Religion and Admissions forum

yoganinja

Not sure if anyone else here was at Croke Park today. If you were there - what did you think of event?

looksee

I wasn't, and from what I have gleaned I am not sure it is all that relevant or significant, but I would be interested in knowing what the general feeling was and what you got from it?

yoganinja

yoganinja wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else here was at Croke Park today. If you were there - what did you think of event?

I think it was fairly stage managed - limited options presented, the break out groups were not much use, v little time, poor facilitation (in mine anyway)
There was an overwhelming presence from vested interests , lots and lots of dog collars, primarily from minority faiths

Thought the q and a session was a little more fractious than dept and Minister expected and again not particularly well facilitated /moderated

Hotblack Desiato

Judging by Bruton's public statements the outcome is pre-determined anyway.

He is anxious that the 'rights of minority faiths are protected' blah blah

Well for starters nobody has a human, legal or constitutional right to set up an indoctrination factory disguised as a school and insist the Irish state funds it because religion.

As for minority faiths - he means mainstream Protestants. Other minority faiths don't run schools in Ireland (apart from a mere handful of schools) and what about the rights of the non-religious - do they enter into his consideration at all?

It's still perfectly legal for a school to prioritise not just their own religion, but any form of christianity, or even any non-christian belief, above the children of non-believers. The non-denominational schools are far too few in number to begin to redress the balance, and anyway as a matter of policy are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

So we have a system which largely favours catholics, massively favours protestants out of all proportion to their numbers, treats other religions slightly favourably and treats non-belief very disfavourably.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's still perfectly legal for a school to prioritise not just their own religion, but any form of christianity, or even any non-christian belief, above the children of non-believers. The non-denominational schools are far too few in number to begin to redress the balance, and anyway as a matter of policy are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.
So we have a system which largely favours catholics, massively favours protestants out of all proportion to their numbers, treats other religions slightly favourably and treats non-belief very disfavourably.

Of course it's also perfectly legal for non-denom schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in the way that denom schools do, and denom schools could choose not to, just as non-denom schools choose not to, so as far as being 'allowed' goes, it's a level playing field.

And really, we don't so much have a system that favours catholics or protestants as we have participants in a system who are catholics and protestants. In fact, that's their reason for participating in the system; to provide for catholics and protestants. Minority views can (now) also participate in that system; whether people choose to redress that balance (or at least proportionality) I think will depend on the people themselves.

yoganinja

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Judging by Bruton's public statements the outcome is pre-determined anyway.

He is anxious that the 'rights of minority faiths are protected' blah blah

Well for starters nobody has a human, legal or constitutional right to set up an indoctrination factory disguised as a school and insist the Irish state funds it because religion.

As for minority faiths - he means mainstream Protestants. Other minority faiths don't run schools in Ireland (apart from a mere handful of schools) and what about the rights of the non-religious - do they enter into his consideration at all?

It's still perfectly legal for a school to prioritise not just their own religion, but any form of christianity, or even any non-christian belief, above the children of non-believers. The non-denominational schools are far too few in number to begin to redress the balance, and anyway as a matter of policy are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

So we have a system which largely favours catholics, massively favours protestants out of all proportion to their numbers, treats other religions slightly favourably and treats non-belief very disfavourably.

Some of the language used by the minister and dept around these "rights" was interesting - a number of times during the presentations/speech the link
Between ethos and admission policy was challenged or certainly questioned in the context of legal changes that appear to be in the cards for 7(3) c .
The other interesting concept was a push by dept /minister for vested bodies to accept that their desired outcome was perhaps not going to happen - status quo is not an option was stated more than once and they were urged to look at what their next "least worse option" was

Michael Nugent

Absolam wrote: »

Of course it's also perfectly legal for non-denom schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in the way that denom schools do,

No, it's not. It is only schools with a religious ethos that are legally allowed to discriminate. Schools that do not have a religious ethos are not legally allowed to discriminate.

Absolam wrote: »

and denom schools could choose not to, just as non-denom schools choose not to, so as far as being 'allowed' goes, it's a level playing field.

Again, no it's not. And it shouldn't be down to choice anyway. State-funded schools should not be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

Absolam wrote: »

And really, we don't so much have a system that favours catholics or protestants as we have participants in a system who are catholics and protestants. In fact, that's their reason for participating in the system; to provide for catholics and protestants.

No, we have a system that explicitly favours religious bodies, by giving them - and only them - exemptions from our equality laws and employment laws when they are running state-funded schools.

Absolam wrote: »

Minority views can (now) also participate in that system; whether people choose to redress that balance (or at least proportionality) I think will depend on the people themselves.

Minority groups can't participate in that system. The State will only fund new schools in certain areas, and won't fund new schools in most areas.

And even if it did, ordinary citizens should not be expected to start a new school to avoid the State discriminating against them on the grounds of religion in the provision of an essential public service.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Of course it's also perfectly legal for non-denom schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in the way that denom schools do...

AFAIK the exemption to equality law is only open to schools with a religious ethos, therefore that would not be legal.
Thankfully though, nobody is calling for religious discrimination to be legalised in non-religious schools.

Absolam

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, it's not. It is only schools with a religious ethos that are legally allowed to discriminate. Schools that do not have a religious ethos are not legally allowed to discriminate. Again, no it's not. And it shouldn't be down to choice anyway. State-funded schools should not be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion.

Actually, schools whose objective is to provide education in an environment which promotes 'certain religious values' are the ones legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, so I'd say a non religious school which sets out it's ethos as say, doctrinal secularism, asserting a right to be free from religious rule and teaching, demonstrates it holds 'certain religious values' (specifically, being anti or irreligious) and can avail of that facility to discriminate. I'll happily agree that's a very careful construal of the legislation, but it is an equitable one, which if someone (I don't know who might) were to object before a Court, I think it would be difficult to find that certain religious values are acceptable to the legislation, and other certain religious values are not, especially given that the legislation is intended to permit parental choice rather than restrict it. I wouldn't be so quick to place such a constraint on the law.
As to whether State funded schools should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion, that's a matter of opinion. It has obviously been held that discriminating on the basis of religion in order to preserve a religious character is necessary to facilitate a parents Constitutional rights with regard to education, hence the provision in law. My own view is that should necessarily hold true for irreligious character as much as religious character.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, we have a system that explicitly favours religious bodies, by giving them - and only them - exemptions from our equality laws and employment laws when they are running state-funded schools. Minority groups can't participate in that system. The State will only fund new schools in certain areas, and won't fund new schools in most areas.

Well, you have swapped catholics and protestents for religious bodies, which kind of undermines the point, and the point wasn't even whether they were exempted from legislation, but that our system doesn't, contrary to Hotblacks assertion "largely favour catholics, massively favour protestants out of all proportion to their numbers, treat other religions slightly favourably and treat non-belief very disfavourably", so I don't think you're offering anything contrary to my disagreement. Even so, religious bodies aren't exempted from the legislation either, are they? The derogation allows schools whose objective is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values to prefer students of a denomination according with those values. Which arguably could allow a secular school to prefer secular students, if we allow a secular ethos to be one which is overtly ir-religious or anti-religious.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And even if it did, ordinary citizens should not be expected to start a new school to avoid the State discriminating against them on the grounds of religion in the provision of an essential public service.

Perhaps not, but if ordinary citizens choose to provide a particular education to their children which is different to to that being provided by other citizens, I don't see why the State should provide for their choice any more (or less) than it does for everyone else's.

King Mob

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps not, but if ordinary citizens choose to provide a particular education to their children which is different to to that being provided by other citizens, I don't see why the State should provide for their choice any more (or less) than it does for everyone else's.

But this assumes that the majority of people would choose a Catholic ethos if given a fair and equal choice, but we've yet to see anything to back this assumption up since the majority of people are not offered viable choices at all.

Absolam

King Mob wrote: »

But this assumes that the majority of people would choose a Catholic ethos if given a fair and equal choice, but we've yet to see anything to back this assumption up since the majority of people are not offered viable choices at all.

No not at all, I'm not speculating about what people would do if offered a choice between options provided by other people, I'm saying that people who choose to provide one ethos should be given equal support to those who provide another ethos, no more and no less.

If people only want to choose from options other provide (and I've no doubt that many, even most, do) I don't think the State is (or should be) obliged to provide variety, only obliged to provide for variety. Right now I think many of us agree there is insufficient variety, but disagree as to how greater variety ought to be achieved. There are outliers, I'm sure, who would rather see no variety at all, rather a State controlled and operated education ethos wholly in line with their own view, which to my mind is what the current Constitutional provisions are supposed to protect us against.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, schools whose objective is to provide education in an environment which promotes 'certain religious values' are the ones legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, so a non religious school which sets out it's ethos as say, doctrinal secularism, asserting a right to be free from religious rule and teaching, demonstrates it holds 'certain religious values' (specifically, being anti or irreligious) and can avail of that facility to discriminate.

"doctrinal secularism" ?

Explain how this putative school you suggest could favour a particular denomination as per the legislation? This act is explicit in only allowing schools with a religious ethos to do this and no others

"where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school"

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

"doctrinal secularism" ? Explain how this putative school you suggest could favour a particular denomination as per the legislation? This act is explicit in only allowing schools with a religious ethos to do this and no others "where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school"

Doesn't appear to explicitly mention religious ethos there at all? I explained how above... if a person does not subscribe to the religious views of doctrinal secularism they are obviously not of the denomination that does, and may be excluded. I would say 'certain religious views' implicitly includes anti or ir religious views, so keeping religious proselytisers out would seem to be as essential to maintaining the ethos of such a school as keeping atheist proselytisers out of religious schools. Equitable.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Doesn't appear to explicitly mention religious ethos there at all? I explained how above... if a person does not subscribe to the religious views of doctrinal secularism they are obviously not of the denomination that does, and may be excluded. I would say 'certain religious views' implicitly includes anti or ir religious views, so keeping religious proselytisers out would seem to be as essential to maintaining the ethos of such a school as keeping atheist proselytisers out of religious schools. Equitable.

religious views of doctrinal secularism :eek:? what are you talking about?

The clause allows only for schools which "admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination"

Which particular religious denomination would this school without any religious view preference/ refuse to admit?

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

religious views of doctrinal secularism :eek:? what are you talking about?

Which bit is causing you problems? If you subscribe to an ethos that demands the subjugation of religion, even it's expungement from society, your view is defined by religion, it is characterised by it's opposition to religion, in the absence of religion it does not exist; it is a view of religion, it is a religious view. You can call it doctrinal secularism, you can call it yoganinjaism, whatever you like, it is a philosophy, ethos, perspective, whatever, with a religious view. Or even religious views, with a bit of effort.

yoganinja wrote: »

The clause allows only for schools which "admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student a person who is not of that denomination"
Which particular religious denomination would this school without any religious view preference/ refuse to admit?

Well, I'd say for starters this school does have a religious view. And any group that can be denominated solely by reference to a shared relationship with religion can, in the strictest (if not vernacular) sense, be termed a religious denomination; in this case the shared relationship is opposition to religion.

Interesting that of all the points above this is the one tickling your fancy. Can we hope you're considering opening a school?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Judging by Bruton's public statements the outcome is pre-determined anyway.

I didn't even need to be there and I could have told you that.

He is anxious that the 'rights of minority faiths are protected' blah blah

Well for starters nobody has a human, legal or constitutional right to set up an indoctrination factory disguised as a school and insist the Irish state funds it because religion.

They actually do though, because religion.

As for minority faiths - he means mainstream Protestants. Other minority faiths don't run schools in Ireland (apart from a mere handful of schools) and what about the rights of the non-religious - do they enter into his consideration at all?

Wouldn't that make them... a minority?

As for the rights of the non-religious, what specifically are you referring to? Who should take responsibility for educating the children of parents who are non-religious, who should fund the education of children of parents who would want that type of education for their children, or how should the State provide for education?

It's still perfectly legal for a school to prioritise not just their own religion, but any form of christianity, or even any non-christian belief, above the children of non-believers. The non-denominational schools are far too few in number to begin to redress the balance, and anyway as a matter of policy are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Isn't that what you want though?

There are no non-denom schools in Ireland btw so even suggesting there are too few is an overstatement.

So we have a system which largely favours catholics, massively favours protestants out of all proportion to their numbers, treats other religions slightly favourably and treats non-belief very disfavourably.

A cursory glance at the census and I'd say they were fairly on the ball. A look at the number of schools of each patron body and I'd say they were on the ball there too. A look at the number of parents and guardians of children who enrol their children and want to enrol their children in the various types of schools, and this is where it gets tricky because they will often enrol their children in a number the schools in the area regardless of the ethos of the school, because the ethos of the school is the least of their concerns, but I'd suggest they were there or thereabouts too.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

seem to be as essential to maintaining the ethos of such a school as keeping atheist proselytisers out of religious schools. Equitable.

Mod: Absolam, your insistence on talking about 'atheist proselytisers', and other references to the teaching of atheism is a complete red herring, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

Can you give any example of an atheist organisation trying to impose atheist values in Irish schools? No-one here is asking for that, or even suggesting it. All that is being sought is a secular school system, which as you well know is not the same thing at all.

Further attempts to base your arguments on these inaccurate representations of secularism and atheism will result in infractions for soapboxing.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Which bit is causing you problems? If you subscribe to an ethos that demands the subjugation of religion, even it's expungement from society, your view is defined by religion, it is characterised by it's opposition to religion, in the absence of religion it does not exist; it is a view of religion, it is a religious view. You can call it doctrinal secularism, you can call it yoganinjaism, whatever you like, it is a philosophy, ethos, perspective, whatever, with a religious view. Or even religious views, with a bit of effort.
Well, I'd say for starters this school does have a religious view. And any group that can be denominated solely by reference to a shared relationship with religion can, in the strictest (if not vernacular) sense, be termed a religious denomination; in this case the shared relationship is opposition to religion.

Interesting that of all the points above this is the one tickling your fancy. Can we hope you're considering opening a school?

What's with the "can we hope you're considering opening a school" question?

This thread is about the forum on admissions in schools and the role religion should play in them. Michael Nugent was absolutely right in correcting you about the role/function of 7(3)c - it applies only to schools who wish to discriminate against those not of a particular denomination in offering school places - nothing more, nothing less.

You can twist and turn words any which way you wish but in no-one's opinion other than yours is secularism a doctrine or a religious belief. Secularism (which is actually moot in this particular thread given that it specifically relates to denominational schools) is not the same as atheism, no-one that I've seen here is calling for atheist or anti-religious schools.

Have you any opinion on the possible options from the minister on addressing the role religion should play in the admissions process to schools?

Michael Nugent

Absolam wrote: »

Actually, schools whose objective is to provide education in an environment which promotes 'certain religious values' are the ones legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, so I'd say a non religious school which sets out it's ethos as say, doctrinal secularism, asserting a right to be free from religious rule and teaching, demonstrates it holds 'certain religious values' (specifically, being anti or irreligious) and can avail of that facility to discriminate. I'll happily agree that's a very careful construal of the legislation, but it is an equitable one, which if someone (I don't know who might) were to object before a Court, I think it would be difficult to find that certain religious values are acceptable to the legislation, and other certain religious values are not, especially given that the legislation is intended to permit parental choice rather than restrict it. I wouldn't be so quick to place such a constraint on the law.
As to whether State funded schools should be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion, that's a matter of opinion. It has obviously been held that discriminating on the basis of religion in order to preserve a religious character is necessary to facilitate a parents Constitutional rights with regard to education, hence the provision in law. My own view is that should necessarily hold true for irreligious character as much as religious character.

You are massively overcomplicating this, introducing eccentric meanings of words, instead of acknowledging that you were mistaken in your original claim.

Here's what you originally said:

"Of course it's also perfectly legal for non-denom schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in the way that denom schools do"

You were mistaken when you said that.

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

What's with the "can we hope you're considering opening a school" question?

It's a follow up on your interest in how a school might legally discriminate against religious students. Was there another reason you were interested?

yoganinja wrote: »

This thread is about the forum on admissions in schools and the role religion should play in them. Michael Nugent was absolutely right in correcting you about the role/function of 7(3)c - it applies only to schools who wish to discriminate against those not of a particular denomination in offering school places - nothing more, nothing less.

That's pretty much what I was saying too, the difference being that unlike yourself I don't think the derogation is explicitly restricted to schools with a religious ethos.

yoganinja wrote: »

You can twist and turn words any which way you wish but in no-one's opinion other than yours is secularism a doctrine or a religious belief. Secularism (which is actually moot in this particular thread given that it specifically relates to denominational schools) is not the same as atheism, no-one that I've seen here is calling for atheist or anti-religious schools.

I think you're missing the point of what I was saying so. I've certainly not said that secularism is a religious belief, though obviously it can be a doctrine, and is a view on religion. Nor have I said anyone is or should be calling for atheist or anti-religious schools; we were discussing a putative (in your own words) school availing of legislation to exclude religious views at odds with it's ethos.

yoganinja wrote: »

Have you any opinion on the possible options from the minister on addressing the role religion should play in the admissions process to schools?

I do, yes.
1. Seems sensible, both for religious and non religious schools, so long as the areas set out are in such a fashion as not to oblige a parent to send their children to a school type/ethos not of their choice.
2. Seems less sensible unless revised to allow particular ethos rather than particular religion.
3. Also could work, but I think would require some thought as to what limit exactly is necessary to ensure a school can maintain it's ethos.
4. Seems the furthest from plausible, since a prohibition would be at odds with the rights of parents.

Since you were present at the forum though, I'm sure you can tell us what was actually discussed with regard to the options, and maybe even venture your own opinion on how they were progressed?

Absolam

Michael Nugent wrote: »

You are massively overcomplicating this, introducing eccentric meanings of words, instead of acknowledging that you were mistaken in your original claim. Here's what you originally said: "Of course it's also perfectly legal for non-denom schools to discriminate on the basis of religion in the way that denom schools do" You were mistaken when you said that.

Well yes, I am complicating it; as I said, it's a careful construal, so to get there it needs some thought. The point being though, if a school can make the case that it is acting in accordance with the legislation, such discrimination is legal, and does not necessarily rely on the school having a positive association with religion.

To be clear, I don't favour the idea that one religious/philosphical view should be given legislative preference or advantage. If any school can prefer students who are aligned with it's ethos, no school should be prevented from preferring students aligned with it's ethos. And I do think that schools should be able to offer that preference, and that they should be provided for by the State.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

Well yes, I am complicating it; as I said, it's a careful construal, so to get there it needs some thought. The point being though, if a school can make the case that it is acting in accordance with the legislation, such discrimination is legal, and does not necessarily rely on the school having a positive association with religion.

To be clear, I don't favour the idea that one religious/philosphical view should be given legislative preference or advantage. If any school can prefer students who are aligned with it's ethos, no school should be prevented from preferring students aligned with it's ethos. And I do think that schools should be able to offer that preference, and that they should be provided for by the State.

Sorry your opinion appears to be maintain the status quo for denominational schools - retain 7(3)c and extend this right to schools "non"-denominational schools? Increase and expand discrimination ?
Well the minister/Dept has not been clear about much in this process but the one thing that he/they are absolutely clear about is that the status quo will not remain. Rentention of 7(3)c unaltered will not happen. And as for extending it to "non" denominational schools - it's been repeatedly explained that it is not possible to do this nor do any of the schools that currently not fall outside its provisions wish to

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

It's a follow up on your interest in how a school might legally discriminate against religious students. Was there another reason you were interested?
That's pretty much what I was saying too, the difference being that unlike yourself I don't think the derogation is explicitly restricted to schools with a religious ethos.
I think you're missing the point of what I was saying so. I've certainly not said that secularism is a religious belief, though obviously it can be a doctrine, and is a view on religion. Nor have I said anyone is or should be calling for atheist or anti-religious schools; we were discussing a putative (in your own words) school availing of legislation to exclude religious views at odds with it's ethos.
I do, yes.
1. Seems sensible, both for religious and non religious schools, so long as the areas set out are in such a fashion as not to oblige a parent to send their children to a school type/ethos not of their choice.
2. Seems less sensible unless revised to allow particular ethos rather than particular religion.
3. Also could work, but I think would require some thought as to what limit exactly is necessary to ensure a school can maintain it's ethos.
4. Seems the furthest from plausible, since a prohibition would be at odds with the rights of parents.

Since you were present at the forum though, I'm sure you can tell us what was actually discussed with regard to the options, and maybe even venture your own opinion on how they were progressed?

I posed the question not through interest /desire for such a school (spoiler: I don't favour the rights of any one discriminate against any child on the basis of religion in accessing publicly funded services) but more through a disbelief in you pursuing this line. Increasing the number of schools allowed to discriminate is a pretty strange way to combat discrimination - but then again maybe that's not what your aim is

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

Sorry your opinion appears to be maintain the status quo for denominational schools - retain 7(3)c and extend this right to schools "non"-denominational schools? Increase and expand discrimination ?

Appearances may be deceiving you I'm afraid My opinion was on how a school might make use of the legislation, not anything to do with a status quo at all!

yoganinja wrote: »

Well the minister/Dept has not been clear about much in this process but the one thing that he/they are absolutely clear about is that the status quo will not remain. Rentention of 7(3)c unaltered will not happen. And as for extending it to "non" denominational schools - it's been repeatedly explained that it is not possible to do this nor do any of the schools that currently not fall outside its provisions wish to

I didn't know anyone suggested to the Minister that 7(3)c should be extended, but are you saying that he has altered his position on the options he put forward?

yoganinja wrote: »

I posed the question not through interest /desire for such a school (spoiler: I don't favour the rights of any one discriminate against any child on the basis of religion in accessing publicly funded services) but more through a disbelief in you pursuing this line. Increasing the number of schools allowed to discriminate is a pretty strange way to combat discrimination - but then again maybe that's not what your aim is

I hope your disbelief is abated so. My feeling, as I said above, is that schools should have the facility to prefer students aligned with their ethos, and that no school be disbarred from doing so by their view of religion.

yoganinja

Absolam wrote: »

My feeling, as I said above, is that schools should have the facility to prefer students aligned with their ethos, and that no school be disbarred from doing so by their view of religion.

How is that anything other than continuation of 7(3)c for those that now chose to use it and an extension of it to those that currently don't

Absolam

yoganinja wrote: »

How is that anything other than continuation of 7(3)c for those that now chose to use it and an extension of it to those that currently don't

Well, it's in line with my endorsements of the Ministers proposed changes that I posted earlier, just for starters.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A cursory glance at the census and I'd say they were fairly on the ball.

You need to show the implication that nominal religion declared on the census is an indicator of preference for religious ethos schools. I'd suggest it is a non sequitur, as over half the places in Educate Together primary schools are taken up by Catholic children where in each case there is an option for a Catholic ethos alternative. This suggests a significant demand for non-religious schools among those who are nominally religious, which would fall in line with a growing distrust for religious involvement in any state funded institutions for obvious historical reasons.

A look at the number of schools of each patron body and I'd say they were on the ball there too. A look at the number of parents and guardians of children who enrol their children and want to enrol their children in the various types of schools, and this is where it gets tricky because they will often enrol their children in a number the schools in the area regardless of the ethos of the school, because the ethos of the school is the least of their concerns, but I'd suggest they were there or thereabouts too.

And even a cursory look at how much more oversubscribed ET schools are than their RCC counterparts would suggest this is far from true.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Judging by Bruton's public statements the outcome is pre-determined anyway.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn't even need to be there and I could have told you that.

That outcome was also predetermined!