get behind tbh.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think I kind of see where the confusion may have arisen now.

I'm suggesting that parents who do not want to send their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience, shouldn't be forced to. I'm not making any moral judgement or otherwise on those parents conscience, that's entirely their own business how they choose to raise their own children in their own communities.

In those communities, they have as much right to apply for patronage of schools as any other patron body. The State is obliged to provide for education, and funding public schools through the patronage system is one way to do this. It's a model I for one agree with. I haven't yet seen an alternative I'd be able to get behind tbh.

Ok I see what you mean, and I'd agree with the main point, but it still doesn't answer the question itself : if part of those parents' principles involved their children being kept away from the bad influence of Traveller children (or black children or whatever), should the state still agree to fund schools applying such entrance criteria because after all, parents are entitled to be racist or anti-Traveller or just to want their children to be in an environment the parents fully approve of, i.e. with no black or Traveller children around?

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In those communities, they have as much right to apply for patronage of schools as any other patron body. The State is obliged to provide for education, and funding public schools through the patronage system is one way to do this. It's a model I for one agree with. I haven't yet seen an alternative I'd be able to get behind tbh.

Reminds my of the Ron White joke where he's arrested for being drunk in public, and told he had the right to remain silent. The right, but apparently not the ability

If you look at the report previously discussed, you'll note the following appears in the conclusion

The detailed analysis of the parental preferences expressed in each of the areas surveyed as part of the survey exercise indicates that there is sufficient parental demand supporting immediate changes in school patronage in 23 of the 38 areas.

So as of 2013 the DoE was aware that in the majority of areas surveyed there was parental demand for immediate changes in school patronage. Since then, just one school in the country has swapped patronage from the Catholic church, while ET have independently opened up 7 out of a planned 25 schools. See the following IT article for more details. It seems abundantly clear that our government is abdicating its responsibility to provide communities with the schools that they want. Rights and responsibilities are not the same.

magicbastarder

i see no logic to the 'religions are good organisations to be allowed run schools' argument any more than i would see logic in a 'political parties should be allowed run schools' argument.

would be an interesting societal experiment though...

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Ok I see what you mean, and I'd agree with the main point, but it still doesn't answer the question itself : if part of those parents' principles involved their children being kept away from the bad influence of Traveller children (or black children or whatever), should the state still agree to fund schools applying such entrance criteria because after all, parents are entitled to be racist or anti-Traveller or just to want their children to be in an environment the parents fully approve of, i.e. with no black or Traveller children around?

But the State doesn't fund schools, this is the thing! It provides for the education of all children. That's an important distinction and maybe that's why I'm finding it difficult to follow what you're asking.

Should the people who want these types of schools be able to apply to be recognised under the patronage system? Absolutely, why not? I wouldn't care if a group got together and decided the ethos of their school was going to be feminism, and they were going to admit girls only. Grand, let them have at it!

The thing is - the amount of funding and supports the school would actually get, would be dependent upon the number of children enrolled in the school, and from 2017 on, each pupil must be registered on the POD in order for the school to receive it's full allocation, ie - if a pupil isn't registered on POD, instead of the school receiving funding and supports to provide education for... I dunno, the 10 pupils we'll say are in attendance in the school, they'll only receive funding and supports for 9 pupils.

OK, so why is that important then? Well, the less children are enrolled in a school, the less funding is provided for their education. So, the school which wants to have an admissions criteria that only includes parents who are travellers, or the school that wants to have admissions criteria that only includes parents who are black, are more than welcome to have it IMO, they have their own ethnicity and culture and they are more than welcome to openly discriminate against those parents who are not willing to get on board with the ethos of the school. I don't have a problem with this. The same would apply to any other minority in Irish society who feel in need of their safe spaces.

smacl wrote: »

Reminds my of the Ron White joke where he's arrested for being drunk in public, and told he had the right to remain silent. The right, but apparently not the ability

If you look at the report previously discussed, you'll note the following appears in the conclusion

So as of 2013 the DoE was aware that in the majority of areas surveyed there was parental demand for immediate changes in school patronage. Since then, just one school in the country has swapped patronage from the Catholic church, while ET have independently opened up 7 out of a planned 25 schools. See the following IT article for more details. It seems abundantly clear that our government is abdicating its responsibility to provide communities with the schools that they want. Rights and responsibilities are not the same.

This right here is your biggest problem (well, maybe not yours, but certainly a problem for some) -

The next phase of surveys took place in January 2013 when the remaining 38 areas were surveyed. Of the 43 areas surveyed in total, sufficient parental demand for a wider choice of school patron emerged in 28 of the areas to support change in the patronage of schools. Parents expressed a preference for Educate Together as the alternative patron of choice in 25 of the areas and in 2 of the areas the alternative patron of choice was the local Education and Training Board (ETB). A report on the results of these surveys was published in March 2013 and is available at www.education.ie.

One area demonstrated sufficient demand for an Irish language national school. 35 of the 43 areas surveyed already have a gaelscoil option available for parents. The surveys also reflected that many parents are happy with the current schools on offer under existing patronage arrangements.

Parents are all for having a wider choice of schools, but there's no indication given that those same parents would enrol their children in those schools, or make use of them, only the presumption that they would.

To be perfectly honest though, I wouldn't wipe my proverbial with that report, and I wouldn't be holding my breath for the religious patrons to be divesting patronage any time soon either. I've supported the building of an ET secondary school petition in my area, but then they went and built it out in the sticks, about 10 miles from the primary school! I don't get that tbh?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the State doesn't fund schools, this is the thing!

Yes it does. This is simply counterfactual. Who funds the schools then?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It provides for the education of all children.

How would it do that without funding the schools?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's an important distinction and maybe that's why I'm finding it difficult to follow what you're asking.

The distinction you're making is literally incomprehensible to me.
The state pays the teachers' salaries and the running costs of the schools - in what way does it not fund the schools, and if not then who does?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Should the people who want these types of schools be able to apply to be recognised under the patronage system? Absolutely, why not? I wouldn't care if a group got together and decided the ethos of their school was going to be feminism, and they were going to admit girls only. Grand, let them have at it!

The thing is - the amount of funding and supports the school would actually get, would be dependent upon the number of children enrolled in the school, and from 2017 on, each pupil must be registered on the POD in order for the school to receive it's full allocation, ie - if a pupil isn't registered on POD, instead of the school receiving funding and supports to provide education for... I dunno, the 10 pupils we'll say are in attendance in the school, they'll only receive funding and supports for 9 pupils.

OK, so why is that important then? Well, the less children are enrolled in a school, the less funding is provided for their education. So, the school which wants to have an admissions criteria that only includes parents who are travellers, or the school that wants to have admissions criteria that only includes parents who are black, are more than welcome to have it IMO, they have their own ethnicity and culture and they are more than welcome to openly discriminate against those parents who are not willing to get on board with the ethos of the school. I don't have a problem with this. The same would apply to any other minority in Irish society who feel in need of their safe spaces.

I may have failed to follow here, but it seems like a very convoluted way of saying that you would be happy enough to have taxpayers' money used to run schools that some citizens are banned from attending, because other citizens don't want them there.

If I understand right, you would apparently be ok with a school where black children were not taken. Would you?
It's not a hard question to answer but you seem reluctant to do so.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I may have failed to follow here, but it seems like a very convoluted way of saying that you would be happy enough to have taxpayers' money used to run schools that some citizens are banned from attending, because other citizens don't want them there.

If I understand right, you would apparently be ok with a school where black children were not taken. Would you?
It's not a hard question to answer but you seem reluctant to do so.

I'm just wondering about the other 19 questions to follow.

It's not a convoluted way at all of saying that I have no issue with anyone who wants to apply under the patronage system to be regarded as a qualifying patron for the purposes of providing education to children. I may not agree with the ethos of the school, but then I'm not being forced to enrol my child in the school, nor would I particularly want to.

Now, is that your convoluted way of asking have I a problem with a minority demanding that funding be withdrawn from providing education for the majority of the children in this country? Well yes, yes I do. I imagine that if it were put to the majority of parents that way, they would have a problem with it too.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm just wondering about the other 19 questions to follow.

Hardly. I asked it several posts up and I gather that the answer is yes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not a convoluted way at all of saying that I have no issue with anyone who wants to apply under the patronage system to be regarded as a qualifying patron for the purposes of providing education to children. I may not agree with the ethos of the school, but then I'm not being forced to enrol my child in the school, nor would I particularly want to.

Now, is that your convoluted way of asking have I a problem with a minority demanding that funding be withdrawn from providing education for the majority of the children in this country? Well yes, yes I do. I imagine that if it were put to the majority of parents that way, they would have a problem with it too.

No, my question was simple : when you suggested that it was fair enough for parents to want their children to be educated with children who were all the same as them in some way such as religion, should that right also apply to skin colour or ethnic origin?

But as I say, by your non-answer you've answered, so I'll take it that you think they should be allowed to do so.

I'm just unclear as to why you think ordinary taxpayers should have to fund this form of apartheid, even though it may well discriminate against some of them.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Hardly. I asked it several posts up and I gather that the answer is yes.



No, my question was simple : when you suggested that it was fair enough for parents to want their children to be educated with children who were all the same as them in some way such as religion, should that right also apply to skin colour or ethnic origin?

Yes, it should. It should apply whatever way the hell those people applying to be considered for patronage would want to apply their ethos. How many more times in how many more ways would you like me to say it?

But as I say, by your non-answer you've answered, so I'll take it that you think they should be allowed to do so.

I really, really hope you have a point to make.

I'm just unclear as to why you think ordinary taxpayers should have to fund this form of apartheid, even though it may well discriminate against some of them.

I didn't say tax payers should have to fund anything? Various groups may apply to be considered patron bodies if they wish. I'm not going to deny them, nor would I choose to support them either. If, for example a group wanted to apply to be considered for patronage on the basis that they are offering a non-religious education - again, like I said, have at it!

I'm not going to stand in their way, but I don't have to support it either.

looksee

You cannot have randomers taking responsibility for being patrons of a school. I have personal experience of how this did not work, though it did require some deviance on the part of a RC order to ensure that it did not.

Small town/village with a fee paying school run by a religious order. The order suddenly announced that they were going to close the school in two years' time (just time to get the senior cycle through their lc. The juniors could make their own arrangements.) This was before there were any provisions for redeployment of teachers or unemployment pay.

The local community (whose children had not attended the school - unless they could pay the fees) decided that rather than bus their children 15 to 20 miles as they had been doing, they would apply to the DoE to take over the school. The DoE allowed them to do so and a committee was formed. The order would be paid token rent for the building out of the capitation and the school would continue. After the first year the order (who had left) said that due to insurance costs the rent would have to go up. Meanwhile the committee were organising fund raising events to cover expenses. The second year the order said they would have to raise the rent again, and they did. And the third year and the fourth year. At this point it was obvious that it was not possible to run a school including the now considerable cost of the rent. The school continued for another two years to see the students through leaving cert, then closed. The order then sold the building.

Meanwhile the DoE had introduced redeployment for teachers, which was fortunate as the local committee had no money to pay redundancy. Since the community had taken over the school the order had not had to pay redundancy either, which was very fortunate for them :rolleyes:

All these ridiculous notions of everyone starting a school to suit their own agendas are impracticable, expensive and unnecessary. The DoE should be 'patron' - so far as a patron is needed - of the schools it is funding on our behalf.

The number of schools where the church 'owns' the school should be examined. Those who only own the property because it was 'given' to them by the state would not be entitled to any compensation. If land was involved then it should be subject to CP. Bear in mind that vast amounts of fundraising went on in some of these cases from the local community.

In the very few cases where an order built and maintained a school in a self funding way (ie they charged fees or had benefactors) other than capitation and teachers, that would have to be negotiated and probably be left to the existing patronage. That would cover some RC schools (not as many as most people seem to think) and schools of other religions.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm suggesting that parents who do not want to send their children to schools which are in violation of their conscience, shouldn't be forced to.

They already have such a Constitutional right, as has been pointed out to you several times already.

In those communities, they have as much right to apply for patronage of schools as any other patron body.

But they don't, because this only happens in areas with a growing population where new schools are required to be constructed.

Those who live in areas where there is no choice and no new schools being constructed (or where the population is growing but the DoE simply decides to enlarge the existing schools) can do nothing - unless they're millionaires and can build and run a school without any DoE funding.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

You cannot have randomers taking responsibility for being patrons of a school. I have personal experience of how this did not work, though it did require some deviance on the part of a RC order to ensure that it did not.

It seems to work well for Charter schools internationally?

Frequently Asked Questions About Public, Charter Schools

Who can start a charter school?

Parents, community leaders, social entrepreneurs, businesses, teachers, school districts, and municipalities can submit a charter school proposal to their state's charter authorizing entity.

Charter schools in the United States

I could see the same principle being applied here in Ireland, particularly as we become more multicultural and diverse as a society!

I couldn't see the patronage system in it's current form being scrapped though.

Hotblack Desiato

Time and time again we see how crafty and devious the religious orders are when it comes to finanaces. They've been running rings around every government since the establishment of the State, and around the British before that.

In looksee's example they hived off their liabilities onto the local community, while keeping 'their' (which was no doubt paid for originally by much local contributions and bequests) valuable asset and cashed it in when the coast was clear.

Bunch of bloodsucking ****s and how anyone can say the motivations of religious orders are altruistic beats the hell out of me.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They already have such a Constitutional right, as has been pointed out to you several times already.

It didn't need to be pointed out to me though, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out to anyone here that is the case. I was just clarifying because I was making the point that in the same way as nobody should be forced to enrol their children in a religious ethos school, nor should anyone be forced to enrol their children in a school which would be in violation of their conscience. That's what started the line of questioning from volchista as to how and where that line of thinking would apply, and why I clarified that it could be for any reason.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But they don't, because this only happens in areas with a growing population where new schools are required to be constructed.

Those who live in areas where there is no choice and no new schools being constructed (or where the population is growing but the DoE simply decides to enlarge the existing schools) can do nothing - unless they're millionaires and can build and run a school without any DoE funding.

I'm sure people said the same thing when the any of the other patron bodies besides the religious orders were set up. It didn't stop them though, probably because they were able to gain support first of all, and secondly because of that support, they were able to make a valid case to be given funding for setting up new schools.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm sure people said the same thing when the any of the other patron bodies besides the religious orders were set up. It didn't stop them though, probably because they were able to gain support first of all, and secondly because of that support, they were able to make a valid case to be given funding for setting up new schools.

Unless they live in an expanding area, they can only succeed by taking pupils away from existing schools, leaving them under capacity.

It's an extremely difficult process for parents who want change and it's very wasteful of taxpayers' money to fund new schools in the same area the taxpayers are also funding existing schools, which are now under-utilised.

If you can't see the madness of the whole system, then fine, but at least acknowledge that the fact you find no problem with the patronage model might have something to do with that it works in your favour and over 90% of schools have the patronage/ethos/whatever that you want and that is specifically designed to cater for you.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It didn't need to be pointed out to me though, I didn't think it needed to be pointed out to anyone here that is the case. I was just clarifying because I was making the point that in the same way as nobody should be forced to enrol their children in a religious ethos school, nor should anyone be forced to enrol their children in a school which would be in violation of their conscience. That's what started the line of questioning from volchista as to how and where that line of thinking would apply, and why I clarified that it could be for any reason.

You are really doing my head in with this 'forced to...' argument.

Do you really think the state has a responsibility to provide schooling to your offspring based on YOUR religious ethos.

You mentioned earlier that you are a tax paying citizen and inferred that that fact gives you some rights in the matter. You might be a tax paying citizen but your individual tax contribution does not pay for a segregated schooling system. I am a tax payer and I don't have any offspring and never will - do you think I should have a say in the way schools are organised based on MY strongly held beliefs.

Until such time that the state accrues so much tax income that can be spent on schooling that provides for every ethos of every parent in the land then I'm afraid your out of luck. And how horrible it would be to have every parents views catered for, Muslims sent to Islamic school, protestants sent to protestant schools. And why stop there, blacks sent to black schools - well why not, if the tax paying black parents demand their offspring being sent there. Why restrict parents wishes only on ethos?

This 'going against your conscience' malarkey does not hold any more weight that someone simply having a point of view and I'm sick and tired hearing that expression. A cynical tactic to use emotive language in an attempt to have it all their own way.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If you can't see the madness of the whole system, then fine, but at least acknowledge that the fact you find no problem with the patronage model might have something to do with that it works in your favour and over 90% of schools have the patronage/ethos/whatever that you want and that is specifically designed to cater for you.

Of course I can see why it's maddening if I were in your position HD, and of course I acknowledge that I don't have a problem with the patronage system as it is given that it happens to work not just in my favour, but in favour of 90% of the population.

Now, can you acknowledge what I would see as madness in trying to argue that 10% of the population should control 90% of an education system that would be totally inadequate for 90% of the population?

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

You are really doing my head in with this 'forced to...' argument.

Do you really think the state has a responsibility to provide schooling to your offspring based on YOUR religious ethos.

Yes. It also has a responsibility to provide the type of education for the children of parents who do not share my religious beliefs.

You mentioned earlier that you are a tax paying citizen and inferred that that fact gives you some rights in the matter. You might be a tax paying citizen but your individual tax contribution does not pay for a segregated schooling system. I am a tax payer and I don't have any offspring and never will - do you think I should have a say in the way schools are organised based on MY strongly held beliefs.

Actually, yes, I do. You're a citizen of the State aren't you? Of course you should have your say in the running of our education system and you should have a say in the way schools are organised!

Until such time that the state accrues so much tax income that can be spent on schooling that provides for every ethos of every parent in the land then I'm afraid your out of luck. And how horrible it would be to have every parents views catered for, Muslims sent to Islamic school, protestants sent to protestant schools. And why stop there, blacks sent to black schools - well why not, if the tax paying black parents demand their offspring being sent there. Why restrict parents wishes only on ethos?

Well if that's what you would like, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I would however, be opposed to any attempts to deny funding the education of children for any particular reason. If parents want a particular type of education for their children, well, as I suggested earlier - have at it! But try and deny me the type of education I would want for my child? Yeah, that's not going to happen.

This 'going against your conscience' malarkey does not hold any more weight that someone simply having a point of view and I'm sick and tired hearing that expression. A cynical tactic to use emotive language in an attempt to have it all their own way.

Might want to take that up with Atheist Ireland tbh.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Actually, yes, I do. You're a citizen of the State aren't you? Of course you should have your say in the running of our education system and you should have a say in the way schools are organised

Right so, since my opinion and tax contributions are equal to yours then I think that no school should have any kind of ethos and all subjects should be delivered to students based on verified facts only.

In my opinion young children should be taught in lessons about the abstract idea of religion, the various flavors of religion, the particular ethos's of those religions and the fundamental differences between those religions beliefs and so forth.

Would you have any objection to your offspring being exposed to an ethos that is counter to yours in the interest of education ? Or would you prefer that yours don't actually get an education at all and just hear a one sided view.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I can see why it's maddening if I were in your position HD, and of course I acknowledge that I don't have a problem with the patronage system as it is given that it happens to work not just in my favour, but in favour of 90% of the population.

Now, can you acknowledge what I would see as madness in trying to argue that 10% of the population should control 90% of an education system that would be totally inadequate for 90% of the population?

What is this 90% you keep talking about OEJ? The figures you provided yourself show only 60% of children identifying as RC. And even that figure includes children who have been baptised solely to get into schools (whether their parents are right or wrong in thinking this is necessary). https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Statistics/Primary-Online-Database-POD-/

You are conflating the 90% of schools run by the church with the 60(ish)% of children identifying as RC.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course I can see why it's maddening if I were in your position HD, and of course I acknowledge that I don't have a problem with the patronage system as it is given that it happens to work not just in my favour, but in favour of 90% of the population.

Now, can you acknowledge what I would see as madness in trying to argue that 10% of the population should control 90% of an education system that would be totally inadequate for 90% of the population?

What on earth makes you think 90% of the population are in favour of the existing education system? If you are suggesting that because someone self-identifies as Catholic that they wish the Catholic church to run our most important state funded institutions, you're obviously mistaken as illustrated by the recent NMH debacle. Similarly if you think all those self identifying as Catholic would like a Catholic ethos education you're also mistaken, given that the majority of those attending ET schools are Catholic where in all cases there is an alternative Catholic ethos school available.

The bottom line, as I've repeated several times now, is that we don't really know what type of education Ireland's parents wants for their children as we haven't asked them, or taken time to properly understand all the options. I don't doubt that very many parents want a gender segregated religious ethos education for their kids, but similarly very many clearly do not. Breaking this down 90%/10% is an utter nonsense.

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

Right so, since my opinion and tax contributions are equal to yours then I think that no school should have any kind of ethos and all subjects should be delivered to students based on verified facts only.

In my opinion young children should be taught in lessons about the abstract idea of religion, the various flavors of religion, the particular ethos's of those religions and the fundamental differences between those religions beliefs and so forth.

If that's what you want, then if you're not doing something about it already, I'd respectfully suggest you might want to get on that.

Would you have any objection to your offspring being exposed to an ethos that is counter to yours in the interest of education ? Or would you prefer that yours don't actually get an education at all and just hear a one sided view.

When you say counter, do you mean anti-religious? If so, then yes, I'd have an issue exposing him to that as I don't believe it would be any way educational for him (it's mostly stuff about sky fairies, pasta and 2edgy4u, angry bastard neckbeard type nonsense). If you mean atheism, I've actually encouraged him to explore the idea for himself, kinda ends very abruptly though when it's simply - there is no god. I've encouraged him to dig a bit deeper to understand the history and philosophy of atheism, as I believe it's good to actually educate himself on these topics. But for his formal education, I prefer that he receives an education in line with my religious beliefs. My wife wanted it for him as much as I did even though she couldn't be less interested in religion herself (she and her family are non-religious).

As an aside, the NCCA tried to introduce something similar to what you're talking about in the form of an ERB curriculum... it didn't go down well, with any of the stakeholders in primary education.

looksee wrote: »

What is this 90% you keep talking about OEJ?

...

You are conflating the 90% of schools run by the church with the 60(ish)% of children identifying as RC.

smacl wrote: »

What on earth makes you think 90% of the population are in favour of the existing education system?

...

The bottom line, as I've repeated several times now, is that we don't really know what type of education Ireland's parents wants for their children as we haven't asked them, or taken time to properly understand all the options. I don't doubt that very many parents want a gender segregated religious ethos education for their kids, but similarly very many clearly do not. Breaking this down 90%/10% is an utter nonsense.

The bottom line is that I'm solely using the figure that 90% of the schools in Ireland are under the patronage of religious orders, and I'm even being generous in surmising that 10% of the population have argued for an alternative. AllForIt seems to be suggesting that they'd be... all for it, but this is the thing - it's one thing to say you would want a different type of education, it's quite another when you actually have to do something to make that a reality.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The bottom line is that I'm solely using the figure that 90% of the schools in Ireland are under the patronage of religious orders, and I'm even being generous in surmising that 10% of the population have argued for an alternative. AllForIt seems to be suggesting that they'd be... all for it, but this is the thing - it's one thing to say you would want a different type of education, it's quite another when you actually have to do something to make that a reality.

Because 90% of schools are catholic, it therefore follows that 90% of parents are happy with that?

That doesn't follow. Neither does your insistence that because few people are actively trying to set up these schools means that there is few people unhappy with the situation.
In my case, my mother has explicitly told me that she didn't want to send me to a Catholic school when I was younger and had she had a choice I would have gone to an Educate Together school or similar. And that while my school had a school like that at the time it was too far from our house to be a viable option. Nor could she try to organise a movement to establish a new secular school because both of my parents worked and simply didn't have time.

Your point seems to mean that my mother and people in similar situations are in favour of Catholic patronage, which is just funny.

If 90% are so concerned with the Catholic ethos, how come 90% of Ireland's population aren't in mass every Sunday?

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

Because 90% of schools are catholic, it therefore follows that 90% of parents are happy with that?

I'm not putting forward the argument that they're happy or unhappy with it. I'm putting forward the argument that they haven't acted to change it.

That doesn't follow. Neither does your insistence that because few people are actively trying to set up these schools means that there is few people unhappy with the situation.
In my case, my mother has explicitly told me that she didn't want to send me to a Catholic school when I was younger and had she had a choice I would have gone to an Educate Together school or similar. And that while my school had a school like that at the time it was too far from our house to be a viable option. Nor could she try to organise a movement to establish a new secular school because both of my parents worked and simply didn't have time.

This year, because of the sibling rule in their admissions policies, my child didn't get into two Catholic schools I had applied for, I had considered private school as an alternative, and the other alternative was a school 25 miles away. He was more in favour of the school 25 miles away so we went with that option.

If 90% are so concerned with the Catholic ethos, how come 90% of Ireland's population aren't in mass every Sunday?

I'm not suggesting that 90% of Irelands population are concerned with the Catholic ethos (even given the evidence of parents I've met who say themselves they aren't religious, but they still want their children to make their Communion/Confirmation, and they cause war when they feel their children are unprepared and lay the blame on the school). I'm suggesting that they aren't interested in doing anything to suggest they are all that interested in alternatives. As for why they aren't in mass every Sunday, I would suggest they don't see the two different things as related.

recedite

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2017-05-18a.157
"Question declared lost" by 90 to 43 votes.
I presume that is the end of the road for that particular bill, although the vote is described as a failed "motion".

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not putting forward the argument that they're happy or unhappy with it. I'm putting forward the argument that they haven't acted to change it.

Which is nonsense, clearly because it's not true.
There are tons of people out there actively trying to change it. From people trying to change in on the government level to people trying to help set up new secular schools.
However not everyone has the time, money and resources to do this themselves.

Similarly, the Catholic church has had a monopoly on education for the last few generations, and that takes time to change, so you pretending that it's something that is easy is more nonsense.

So if you are not using this 90% figure to show that 90% of people are ok with the situation, what does it prove exactly?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This year, because of the sibling rule in their admissions policies, my child didn't get into two Catholic schools I had applied for, I had considered private school as an alternative, and the other alternative was a school 25 miles away. He was more in favour of the school 25 miles away so we went with that option.

Well bully for you that that's a viable option in your case.
That doesn't hold up for everyone.
Sometimes it comes down to a choice between ethos and practicality. A lot of the time is that practicality wins out.
So we are arguing that this should not be a choice people have to make at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm suggesting that they aren't interested in doing anything to suggest they are all that interested in alternatives.

Which is again, nonsense of the highest order.
Not everyone has the time and resources to campaign or set up new schools.
Not everyone has the option of viable, affordable alternatives.
The only reason Catholic school have such a huge share is because they are legacy schools that have been around for decades and the church, a rich powerful multinational organisation, has a vested interest in maintaining that share.

People are interested in alternatives, we just don't know how many because the population has never been asked. Your method of determining it is flawed and biased and lazy.

How exactly do you explain the huge over-subscribing Educate Together schools receive?

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

Which is nonsense, clearly because it's not true.
There are tons of people out there actively trying to change it. From people trying to change in on the government level to people trying to help set up new secular schools.
However not everyone has the time, money and resources to do this themselves.

That's why I said I was being generous with the 10% that are actively doing something to change it.

Similarly, the Catholic church has had a monopoly on education for the last few generations, and that takes time to change, so you pretending that it's something that is easy is more nonsense.

I never pretended it was something easy, would you stop putting words in my mouth? You're also ignoring the fact that only a couple of generations ago, Catholics in this country were denied an education, until enough of them acted to change it. When enough people act to change the current status of our education system to an alternative model of education, then you'll have every reason to tell me my rationale is nonsense.

Well bully for you that that's a viable option in your case.
That doesn't hold up for everyone.
Sometimes it comes down to a choice between ethos and practicality. A lot of the time is that practicality wins out.
So we are arguing that this should not be a choice people have to make at all.

What you're arguing, is that the choice shouldn't be available to them. You want to reverse the current situation to limit the majority to a model of education of your choosing. You're arguing about impracticalities while arguing from your minority position that the majority want what you want...

That sounds reasonable to you?

How exactly do you explain the huge over-subscribing Educate Together schools receive?

Partly anti-religious brigade, partly people more interested in an informal, liberal education, partly Irish people wanting to avoid immigrants and lower class in the Catholic schools, partly because there's actually so few of them. They're an alternative, just not a very popular one.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why I said I was being generous with the 10% that are actively doing something to change it.

Unless you can provide some hard references, this appears to be an arbitrary number you've plucked out of the air with no basis in fact. The fact that 90% of our children attend Catholic ethos schools can't in anyway be construed as a matter of choice because, for the vast majority, they have no choice.

Partly anti-religious brigade, partly people more interested in an informal, liberal education, partly Irish people wanting to avoid immigrants and lower class in the Catholic schools, partly because there's actually so few of them. They're an alternative, just not a very popular one.

You left out those who simply don't want the Catholic church involved in running state funded institutions, those who had a very bad first hand experience of the Catholic school system under the brothers and nuns, and most importantly those who simply see ET as the best educational choice for their kids. While you may not be aware of it, there are very many Irish people who consider their own schooling to have been absolutely brutal and want better for their children. Ask a few people of my generation (early 50s) what they though of the brothers and nuns and I can promise you'll get some very colourful language in response.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why I said I was being generous with the 10% that are actively doing something to change it.

Generous is one word. Disingenuous is a more accurate one.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When enough people act to change the current status of our education system to an alternative model of education, then you'll have every reason to tell me my rationale is nonsense.

It's nonsense because you are declaring that there's no interest (despite evidence to the contrary) because the status quo is the status quo...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're arguing about impracticalities while arguing from your minority position that the majority want what you want...

That sounds reasonable to you?

I've yet to see anything to suggest that the majority want catholic control of education.
Right now the majority of people don't have a choice as it stands.

Maybe the government should look into the actual desires of the people?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

. They're an alternative, just not a very popular one.

Ignoring your rash generalisations, how can they be oversubscribed yet unpopular?

Eyes Down Field

I'm all for freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. When it comes to schools. I believe there should be a religion class that teaches kids about all religions in general and no religion. Get rid of all the pressure of established Catholic rituals by removing confession, communion and confirmation. This can be done in Sunday school classes, through the church. There is no need to do it in school

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Unless you can provide some hard references, this appears to be an arbitrary number you've plucked out of the air with no basis in fact. The fact that 90% of our children attend Catholic ethos schools can't in anyway be construed as a matter of choice because, for the vast majority, they have no choice.

It's simply not true to say people have no choice. They do. 100% of parents have a choice in whether or not to have their children enrolled in Catholic schools, and even now I meet people operating under the misguided belief that they have to have their children baptised in order to be admitted to Catholic schools (if I were to be so cynical, I would suggest it was far more likely they just enjoy the spotlight being on them for once, and the excuse about getting the child into school into the Catholic school is merely a poor justification effort. I keep that judgement to myself though).

You left out those who simply don't want the Catholic church involved in running state funded institutions, those who had a very bad first hand experience of the Catholic school system under the brothers and nuns, and most importantly those who simply see ET as the best educational choice for their kids.

I'm not forgetting them, that's why I made a distinction between people who are anti-Catholic and people who prefer a more informal, liberal education, as opposed to a more formal, conservative Catholic education. This is why I said yesterday that in terms of education, one offers no advantages over the other, they're just different.

While you may not be aware of it, there are very many Irish people who considered their own schooling to be absolutely brutal and want better for their children. Ask a few people of my generation (early 50s) what they though of the brothers and nuns and I can promise you'll get some very colourful language in response.

Of course I'm aware of it. Most of my relatives on my mothers side of the family, including my mother, are all teachers and educators, and I've talked to plenty of people of your generation and the generation before yours who had both good and bad to say about the brothers and the nuns. I wouldn't be willing to tar them all with the same brush that they were fundamentalist fcukwits. Even my own mother bless her has mellowed out in her old age, although that could also be a consequence of the fact that my father is no longer around to join forces in inflicting intolerable cruelty upon their children. It could be any number of reasons really.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's simply not true to say people have no choice. They do. 100% of parents have a choice in whether or not to have their children enrolled in Catholic schools

Rubbish, for most people in this state the only choice offered for a state funded school education is a Catholic school. This is regardless of their preference, and even if there is a local ET school it will be oversubscribed and the chances of getting a place aren't great. The choice for most people is a Catholic school or home schooling. We've a few friends going through this at the moment who are sickened by the lack of any viable non-Catholic ethos option.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish, for most people in this state the only choice offered for a state funded school education is a Catholic school. This is regardless of their preference, and even if there is a local ET school it will be oversubscribed and the chances of getting a place aren't great. The choice for most people is a Catholic school or home schooling. We've a few friends going through this at the moment who are sickened by the lack of any viable non-Catholic ethos option.

So they have a choice, but they're complaining about the lack of options and alternatives. I was sickened too a couple of weeks ago when I found out our child didn't get a place in two of the local Catholic schools we wanted. There were a number of alternatives, and there were advantages and disadvantages to each, such as our child staying with my wife and enrolling in the Catholic secondary school in her area, or sticking with the school he got a place in which would have meant if he were to stay with my wife he would have had to travel 50 miles there and 50 miles back home.

We decided that he would stay with me during school term as he would have to travel less, and while it's not ideal for any of us, it's a choice, and there were alternatives. Home schooling is actually gaining in popularity in recent years, so I wouldn't suggest anyone write the idea off completely. It might even make politicians sit up and take notice as opposed to having serious issues put forward for debate by a pack of muppets.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So they have a choice

They don't have a choice when it comes to availing of the state funded school education promised them under our constitution. Home schooling, fee paying schools, and travelling significant distances to get to a school cannot be considered reasonable viable alternatives in this context, on the basis that the system should be equitable to all and many people will not have the wherewithal to avail of these alternatives.

We decided that he would stay with me during school term as he would have to travel less, and while it's not ideal for any of us, it's a choice, and there were alternatives. Home schooling is actually gaining in popularity in recent years, so I wouldn't suggest anyone write the idea off completely.

The school my child attends has children from all over the world, quite an eclectic mixture of ethnicities, cultures, languages and beliefs. It's far more diverse than the local ET school which is oversubscribed with Irish parents hoping to have their children enrolled in the school so they can avoid the lower class plebs and the foreigner blow-ins. There ain't a whole lot of diversity going on there!

That's some home-school you've got running there OEJ.

One eyed Jack

smacl wrote: »

They don't have a choice when it comes to availing of the state funded school education promised them under our constitution. Home schooling, fee paying schools, and travelling significant distances to get to a school cannot be considered reasonable viable alternatives in this context, on the basis that the system should be equitable to all and many people will not have the wherewithal to avail of these alternatives.

To the best of my knowledge, by all means feel free to correct me, but the Irish Constitution doesn't guarantee any parents a place for their child in a school of their choosing.

That's some home-school you've got running there OEJ.

We chose an alternative to home schooling (again it has it's advantages and disadvantages).


EDIT: I think I see where you're coming from now. Perhaps I should explain that my wife and I recently separated, so he's staying with her at the moment while he finishes primary school and comes in and out the 25 miles every day. When he didn't get a place in the secondary schools that were our first choice, the alternative was private boarding school, or the school 25 miles away from me, and 50 miles away from his mother, hence we decided he would stay with me for the school term, and spend the weekends and holidays with his mother.

Like I said, it's not ideal, but we're hoping it works out and we believe we're acting in his best interests.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

So they have a choice, but they're complaining about the lack of options and alternatives.

And if parents aren't able to home school due to lack of time, resources or training? Tough ****?

So it's catholic school or nothing?
Excellent choices. I'm sure everyone's just fine with that because you are...

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

And if parents aren't able to home school due to lack of time, resources or training? Tough ****?

So it's catholic school or nothing?
Excellent choices. I'm sure everyone's just fine with that because you are...

And your alternative is what exactly? Because any alternative that made my choices more difficult, you wouldn't be long saying tough shìt, but I won't.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And your alternative is what exactly? Because any alternative that made my choices more difficult, you wouldn't be long saying tough sh?t, but I won't.

The alternative is to make religious ethos not an issue for schools at all and allow parents to pursue religious education on their own terms.

Again, you get your choice. Don't pretend that everyone gets to have a fair choice or are happy with the situation.

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

The alternative is to make religious ethos not an issue for schools at all and allow parents to pursue religious education on their own terms.

Again, you get your choice. Don't pretend that everyone gets to have a fair choice or are happy with it situation, no one is going to buy that.

I already said, on numerous occasions, time and time again, that I would have no issue with people who wanted to petition Government to provide more choices for parents in the education of their children. The ET model of education isn't for me, but I would never deny anyone else that choice for their children. I would expect that rather than try and tell me that they know what is best for my child, they would confine their arguments to arguing what is best for their children.

Don't insult me by trying to sell me a system which I don't want either.