Quotas on Catholic primary schools for non-Catholic children

[St Disibod]

Semantics? If the net result that a child who for every other reason would get into the school (next on the waiting list, of suffcient mental capacity etc.) would be turned down in 'preference' of the next child of religious parents then the distinction doesn't matter, does it?

[...]

Again there is no distinction if the net result is that a child is turned away from a school based on the religion of their parents.

Hold on there. A school cannot pass over a student because they lack, as you put it, "sufficient mental capacity." I am more familiar with the rigging of the secondary school context, but there is a lot of fobbing-off of these students, subtly done so as not to bring the Department knocking on the door, by most schools onto community and comprehensive ones. It's a bone of contention of mine, so I'm unlikely to let it pass. Special needs students are applicable for additional resources- if schools say they don't have the resources it is because they have not applied (not due to governmental tight-fistedness).

As for charges of semantics, triffling differences and net-results; I don't agree with you. Yes the net-result might be the same, but look at this from the position of the school patron and not citizen Joe. Or to abstract it, imagine a GAA club or a business with a campus like Intel set up a school. Do you not think they would have a right to prioritise the children of their own members/workers, only taking in additional children if there were not enough children belonging to those members/workers to fill all the places? I think they should have that right- generally they have provided the land and they always provide the administration (patrons that is, not the GAA or Intel).

I agree that the government's solution to schooling of non-catholics is abhorrent. I don't think it is for the church to do anything about the status quo. The state is directly contributing to the baptising of children into the Catholic by parents who have no intention of bringing them up in the faith. I don't understand why BEardyboy is not up in arms about the wanton dilution of the Catholic faith. More and more the 1st communion and the confirmation is becoming about the 'day out' and not about the faith. There seems to be a trade off for quanitity and not quality.

Indeed, another one of my bones of contention.

here[/url]) I]And you have good reason to be frustrated. I can never understand these types of requirements. A certificate of baptism? Surely a parishioner will be known to the relevant priest, or if they have recently moved they could get a reference from their previous one. If one requires a certificate you are in fact admitting that such a congregation’s religious adherence is threadbare and meaningless in any spiritual sense.

I know of several incidences somewhat akin to this where people have gotten baptised one or two months before getting married just so they can have the wedding in a church. I do not fully understand why, if you have not felt bothered to get baptised so far, you would want to have your wedding in a church. I can only assume it’s for the aesthetic affect and surroundings, or perhaps not to shame the grandparents or something.

It seems to me that the ethos promoted by religious bodies is far more threatened by this ‘grey membership’ than by actual opponents of the Churches or aggressive secularists. Several of my friends from other religions- one Muslim and one Hindu in particular come to mind- have equated what they see in Irish society as being Christian (a fair assumption given that Ireland is a supposedly Christian country). After having those conversations I got thinking how different the Churches’ images might be if people were able to actually differentiate between active participants and the dormant or transitory ones. I don’t mean to suggest that weekly church-goers are automatically better people but I do think that on a generalised basis they are more involved in their communities and more charitable (certainly the academic research coming from the US would reinforce this perception). I myself would certainly have more time for a committed atheist, or indeed a committed agnostic (I don’t quite agree with Richard Dawkins’ charges of namby pambyism), than for a nominally declared Roman Catholic who doesn’t pay the slightest bit of attention to Catholic doctrine. I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘all or nothing,’ but I do think there are certain minimum standards that should be adhered to and that are quite frankly are not being adhered to by a significant number. When the lens outsiders see a Church through consists of a bunch of members unapologetically flaunting its values one cannot be surprised when it fails to grow.

In this context I think it would make far more sense for the various Churches with schools to set aside a smaller number of places for those pupils who are actually engaging with the parish, and to stop the charade and simply have an application process whereby no one has to partake is a masquerade ball of devotional mimicry to fill the rest of the places. For those students outside of the parish the nature of the religious education and ethos should be made clear to their parents, and perhaps a certain fee could be requested. It would simply be more honest and above board, and in the better interests of all those concerned.

I think that your fears are quite unfounded. It is inherent in schools, by the simple fact that children have parents who care about them, that there will be community involvement- the community of the parents. Also, I think that non-demoninational schools are a better model for community involvement: in many ways, with people of many faiths and none it could be argued that Educate Together schools have a far richer and deeper community spirit than your typical preferenial religious school.

But the new programme is not on a par with Educate Together Schools. They operate like the denominational ones- locally set-up and administered. The new schools will be state-run; I assume the Minister will be patron, and so the Department will look after the administration. Unlike Educate Together Schools, the community element has been scooped out.

[Ronanr]

"Special needs students are applicable for additional resources- if schools say they don't have the resources it is because they have not applied (not due to governmental tight-fistedness)."

Hmm... i suspect that THAT is one statement that might not go unchallenged if there are any teachers reading.

[St Disibod]

"Special needs students are applicable for additional resources- if schools say they don't have the resources it is because they have not applied (not due to governmental tight-fistedness)."

Hmm... i suspect that THAT is one statement that might not go unchallenged if there are any teachers reading.

Sorry, I should clarify.

You might hold that the resources on offer are not adequate, and justifiably so.

What I was getting at is that the same resources are available to every school. So, if parents with a special needs child are told "well, you see, we're not really kitted out for that sort of thing, but the community school sown the road..."; it's not the case that this is a consequence Departmental policy. It is a consequence of individual school policy- one is taking in students and applying for funding while the other is fobbing them off.

[Ronanr]

Perhaps the solution is for the Dept. of Ed. to make it worth a school's while to take on a special needs student?

After all, if a school knows that it will be put through a nightmate of bureaucracy to get the special needs support the child is due, how can one blame them for trying to shirk their duty?

But if the Dept. was prompt and generous with their money, perhaps that mindset would change?

[beardyboy]

I agree that the government's solution to schooling of non-catholics is abhorrent. I don't think it is for the church to do anything about the status quo. The state is directly contributing to the baptising of children into the Catholic by parents who have no intention of bringing them up in the faith. I don't understand why BEardyboy is not up in arms about the wanton dilution of the Catholic faith. More and more the 1st communion and the confirmation is becoming about the 'day out' and not about the faith. There seems to be a trade off for quanitity and not quality.

I have not said anything as it never came up - but it has now

I am happy to see children being baptised though at times I waver about this stance.

Communion and confirmation fashion parades are an abomination. people forget why they are there. I would be happier if the children recieve these sacraments in their school uniforms, parading from the school to the church to avoid the big cars. The present situation is terrible.

[secularireland]

"Special needs students are applicable for additional resources- if schools say they don't have the resources it is because they have not applied (not due to governmental tight-fistedness)."

Hmm... i suspect that THAT is one statement that might not go unchallenged if there are any teachers reading.

Sorry, I should clarify.

You might hold that the resources on offer are not adequate, and justifiably so.

What I was getting at is that the same resources are available to every school. So, if parents with a special needs child are told "well, you see, we're not really kitted out for that sort of thing, but the community school sown the road..."; it's not the case that this is a consequence Departmental policy. It is a consequence of individual school policy- one is taking in students and applying for funding while the other is fobbing them off.

Firstly, when I said sufficient mental capacity I meant that a child is below the level to be schooled normally. As far as 'special needs' students go the situation is an utter disgrace. My wife worked in a school that did not get, or got very litte, funding for special needs students. Another school in the area got funding but had a policy of activitely turning away special needs students, so my wife's school took all these children, without the funding.

[Ronanr]

funding for special needs students. Another school in the area got funding but had a policy of activitely turning away special needs students, so my wife's school took all these children, without the funding.

Why did this happen?

Why would the authorities in your wife's school be stupid enough to get themselves into this unfortunate situation?

[MVOR]

Perhaps the state should just take over all the church owned schools. We are paying for the compensation the church should be paying. Then get rid of religion out of all the schools. A wourld without religion would be a world of peace. Every war has been because of Religious beliefs.

[DSCH]

Perhaps the state should just take over all the church owned schools. We are paying for the compensation the church should be paying. Then get rid of religion out of all the schools. A wourld without religion would be a world of peace. Every war has been because of Religious beliefs.

Like the Peloponnesian war, the Punic Wars, The Napoleonic wars, the German-Soviet war, the Vietnam War etc.

Perhaps you meant vanity and ideology where you said religion.

[MVOR]

No I mean religion. Just look at the Muslims who are bombing in the name of Allah.