Educate Together.
Paul Carr
schools are going from strength to strength in the Republic of Ireland.
According to their website at http://www.educatetogether.ie , there are
currently 56 Educate Together National (Primary) schools in the Republic of
Ireland.
I note there's even one in County Donegal too, Letterkenny Educate Together
N.S. which, as a Donegalman, I am proud of. I note that school doesn't have
a website up yet though. I note there isn't an Educate Together school yet
in the south of Donegal. As a South Donegalman, I'm not so pleased about
that. That said, there appears to be a South Donegal Start-Up Group.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/6_start_up_groups/startupgroups.html#SouthDonegal
You can contact Jarlath Munnelly, Regional Development Officer, who is
working with that group.
I note that 12 new schools were opened in September 2008.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/5_schools/New%20Schools%202008.html
bringing to total number of Educate Together schools in the country to 56.
But what about September 2009? How many Educate Together schools were
opened then?
I also note that there are even Educate Together Secondary schools in the
works, for example in County Galway where there are already 3 successful
Educate Together Primary schools located.
http://www.educatetogether.ie/2_campaigns/secondlevelet.html
Good stuff.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Timothy Murphy
> I note those Educate Together multi-denominational, co-educational primary
> schools are going from strength to strength in the Republic of Ireland.
I was interested to see that Mary Hanafin, when Minister of Education,
was a very strong supporter of Monkstown Educate Together school,
although one might have supposed from her background
that she would favour religious schools.
She was mainly responsible for getting the school its new building.
The present Minister does not seem nearly so supportive
of Educate Together schools.
(Of course Monkstown is in Mary Hanafin's constituency,
but so are many other schools.)
In my limited experience, the differences between
an Educate Together school and a well-run church school
are very small, even in matters of religion.
But an Educate Together school is more likely to be well-run.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
EX_OWM
> I note those Educate Together multi-denominational, co-educational
> primary schools are going from strength to strength in the Republic
> of Ireland.
> According to their website at http://www.educatetogether.ie , there
> are currently 56 Educate Together National (Primary) schools in the
> Republic of Ireland.
Fair play to them but at 56 out of 3300 schools, I think SMS's description
of them as "poised to actually take over the running of the Irish national
school system" may be just a tad over the top :)
EX_OWM
> But an Educate Together school is more likely to be well-run.
As a University Lecturer in Mathematics, I'm sure you won't mind sharing
with us the sample size on which you arrived at that conclusion.
Timothy Murphy
I think I have been in all the National Schools in Dun Laoghaire,
and in my opinion the best run by a long chalk
is Monkstown Educate Together NS.
If you are familiar with the area I would be interested to hear your view.
One of the reasons Educate Together schools do so well
is the strength of the Parent-Teacher associations at these schools,
which have generally been involved in funding the schools when they start.
Maybe this effect will wear off as the years pass.
I actually think too much is put on the parish priest
or minister's shoulders in church schools,
usually against their own wishes and judgement.
The syllabus in Irish National Schools is laid down with such precision
that the only real difference between schools is the enthusiasm
of the teachers.
I don't share the view that church schools are indoctrinating children.
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM wrote:
>
>>> But an Educate Together school is more likely to be well-run.
>>
>> As a University Lecturer in Mathematics, I'm sure you won't mind
>> sharing with us the sample size on which you arrived at that
>> conclusion.
>
> I think I have been in all the National Schools in Dun Laoghaire,
> and in my opinion the best run by a long chalk
> is Monkstown Educate Together NS.
So it was a sample of one in regard to the Educate Together schools?
Unknown
No it was a sample amongst the schools that Timothy has had the
pleasure to be involved with. It happens, that in his opinion the
educate together school was the best.
I get the impression that you fell religion should be integrated with
education. Religion is for the home and the church,it has no place or
roll to play in the general education of children.
If ny oul great Aunt stubbed her toe, she would say instead of fuck or
shite, " Ohhh Christ pity the poor papists". After reading this thread
I must add my full whole hearted agreement - Pity the poor papists.
Ulick Magee
I notice you have stopped replying to the other thread on education when
you were caught trolling.
--
Ulick Magee
Free software and free formats for free information for free people.
Open Office for Windows/OSX/Linux: http://www.openoffice.org
openSUSE Linux: http://en.opensuse.org
Timothy Murphy
>> I think I have been in all the National Schools in Dun Laoghaire,
>> and in my opinion the best run by a long chalk
>> is Monkstown Educate Together NS.
>
> So it was a sample of one in regard to the Educate Together schools?
Actually there are 2 Educate Together schools in Dun Laoghaire.
EX_OWM
> I get the impression that you fell religion should be integrated with
> education. Religion is for the home and the church,it has no place or
> roll to play in the general education of children.
I don't think that religion should *necessarily* be integrated with
education, I think it should be parental choice whether they send their kids
to religious based schools or secular schools, provided that the schools
involved achieve the required standards of education. In that regard, I have
nothing but respect for Educate Together and would like to see them growing
as more choice can only be a good thing.
What I can't stand - and you should know me by now - is people talking utter
crapology.
When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools out of
3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is talking utter
crapology.
When Tim claims that on the basis of his experience with one school that
Educate Together schools are better run than church run schools, he is
talking utter crapology.
When Howard tries to make out that the Catholic Church can be
unceremoniously dumped out of the education system with no cost to the
exchequer, he is talking utter crapology.
When people try to make out that the involvement of the Catholic Church in
education has been nothing but a thoroughly bad thing, the are talking
utter crapology.
Happy New Year, by the way :)
Timothy Murphy
> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools out of
> 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is talking utter
> crapology.
I think most _new_ primary schools are Educate Together.
The catholic church (which I do not belong to) seems to me
to have been utterly stupid in suggesting that it does not want
to educate non-catholics.
> When Tim claims that on the basis of his experience with one school that
> Educate Together schools are better run than church run schools, he is
> talking utter crapology.
Do you actually know anything at all about NS schools in Dun Laoghaire,
which is what I was talking about?
I'm pretty sure most NS principals actually envy the Educate Together model,
and are trying to move towards it.
I'm not sure what the position is now, but Monkstown ET school
used to have a waiting list so long that you had to put a child down
before he/she was born to be sure of a place.
There was a huge debate about whether siblings of children at the school
should get priority.
That was when the school was housed in Portacabins.
When a new school was built it catered for twice as many children
(16 classes instead of 8).
I was very disappointed when the CBS school in the middle of Dun Laoghaire
closed a few years ago.
I thought the authorities there were very foolish
not to try to accommodate the wishes and expectations of young parents,
as the CBS school in Monkstown has done.
> When people try to make out that the involvement of the Catholic Church in
> education has been nothing but a thoroughly bad thing, the are talking
> utter crapology.
The organisation of catholic NS schools needs to be radically transformed,
if they are to survive and prosper.
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM wrote:
>
>> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools out
>> of 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is talking utter
>> crapology.
>
> I think most _new_ primary schools are Educate Together.
> The catholic church (which I do not belong to) seems to me
> to have been utterly stupid in suggesting that it does not want
> to educate non-catholics.
Why should she want to educate non-catholics?
>> When Tim claims that on the basis of his experience with one school
>> that Educate Together schools are better run than church run
>> schools, he is talking utter crapology.
>
> Do you actually know anything at all about NS schools in Dun
> Laoghaire, which is what I was talking about?
You said "But an Educate Together school is more likely to be well-run."
which seemed to be a generalisation with no restriction to Dun Laoghaire; if
you are now saying that you meant to state that the one (two?) Educate
Schools that you are familiar with seem better run than the n (whatever
number) of NS schools in Dun Laoghaire with which you are familiar then
fine, that is a personal opinion which may or may not be crapology;)
> I'm pretty sure most NS principals actually envy the Educate Together
> model, and are trying to move towards it.
>
> I'm not sure what the position is now, but Monkstown ET school
> used to have a waiting list so long that you had to put a child down
> before he/she was born to be sure of a place.
I think you need to be very, very careful about extrapolating anything from
the performance of a school in a prosperous area like Monkstown, all schools
in prosperous areas tend to do better than schools in derived areas.
That also, of course, depends on what "do better" means. I remember having a
conversation about this some years ago with a very good friend who lives in
Monkstown and whose children attended the local NS. Although he was very
happy with the education that his kids were getting, he didn't like the fact
that virtually all their compatriots at the school were children of
accountants (like him), solicitors, doctors and other professionals. He
thought that my kids were getting a better rounded experience at their
semi-rural NS where they were mixing with a much wider peer group including
children of farmers, unemployed, manual workers etc.
Howard
> What I can't stand - and you should know me by now - is people talking utter
> crapology.
Ok ... let's see where the crap comes from ...
>
> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools out of
> 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is talking utter
> crapology.
What exactly does 'poised' mean ? Does it mean that the Gov is about to
announce it ? Does it mean that ET is capable of taking it over ? Does
it mean that ET is capable of taking it over over a planned period of,
say, 5 or 7 years ? what does it mean ?
>
> When Tim claims that on the basis of his experience with one school that
> Educate Together schools are better run than church run schools, he is
> talking utter crapology.
It may not be a scientifically significant but personal experience is
valuable and your statement is therefore a load of crap.
>
> When Howard tries to make out that the Catholic Church can be
> unceremoniously dumped out of the education system with no cost to the
> exchequer, he is talking utter crapology.
The State pays 100% of the costs no there will be no significant cost to
the State. Your suggestion is total misguided and inaccurate crap.
>
> When people try to make out that the involvement of the Catholic Church in
> education has been nothing but a thoroughly bad thing, the are talking
> utter crapology.
I have read no poster claiming that the Church has never done anything
whatsoever good. Your statement to that effect is total and utter
crapology.
And I don't give a shit if they have done some good or not, just like I
don't give a shit when child molesters claim they have given to charity
or have worked in the community or whatever. I don't care.
We need to remove this proven corrupt organisation, that has enabled and
concealed child abuse knowlingly for decades, from all contact with
children. End of story.
H
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What I can't stand - and you should know me by now - is people
>> talking utter crapology.
>
> Ok ... let's see where the crap comes from ...
>>
>> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools out
>> of 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is talking utter
>> crapology.
>
> What exactly does 'poised' mean ? Does it mean that the Gov is about
> to announce it ? Does it mean that ET is capable of taking it over ?
> Does it mean that ET is capable of taking it over over a planned
> period of, say, 5 or 7 years ? what does it mean ?
SMS didn't give any personal definition so I'm working on the basis of the
standard definition which, according to the compact OED is "ready and
prepared to do". Notwithstanding the excellent work done by Educate
Together, I somehow doubt that they would declare themselves ready and
prepared to take over 3,200+ schools.
>>
>> When Tim claims that on the basis of his experience with one school
>> that Educate Together schools are better run than church run
>> schools, he is talking utter crapology.
>
> It may not be a scientifically significant but personal experience is
> valuable and your statement is therefore a load of crap.
Tim is a mathematician, I'm somewhat surpised at him stating a generalism
from any sample of one, possibly two.
>>
>> When Howard tries to make out that the Catholic Church can be
>> unceremoniously dumped out of the education system with no cost to
>> the exchequer, he is talking utter crapology.
>
> The State pays 100% of the costs no there will be no significant cost
> to the State. Your suggestion is total misguided and inaccurate crap.
Check your facts, the State does NOT pay 100% of the costs. I'm also still
waiting for you to tell us where the money is going to come from to take
over land and buildings owned by the various churches (it's not just the
Catholic Church that is involved in education).
Howard
> >> When Howard tries to make out that the Catholic Church can be
> >> unceremoniously dumped out of the education system with no cost to
> >> the exchequer, he is talking utter crapology.
> >
> > The State pays 100% of the costs no there will be no significant cost
> > to the State. Your suggestion is total misguided and inaccurate crap.
>
> Check your facts, the State does NOT pay 100% of the costs.
The Church does not pay toward the cost of the schools.
>I'm also still
> waiting for you to tell us where the money is going to come from to take
> over land and buildings owned by the various churches (it's not just the
> Catholic Church that is involved in education).
WHF !! Why on earth should the State pay money to the Church for lands
that the Church got for NOTHING ????????
H
Unknown
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> When Howard tries to make out that the Catholic Church can be
>>>> unceremoniously dumped out of the education system with no cost to
>>>> the exchequer, he is talking utter crapology.
>>>
>>> The State pays 100% of the costs no there will be no significant
>>> cost to the State. Your suggestion is total misguided and
>>> inaccurate crap.
>>
>> Check your facts, the State does NOT pay 100% of the costs.
>
> The Church does not pay toward the cost of the schools.
Well that's a move on from your claim that the State pays 100%. Pity it's
still wrong.
>
>> I'm also still
>> waiting for you to tell us where the money is going to come from to
>> take over land and buildings owned by the various churches (it's not
>> just the Catholic Church that is involved in education).
>
> WHF !! Why on earth should the State pay money to the Church for lands
> that the Church got for NOTHING ????????
I built my house on a piece of land that I got for nothing. Does that mean
the State can come along any time it likes and simply take that land - and
the house bulit on it - without compensating me in any way?
Not for the first time, I am amazed at the sort of State that you seem to
want to live in.
Howard
> > The Church does not pay toward the cost of the schools.
>
> Well that's a move on from your claim that the State pays 100%. Pity it's
> still wrong.
It's right.
>
> >
> >> I'm also still
> >> waiting for you to tell us where the money is going to come from to
> >> take over land and buildings owned by the various churches (it's not
> >> just the Catholic Church that is involved in education).
> >
> > WHF !! Why on earth should the State pay money to the Church for lands
> > that the Church got for NOTHING ????????
>
> I built my house on a piece of land that I got for nothing. Does that mean
> the State can come along any time it likes and simply take that land - and
> the house bulit on it - without compensating me in any way?
>
> Not for the first time, I am amazed at the sort of State that you seem to
> want to live in.
I am never amazed at the nonsense you post sometimes. I think the
Catholic Church is lucky it is not being banned. Any other organisation
would be if it were discovered to have been involved with child abuse
the way it has.
H
Timothy Murphy
>> The catholic church (which I do not belong to) seems to me
>> to have been utterly stupid in suggesting that it does not want
>> to educate non-catholics.
>
> Why should she want to educate non-catholics?
Any educational establishment that says it only wants pupils
of a certain religion is signing its own death warrant.
All national schools get their funding from the state,
and it is up to the schools to educate the children of the state.
Ulick Magee
> Any educational establishment that says it only wants pupils
> of a certain religion is signing its own death warrant.
That depends. If there is a shortage of school places in an area, they
can, and do, prioritise children of a specific religion* which is, in my
view, an utter disgrace.
However, AFAIK a school in receipt of State funds cannot refuse a place
to a child on grounds of religion if there is a place available for that
child (that could be hard to prove however if they have decided they do
not wish to enrol your child.)
* of course often the parents of that child never see the inside of a
church except for a baptism, wedding or funeral and the baptism occurred
due to (a) family pressure (b) desire to conform (c) desire to ease the
search for a school place; and one would hope that children these days
would have enough cop-on to see through the farce that is organised
religion long before they leave school
> All national schools get their funding from the state,
Yet EX_OWM persists in his silly claims about the Catholic Church paying
out of the goodness of their hearts for educational costs the State
would otherwise have to pay. This is nonsense. He has been asked several
times to substantiate his claim. He has not done so. At this stage we
must conclude that this is because he cannot do so.
Ulick Magee
>
> I am never amazed at the nonsense you post sometimes. I think the
> Catholic Church is lucky it is not being banned. Any other organisation
> would be if it were discovered to have been involved with child abuse
> the way it has.
Absolutely. The only other organisation I can think of that was proven
to have systematically facilitated/failed to prevent child abuse was
Swim Ireland; it was disbanded.
The morons who are still going on about "what about all the (supposed)
good the Catholic Church did" "what about the abusers who were not
priests" etc. etc. just do not get it. Do not get it at all.
The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and many other countries ran a
conspiracy to facilitate child abuse and shield the perpetrators from
justice, it is still not cooperating with judicial authorities fully and
is still vigorously attempting to minimise the financial effects of its
misdeeds.
It's sickening to hear people defend this conduct and this reprehensible
organisation.
Sophistry Made Simple
"EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7q8il2...@mid.individual.net...
> max.it wrote:
> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools out of
> 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is talking utter
> crapology.
It would be if that's what I said.
Sophistry Made Simple
> Fair play to them but at 56 out of 3300 schools, I think SMS's description
> of them as "poised to actually take over the running of the Irish national
> school system" may be just a tad over the top :)
I'm disappointed that you would use my words out of context, but just to
remind you of the sand that you have built this particular church on, what I
said was that "the Educate Together national school umbrella organisation
are the only ones poised to actually take over the running of the Irish
national school system once the catholic church begins to relinquish those
schools that they no longer have an interest in".
ET are the only ones out there at the moment who are a credible alternative
to the various religious sects who control the vast majority of Irish
primary schools. I think that as the issue becomes more pertinent there may
well be other organisations formed, even some proxy organisations, who will
also vie for this position, but I don't know of any just yet. The
Gaelscoileanna are currently something like 3 times larger than the ET
sector, but their appeal is limited as is their own interest in anything
other than running more Gaelscoileanna.
Schools are largely self-contained entities each managed by a Board of
Management, the changeover from a church school to an ET school would only
require a change of patron and chair of the board of management. ET would
replace the bishop as patron, and would nominate a chair instead of
automatically having the parish priest as chair. The school would also
assume the ET ethos but the only noticeable difference for the children
would be the vastly broader nature of the daily 'religion' class.
I have no idea what OWM is talking about when he claims that it will cost
more to run a school without church involvement, and he shows no intention
of enlightening us as to why this would be so.
F�achad�ir
<allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> EX_OWM wrote:
>>
>>> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools out
>>> of 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is talking utter
>>> crapology.
>>
>> I think most _new_ primary schools are Educate Together.
>> The catholic church (which I do not belong to) seems to me
>> to have been utterly stupid in suggesting that it does not want
>> to educate non-catholics.
>
>Why should she want to educate non-catholics?
That's rather the crux. Non-Catholics pay taxes too, and there are
areas of this country where only Catholic schools are available.
Tax-funded, and with the right to refuse admission to non-Catholics.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
� F�achad�ir
EX_OWM
> "EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7q16is...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Fair play to them but at 56 out of 3300 schools, I think SMS's
>> description of them as "poised to actually take over the running of
>> the Irish national school system" may be just a tad over the top :)
>
> I'm disappointed that you would use my words out of context, but just
> to remind you of the sand that you have built this particular church
> on, what I said was that "the Educate Together national school
> umbrella organisation are the only ones poised to actually take over
> the running of the Irish national school system once the catholic
> church begins to relinquish those schools that they no longer have an
> interest in".
So you didn't actually mean ready and prepared, you meant they will be ready
and prepared some time in the future.
>
> ET are the only ones out there at the moment who are a credible
> alternative to the various religious sects who control the vast
> majority of Irish primary schools.
You certainly have a strange way with words, no matter what people think of
the Catholic Church, I doubt that many would regard it a sect.
I think that as the issue becomes
> more pertinent there may well be other organisations formed, even
> some proxy organisations, who will also vie for this position, but I
> don't know of any just yet. The Gaelscoileanna are currently
> something like 3 times larger than the ET sector, but their appeal is
> limited as is their own interest in anything other than running more
> Gaelscoileanna.
> Schools are largely self-contained entities each managed by a Board of
> Management, the changeover from a church school to an ET school would
> only require a change of patron and chair of the board of management.
> ET would replace the bishop as patron, and would nominate a chair
> instead of automatically having the parish priest as chair. The
> school would also assume the ET ethos but the only noticeable
> difference for the children would be the vastly broader nature of the
> daily 'religion' class.
> I have no idea what OWM is talking about when he claims that it will
> cost more to run a school without church involvement, and he shows no
> intention of enlightening us as to why this would be so.
There is still a local contribution to running costs. If the state were to
totally take over the provision of education then they would have to absorb
that cots.
I notice that you still haven't commented on the cost of the state taking
over existing land and buildings belonging to the Church Or do you subscribe
to Howard's jackboot ideology where the state just takes over private
property without compensating the owners?
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Church does not pay toward the cost of the schools.
>>
>> Well that's a move on from your claim that the State pays 100%. Pity
>> it's still wrong.
>
> It's right.
So now that you've accepted that the State does not pay 100%, who do you
think pays the missing bit?
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm also still
>>>> waiting for you to tell us where the money is going to come from to
>>>> take over land and buildings owned by the various churches (it's
>>>> not just the Catholic Church that is involved in education).
>>>
>>> WHF !! Why on earth should the State pay money to the Church for
>>> lands that the Church got for NOTHING ????????
>>
>> I built my house on a piece of land that I got for nothing. Does
>> that mean the State can come along any time it likes and simply take
>> that land - and the house bulit on it - without compensating me in
>> any way?
>>
>> Not for the first time, I am amazed at the sort of State that you
>> seem to want to live in.
>
> I am never amazed at the nonsense you post sometimes. I think the
> Catholic Church is lucky it is not being banned. Any other
> organisation would be if it were discovered to have been involved
> with child abuse the way it has.
So that justifies a jackboot ideology where the State is free to seize
private property.
EX_OWM
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 11:54:02 -0000, "EX_OWM"
> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>> EX_OWM wrote:
>>>
>>>> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools
>>>> out of 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is
>>>> talking utter crapology.
>>>
>>> I think most _new_ primary schools are Educate Together.
>>> The catholic church (which I do not belong to) seems to me
>>> to have been utterly stupid in suggesting that it does not want
>>> to educate non-catholics.
>>
>> Why should she want to educate non-catholics?
>
> That's rather the crux. Non-Catholics pay taxes too, and there are
> areas of this country where only Catholic schools are available.
> Tax-funded, and with the right to refuse admission to non-Catholics.
I'm starting to feel like Truman here, on the one hand you think the
Catholic Church should have no role at all in education, on the other hand
you complain that she won't take on the education of non-Catholics.
I don't have any direct experience of this - the NS and the second level
that my own kids went to were both Church run and both had non-Catholics
attending; I am, therefore, open to correction on this but I get the
distinct impression that that is in fact the norm and where non-Catholics
have been refused admission is where a school is seriously over-subscribed.
In that situation, do you think the Government should provide additional
funding to allow the school to expand or are you simply suggesting that the
Catholic Church should disadvantage the children of its own members in
favour of children of non-members? Also, what should happen in regard to the
local contribution, should the non-Catholic children be funded out of parish
funds or should their parents be asked to pay it directly?
Ulick Magee
>
> You certainly have a strange way with words, no matter what people think of
> the Catholic Church, I doubt that many would regard it a sect.
You obviously don't realise that the word sect has more than one
meaning; SMS is fully correct to use it as he has.
> There is still a local contribution to running costs. If the state were to
> totally take over the provision of education then they would have to absorb
> that cots.
WRONG.
"Funding of schools
"Traditionally, the site for national schools was provided locally -
either directly by the patron or as a result of local fundraising. There
was also a local contribution to the building costs and the running
costs. Changes were made over the years as multi-denominational schools
and Gaelscoileanna were being built and did not have a "local" funding
base. New arrangements were introduced in 1999.
"Running costs of schools
"The State pays a direct capitation grant of �178.58 (�200 from 2009)
per student to each primary school. The State pays the teachers'
salaries. Enhanced capitation grants are paid for children with special
educational needs in special schools or who attend special classes in
mainstream schools. Capitation grants are used for the day-to-day
running of schools and for teaching materials and resources.
"Primary schools also receive a grant for caretaking and secretarial
services (called the Ancillary Services Grant Scheme) and this is
�151.50 (�155 from 2009) per student. A local contribution was formerly
required but has now been abolished.
"Each school gets a grant towards the cost of minor works. The grant for
a school is �5,500 plus �18.50 per student and �74 per student with
special educational needs.
"Some schools qualify for enhanced funding under various schemes for
tacking disadvantage in primary schools such as the Disadvantaged Areas
Scheme, Giving Children an Even Break and Early Start."
> I notice that you still haven't commented on the cost of the state taking
> over existing land and buildings belonging to the Church Or do you subscribe
> to Howard's jackboot ideology where the state just takes over private
> property without compensating the owners?
If they want to open the question of compensating them for reversing
their takeover of the originally multi-denominational national school
system, we can open the question of them compensating the State for
payments made to abuse victims as a result of the abominable Woods deal.
I very much doubt they would come off ahead in that argument. We are
talking about school buildings and grounds here, not land with
development potential (not that the latter will be worth much for the
next 20 or 30 years)
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM wrote:
>> There is still a local contribution to running costs. If the state
>> were to totally take over the provision of education then they would
>> have to absorb that cots.
>
>
> WRONG.
>
> http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/education/primary-and-post-primary-education/going-to-primary-school/ownership-of-primary-schools
Are you blind or just trying to play silly games? The second sentences on
that site states:
"The State pays the bulk of the building and running costs and a local
contribution is made towards the running costs. "
F�achad�ir
<allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>F�achad�ir wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 11:54:02 -0000, "EX_OWM"
>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Timothy Murphy wrote:
>>>> EX_OWM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When SMS tries to make out that Educate Together with 56 schools
>>>>> out of 3,300 are poised to take over Irish education, he is
>>>>> talking utter crapology.
>>>>
>>>> I think most _new_ primary schools are Educate Together.
>>>> The catholic church (which I do not belong to) seems to me
>>>> to have been utterly stupid in suggesting that it does not want
>>>> to educate non-catholics.
>>>
>>> Why should she want to educate non-catholics?
>>
>> That's rather the crux. Non-Catholics pay taxes too, and there are
>> areas of this country where only Catholic schools are available.
>> Tax-funded, and with the right to refuse admission to non-Catholics.
>
>I'm starting to feel like Truman here, on the one hand you think the
>Catholic Church should have no role at all in education, on the other hand
>you complain that she won't take on the education of non-Catholics.
Then let me be clear.
The Catholic church has every right to educate children. But it has no
business taking taxpayer fund, then picking and choosing. Public
schools should be run by the State. Let the church organise private
schools if it wants.
>I don't have any direct experience of this - the NS and the second level
>that my own kids went to were both Church run and both had non-Catholics
>attending; I am, therefore, open to correction on this but I get the
>distinct impression that that is in fact the norm and where non-Catholics
>have been refused admission is where a school is seriously over-subscribed.
>In that situation, do you think the Government should provide additional
>funding to allow the school to expand or are you simply suggesting that the
>Catholic Church should disadvantage the children of its own members in
>favour of children of non-members? Also, what should happen in regard to the
>local contribution, should the non-Catholic children be funded out of parish
>funds or should their parents be asked to pay it directly?
Let the Church build its own schools, let the State run a school
system that doesn't discriminate against children who aren't Catholic
(and coincidentally, most of those kids were African, though the
bishop assured everyone that had nothing to do with the decision, and
bishops never lie when it comes to the welfare of children, do they?)
EX_OWM
> The Catholic church has every right to educate children. But it has no
> business taking taxpayer fund, then picking and choosing. Public
> schools should be run by the State.
The logic of that is that funding should not be available to Educate
Together or Gaelscoileanna, unless of course this is to be one set of rules
for everybody else and a special rule for the Catholic Church.
Talking about Gaelscoileanna, is their insisistence on teaching in Irish not
a form of discrimination? If the nearest school for a particular child
happens to be a Gaelscoil, should the child's parents not have the right to
insist that the school takes the child and teaches him/her in English? Or
again, is to be one set of rules for everybody else and a special rule for
the Catholic Church?
F�achad�ir
<allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>F�achad�ir wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:22:57 -0000, "EX_OWM"
>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Catholic church has every right to educate children. But it has no
>> business taking taxpayer fund, then picking and choosing. Public
>> schools should be run by the State.
>
>The logic of that is that funding should not be available to Educate
>Together or Gaelscoileanna, unless of course this is to be one set of rules
>for everybody else and a special rule for the Catholic Church.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. Gaeilscoileanna exist primarily
because the Govt can't organise Irish language education, If they Govt
did it right, then more power to them.
Likewise, Church schools exist because two centuries ago the State
didn't have the capacity to organise education on its own. That day is
past.
I'm not as enamoured with Educate Together as some around here.
Multidenominational is not a synonym for nondenominational.
>Talking about Gaelscoileanna, is their insisistence on teaching in Irish not
>a form of discrimination? If the nearest school for a particular child
>happens to be a Gaelscoil, should the child's parents not have the right to
>insist that the school takes the child and teaches him/her in English? Or
>again, is to be one set of rules for everybody else and a special rule for
>the Catholic Church?
AFAICT there are no ET/Gaelschoils with exclusive catchments. There
are large swathes of the country where the only school is the Catholic
NS.
EX_OWM
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:50:04 -0000, "EX_OWM"
> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> F�achad�ir wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:22:57 -0000, "EX_OWM"
>>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Catholic church has every right to educate children. But it has
>>> no business taking taxpayer fund, then picking and choosing. Public
>>> schools should be run by the State.
>>
>> The logic of that is that funding should not be available to Educate
>> Together or Gaelscoileanna, unless of course this is to be one set
>> of rules for everybody else and a special rule for the Catholic
>> Church.
>
> I wouldn't have a problem with that. Gaeilscoileanna exist primarily
> because the Govt can't organise Irish language education, If they Govt
> did it right, then more power to them.
Well at least you are consistent.
> Likewise, Church schools exist because two centuries ago the State
> didn't have the capacity to organise education on its own. That day is
> past.
Yes, if we were to start from scratch we wouldn't do it the way it was done
but there's probably every little we wouldn't do different nowadys from what
was done two centuries ago, we aren't starting from scratch and we have a
legacy that we cannot ignore or simply wish away. It is not as simple as
just dumping the Catholic Church and taking possession of their land and
buildings as some people seem to be suggesting around here.
> I'm not as enamoured with Educate Together as some around here.
> Multidenominational is not a synonym for nondenominational.
>
>> Talking about Gaelscoileanna, is their insisistence on teaching in
>> Irish not a form of discrimination? If the nearest school for a
>> particular child happens to be a Gaelscoil, should the child's
>> parents not have the right to insist that the school takes the child
>> and teaches him/her in English? Or again, is to be one set of rules
>> for everybody else and a special rule for the Catholic Church?
>
> AFAICT there are no ET/Gaelschoils with exclusive catchments. There
> are large swathes of the country where the only school is the Catholic
> NS.
Humour me, deal with it as a hypothetical case.
F�achad�ir
<allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>F�achad�ir wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 13:50:04 -0000, "EX_OWM"
>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> F�achad�ir wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 10:22:57 -0000, "EX_OWM"
>>>> <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Catholic church has every right to educate children. But it has
>>>> no business taking taxpayer fund, then picking and choosing. Public
>>>> schools should be run by the State.
>>>
>>> The logic of that is that funding should not be available to Educate
>>> Together or Gaelscoileanna, unless of course this is to be one set
>>> of rules for everybody else and a special rule for the Catholic
>>> Church.
>>
>> I wouldn't have a problem with that. Gaeilscoileanna exist primarily
>> because the Govt can't organise Irish language education, If they Govt
>> did it right, then more power to them.
>
>Well at least you are consistent.
I would caveat with the observation that Gaeilscoils don't have the
promotion of religion as a mission. That said, most of them do.
There's nothing mutually exclusive about education through Irish and
church (or ET) control. States and religion should be kept at arms
length. A look at Irish history should suffice to tell you why that's
a good idea. What you believe is none of the state's business.
>> Likewise, Church schools exist because two centuries ago the State
>> didn't have the capacity to organise education on its own. That day is
>> past.
>
>Yes, if we were to start from scratch we wouldn't do it the way it was done
>but there's probably every little we wouldn't do different nowadys from what
>was done two centuries ago, we aren't starting from scratch and we have a
>legacy that we cannot ignore or simply wish away. It is not as simple as
>just dumping the Catholic Church and taking possession of their land and
>buildings as some people seem to be suggesting around here.
Sure it is. If we can bail out the banks, we can buy schools. Word has
it there's a load of unused buildings in this country, and it's not as
if the church doesn't owe for the lies it told about the abuse of
those under its care.
>> I'm not as enamoured with Educate Together as some around here.
>> Multidenominational is not a synonym for nondenominational.
>>
>>> Talking about Gaelscoileanna, is their insisistence on teaching in
>>> Irish not a form of discrimination? If the nearest school for a
>>> particular child happens to be a Gaelscoil, should the child's
>>> parents not have the right to insist that the school takes the child
>>> and teaches him/her in English? Or again, is to be one set of rules
>>> for everybody else and a special rule for the Catholic Church?
>>
>> AFAICT there are no ET/Gaelschoils with exclusive catchments. There
>> are large swathes of the country where the only school is the Catholic
>> NS.
>
>Humour me, deal with it as a hypothetical case.
Its not that difficult. Multidenominational schools are just as cold a
place for atheists as single-church schools. Churches should not be
subsidised by the State.
Paul Carr
"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir>
??????:fo81k55gp6tudmr1p...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> I wouldn't have a problem with that. Gaeilscoileanna exist primarily
> because the Govt can't organise Irish language education, If they Govt
> did it right, then more power to them.
>
> Likewise, Church schools exist because two centuries ago the State
> didn't have the capacity to organise education on its own. That day is
> past.
>
> I'm not as enamoured with Educate Together as some around here.
Me neither!! [quickly dries up tears]
> Multidenominational is not a synonym for nondenominational.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Ulick Magee
Which is incorrect, that was the arrangement until 1999. The current
arrangement is described further down the page, as I quoted.
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM wrote:
>> Ulick Magee wrote:
>>> EX_OWM wrote:
>>
>>>> There is still a local contribution to running costs. If the state
>>>> were to totally take over the provision of education then they
>>>> would have to absorb that cots.
>>>
>>> WRONG.
>>>
>>> http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/education/primary-and-post-primary-education/going-to-primary-school/ownership-of-primary-schools
>>
>> Are you blind or just trying to play silly games? The second
>> sentences on that site states:
>>
>> "The State pays the bulk of the building and running costs and a
>> local contribution is made towards the running costs. "
>
> Which is incorrect, that was the arrangement until 1999.
So you're quoting an official government site in support of your argument
and then claiming the site is incorrect when you realise it contradicts your
argument ? <rolls eyes>
> The current
> arrangement is described further down the page, as I quoted.
Read it again, the bit you are referring to is CAPITAL expenditure, not
running costs.
EX_OWM
> Read it again, the bit you are referring to is CAPITAL expenditure,
> not running costs.
And the Ancillary Services Grant Scheme
EX_OWM
checked this - the local contribution to running costs was abolished in 2001
by Michael Woods.
Mens sana
> Mea culpa - and culpa of that site which was the one where I had
> originally checked this - the local contribution to running costs was
> abolished in 2001 by Michael Woods.
>
>
Good old Mikey Woods, the minister who always put cult before country.
MS.
Howard
> I wouldn't have a problem with that. Gaeilscoileanna exist primarily
> because the Govt can't organise Irish language education, If they Govt
> did it right, then more power to them.
I wold suggest that these irish schools exist because the vast majority
of parents do not want their children force fed a dead language.
>
> Likewise, Church schools exist because two centuries ago the State
> didn't have the capacity to organise education on its own.
And the Church took advantage of an opportunity to brainwash and control
the education of the People.
H
Howard
>> Howard write
> > I am never amazed at the nonsense you post sometimes. I think the
> > Catholic Church is lucky it is not being banned. Any other
> > organisation would be if it were discovered to have been involved
> > with child abuse the way it has.
>
> So that justifies a jackboot ideology where the State is free to seize
> private property.
We seize the property of other criminals. We should do the same here.
H
Howard
Howard
> Let the Church build its own schools, let the State run a school
> system that doesn't discriminate against children who aren't Catholic
> (and coincidentally, most of those kids were African, though the
> bishop assured everyone that had nothing to do with the decision, and
> bishops never lie when it comes to the welfare of children, do they?)
Neverrrrr...
Well Said.
H
Paul Carr
"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir>
Unfortunately, Feachadoir, many in the Republic of Ireland solve that little
problem of history by snipping off Derry, Antrim, Down, Armagh, Tyrone and
Fermanagh. Minus these counties, they declare the new political entity
"Ireland" and then they consider its history. Problem solved.
I think, post 1922, we have had 2 sectarian states on the island of Ireland
and we still do to some extent. The only difference between the two was
that, in the northern one, the Catholic minority was large enough to mount a
successful rebellion from 1969 to 1972 which led to the collapse of
Stormont. In the south, the Protestant minority were simply too small to do
anything about their predicament.
EX_OWM
> Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
>> "EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7q16is...@mid.individual.net...
>> I have no idea what OWM is talking about when he claims that it will
>> cost more to run a school without church involvement, and he shows no
>> intention of enlightening us as to why this would be so.
>
> There is still a local contribution to running costs. If the state
> were to totally take over the provision of education then they would
> have to absorb that cots.
I was badly informed on that specific aspect, the local contribution was
abolished in 2001. There are, however, a number of costs that are currently
absorbed under the Patronage system that are unlikely to be absorbed in an
entirely state run system; as Bishop Leo O'Reilly, Chair of the Irish
Bishops' Commission on Education put it in his address to the McAuley
Conference Series earlier this year:
"The quality of our primary education system has been widely and rightly
recognised and applauded. At the same time it has often been noted that as a
country we spend a smaller percentage of GNP on education than almost any
other country in the OECD. I have never seen any attempt to analyse the
reasons why we have managed to achieve such high educational standards at
such low cost. Up to fairly recently all sites for new schools were provided
by the Patrons. I wonder could the main reason be that the costs to the
State of management and patronage have until now been negligible in the case
of primary schools? "
Elsewhere he points out that members of the Boards of management generally
do not even get out of pocket expenses, let alone any remuneration.
His whole address on the theme 'Catholic Primary Education in Contemporary
Ireland: Facing New Horizons' is well worth reading for anyone interested in
a genuine debate about this subject, available at
EX_OWM
In regard to Catholic schools, it was generally either subsidised or paid
fully out of parish funds.
EX_OWM
I seem to recall you being asked this previously and being unable to give an
answer - where has the Catholic Church been found guilty of criminal
behaviour?
Sophistry Made Simple
> Howard wrote:
>> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The Church does not pay toward the cost of the schools.
>>>
>>> Well that's a move on from your claim that the State pays 100%. Pity
>>> it's still wrong.
>>
>> It's right.
>
> So now that you've accepted that the State does not pay 100%, who do you
> think pays the missing bit?
What missing bit? Is there a missing bit in ET and Gaelscoileanna?
Ulick Magee
>
> And who ACTUALLY paid the local cntribution ???
Exactly! it's not as if the archbishop was renting out his palace or the
pope was selling paintings in Rome. It is the people's own money being
used to brainwash them and their kids. Please give generously otherwise
you might go to hell - oooooh!
Ulick Magee
>
> Up to fairly recently all sites for new schools were provided
> by the Patrons.
This is no longer the case
> I wonder could the main reason be that the costs to the
> State of management and patronage have until now been negligible in the case
> of primary schools? "
Do you seriously think that ET boards of management are, or will be,
paid, by the State or anyone else?
> Elsewhere he points out that members of the Boards of management generally
> do not even get out of pocket expenses, let alone any remuneration.
Indeed.
Sophistry Made Simple
>>
>>> Fair play to them but at 56 out of 3300 schools, I think SMS's
>>> description of them as "poised to actually take over the running of
>>> the Irish national school system" may be just a tad over the top :)
>>
>> I'm disappointed that you would use my words out of context, but just
>> to remind you of the sand that you have built this particular church
>> on, what I said was that "the Educate Together national school
>> umbrella organisation are the only ones poised to actually take over
>> the running of the Irish national school system once the catholic
>> church begins to relinquish those schools that they no longer have an
>> interest in".
>
> So you didn't actually mean ready and prepared, you meant they will be
> ready and prepared some time in the future.
I said what is written above.
>> ET are the only ones out there at the moment who are a credible
>> alternative to the various religious sects who control the vast
>> majority of Irish primary schools.
>
> You certainly have a strange way with words, no matter what people think
> of the Catholic Church, I doubt that many would regard it a sect.
A bigger sect than many, but a sect none the less.
> I think that as the issue becomes
>> more pertinent there may well be other organisations formed, even
>> some proxy organisations, who will also vie for this position, but I
>> don't know of any just yet. The Gaelscoileanna are currently
>> something like 3 times larger than the ET sector, but their appeal is
>> limited as is their own interest in anything other than running more
>> Gaelscoileanna.
>> Schools are largely self-contained entities each managed by a Board of
>> Management, the changeover from a church school to an ET school would
>> only require a change of patron and chair of the board of management.
>> ET would replace the bishop as patron, and would nominate a chair
>> instead of automatically having the parish priest as chair. The
>> school would also assume the ET ethos but the only noticeable
>> difference for the children would be the vastly broader nature of the
>> daily 'religion' class.
>> I have no idea what OWM is talking about when he claims that it will
>> cost more to run a school without church involvement, and he shows no
>> intention of enlightening us as to why this would be so.
>
> There is still a local contribution to running costs. If the state were to
> totally take over the provision of education then they would have to
> absorb that cots.
That would be the bagpacking then?
> I notice that you still haven't commented on the cost of the state taking
> over existing land and buildings belonging to the Church Or do you
> subscribe to Howard's jackboot ideology where the state just takes over
> private property without compensating the owners?
Perhaps you should read my original statement once again, because you really
are missing the point.
Timothy Murphy
> I don't have any direct experience of this - the NS and the second level
> that my own kids went to were both Church run and both had non-Catholics
> attending; I am, therefore, open to correction on this but I get the
> distinct impression that that is in fact the norm and where non-Catholics
> have been refused admission is where a school is seriously
> over-subscribed.
It was you who suggested that catholic schools
should not teach non-catholics.
I'm quite sure that 99% of principals of church NS schools
want to educate all the children who apply to them.
The suggestion that catholic schools should only teach catholics -
which you explicitly supported
("Why should she want to educate non-catholics?")
was made by bishops, not teachers.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Ulick Magee
> Howard wrote:
>> And who ACTUALLY paid the local cntribution ???
>
> Exactly! it's not as if the archbishop was renting out his palace or the
> pope was selling paintings in Rome. It is the people's own money
I meant to say *was* - until the abolition of the local contribution
Now it's used for such worthy purposes as the purchase of the silence of
child abuse victims, and the so-called 'treatment' of paedophile priests
at centres which the church itself runs...
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM wrote:
>>
>> Up to fairly recently all sites for new schools were provided
>> by the Patrons.
>
> This is no longer the case
>
>
>> I wonder could the main reason be that the costs to the
>> State of management and patronage have until now been negligible in
>> the case of primary schools? "
>
> Do you seriously think that ET boards of management are, or will be,
> paid, by the State or anyone else?
If the state takes over education then I would expect the management
services to be funded and staffed by the Government, just as the VEC's are.
Ulick Magee
>
> If the state takes over education then I would expect the management
> services to be funded and staffed by the Government, just as the VEC's are.
Which isn't the same thing as ET or other community bodies taking
patronage of schools.
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM wrote:
>>
>> If the state takes over education then I would expect the management
>> services to be funded and staffed by the Government, just as the
>> VEC's are.
>
> Which isn't the same thing as ET or other community bodies taking
> patronage of schools.
So what you are saying is that you have no problem with and education system
based on voluntary and community groups - just so long as the Catholic
Church is excluded.
Ulick Magee
Just so long as religious indoctrination, religious discrimination in
admission policy and religious discrimination in the hiring of staff are
all excluded from publically funded schools, yes.
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM wrote:
>> Ulick Magee wrote:
>>> EX_OWM wrote:
>>>> If the state takes over education then I would expect the
>>>> management services to be funded and staffed by the Government,
>>>> just as the VEC's are.
>>> Which isn't the same thing as ET or other community bodies taking
>>> patronage of schools.
>>
>> So what you are saying is that you have no problem with and
>> education system based on voluntary and community groups - just so
>> long as the Catholic Church is excluded.
>
> Just so long as religious indoctrination, religious discrimination in
> admission policy and religious discrimination in the hiring of staff
> are all excluded from publically funded schools, yes.
So what about the Gaelscoileanna - are they discriminating against teachers
who can't speak Irish?
Or the question I asked F�achad�ir earlier - if the nearest school for a
particular child
happens to be a Gaelscoil, should the child's parents have the right to
Sophistry Made Simple
"F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
news:fo81k55gp6tudmr1p...@4ax.com...
> I'm not as enamoured with Educate Together as some around here.
> Multidenominational is not a synonym for nondenominational.
Actually it is in this case. ET was formed at a time when
multidenominational meant 'both' and it was taking one step at a time -
things have changed since then even if the label hasn't.
Ulick Magee
>
> So what about the Gaelscoileanna - are they discriminating against teachers
> who can't speak Irish?
Does the public service discriminate when it allows extra marks in
promotion competitions to those who have passed an Irish test?
No, if the job being competed for requires Irish to perform the job.
> Or the question I asked F�achad�ir earlier - if the nearest school for a
> particular child
> happens to be a Gaelscoil, should the child's parents have the right to
> insist that the school takes the child and teaches him/her in English?
I'm not a big fan of them (especially as they divert the focus of
opposition to religious-dominated education) but that's by the by.
Nobody is obliged to attend a Gaelscoil who does not wish to learn
through Irish (or rather, whose parents do not wish them to learn
through Irish...)
However it is extremely difficult for many people to find an ET or other
multi-denominational school for their children. Usually they are obliged
to send their kids to religious run schools.
Ulick Magee
> "F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
Primary schools in Ireland are obliged to teach religion - unfortunately
Ulick Magee
> EX_OWM wrote:
>> So what about the Gaelscoileanna - are they discriminating against teachers
>> who can't speak Irish?
>
> Does the public service discriminate when it allows extra marks in
> promotion competitions to those who have passed an Irish test?
>
> No, if the job being competed for requires Irish to perform the job.
And of course all primary teachers are obliged to teach Irish...
jl
Ulick Magee <ulickatm...@feckoff.invalid> wrote:
> And of course all primary teachers are obliged to teach Irish...
Isn't that part of the state religion?
Jochen
--
------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
Roe Valley News Browser
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
F�achad�ir
<ulickatm...@feckoff.invalid> wrote:
>Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
>> "F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
>> news:fo81k55gp6tudmr1p...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I'm not as enamoured with Educate Together as some around here.
>>> Multidenominational is not a synonym for nondenominational.
>>
>> Actually it is in this case. ET was formed at a time when
>> multidenominational meant 'both' and it was taking one step at a time -
>> things have changed since then even if the label hasn't.
>
>Primary schools in Ireland are obliged to teach religion - unfortunately
Teaching the history of religion is not - or should not be - the same
as religious indoctrination.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
� F�achad�ir
Sophistry Made Simple
"Ulick Magee" <ulickatm...@feckoff.invalid> wrote in message
news:7qc8n2...@mid.individual.net...
> Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
>> "F�achad�ir" <F�ach@d.�ir> wrote in message
>> news:fo81k55gp6tudmr1p...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> I'm not as enamoured with Educate Together as some around here.
>>> Multidenominational is not a synonym for nondenominational.
>>
>> Actually it is in this case. ET was formed at a time when
>> multidenominational meant 'both' and it was taking one step at a time -
>> things have changed since then even if the label hasn't.
>
> Primary schools in Ireland are obliged to teach religion - unfortunately
ET do not teach religion, they teach about religion, amongst other things.
"In an Educate Together school the daily period of time set aside for
religious education is used to deliver our Ethical Education Curriculum.
This is divided into four strands: 'Moral and Spiritual Development',
'Justice and Equality', Belief Systems' and 'Ethics and the Environment'.
The curriculum specifically addresses the Educate Together ethos and it is
here that the values that the school seeks to model in its 'characteristic
spirit' are articulated and explained in greater depth."
Howard
The truth is that when it was paid - it was paid by the Church goers;
the residents of the parish. The Church itself never ever dipped into
it's own pockets.
H
Howard
> I was badly informed on that specific aspect, the local contribution was
> abolished in 2001. There are, however, a number of costs that are currently
> absorbed under the Patronage system that are unlikely to be absorbed in an
> entirely state run system; as Bishop Leo O'Reilly, Chair of the Irish
> Bishops' Commission on Education put it in his address to the McAuley
> Conference Series earlier this year:
Very amusing - so let's look at them...
>
> "The quality of our primary education system has been widely and rightly
> recognised and applauded. At the same time it has often been noted that as a
> country we spend a smaller percentage of GNP on education than almost any
> other country in the OECD. I have never seen any attempt to analyse the
> reasons why we have managed to achieve such high educational standards at
> such low cost. Up to fairly recently all sites for new schools were provided
> by the Patrons.
The Patrons got the land free. So it incurred no costs. The additional
costs for the State would not have been significant.
> I wonder could the main reason be that the costs to the
> State of management and patronage have until now been negligible in the case
> of primary schools? "
What a joke. The truth is the reason for this achievement is far more to
do with the parents and the children. This lame effort by the Bishop to
take credit is laughable.
>
> Elsewhere he points out that members of the Boards of management generally
> do not even get out of pocket expenses, let alone any remuneration.
Theer is no evidence that this would have to change if the Church were
to be removed from the scene.
>
> His whole address on the theme 'Catholic Primary Education in Contemporary
> Ireland: Facing New Horizons' is well worth reading for anyone interested in
> a genuine debate about this subject, available at..
I have no interest in reading what one of the senior managers of this
child abuse enabling organisation has to say.
H
Howard
> EX_OWM wrote:
> > Ulick Magee wrote:
> >> EX_OWM wrote:
> >>> If the state takes over education then I would expect the management
> >>> services to be funded and staffed by the Government, just as the
> >>> VEC's are.
> >> Which isn't the same thing as ET or other community bodies taking
> >> patronage of schools.
> >
> > So what you are saying is that you have no problem with and education system
> > based on voluntary and community groups - just so long as the Catholic
> > Church is excluded.
>
> Just so long as religious indoctrination, religious discrimination in
> admission policy and religious discrimination in the hiring of staff are
> all excluded from publically funded schools, yes.
Ehhh... you overlooked the child abuse...
H
Sophistry Made Simple
> Ulick Magee wrote:
>> EX_OWM wrote:
>>> Ulick Magee wrote:
>>>> EX_OWM wrote:
>>>>> If the state takes over education then I would expect the
>>>>> management services to be funded and staffed by the Government,
>>>>> just as the VEC's are.
>>>> Which isn't the same thing as ET or other community bodies taking
>>>> patronage of schools.
>>>
>>> So what you are saying is that you have no problem with and
>>> education system based on voluntary and community groups - just so
>>> long as the Catholic Church is excluded.
The point is that there is no longer any reason whatsoever for the
participation of religious sects in the organisation and control of the
Irish national school system. You might like to suggest a reason but you
haven't actually put one forward apart from suggesting that a modern state
is unable to provide a school system without the help of a few bob from
those religious sects. On the other hand, there are many reasons why the
State should not finance a religious sect to further its own aims via an
educational system that is funded entirely by the state, and that is without
even mentioning the consequences of entrusting children to the care of the
largest of these sects.
>> Just so long as religious indoctrination, religious discrimination in
>> admission policy and religious discrimination in the hiring of staff
>> are all excluded from publically funded schools, yes.
>
> So what about the Gaelscoileanna - are they discriminating against
> teachers who can't speak Irish?
All schools discriminate against teachers who can't speak Irish.
> Or the question I asked F�achad�ir earlier - if the nearest school for a
> particular child
> happens to be a Gaelscoil, should the child's parents have the right to
> insist that the school takes the child and teaches him/her in English?
No - you might now research the concept of a school's ethos.
The only reality your question would have is in a Gaeltacht where the
schools would no more be obliged to teach in English than any other school
would be obliged to teach in Czech.
Timothy Murphy
> Elsewhere he [Bishop O'Reilly] points out that members
> of the Boards of management generally
> do not even get out of pocket expenses, let alone any remuneration.
>
> His whole address on the theme 'Catholic Primary Education in Contemporary
> Ireland: Facing New Horizons' is well worth reading for anyone interested
> in a genuine debate about this subject, available at
>
> http://www.kilmorediocese.ie/home/from-the-bishops-desk/111-addresses/254-
the-experience-of-providing-catholic-primary-education-in-ireland-the-
patrons-perspective
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/yby28ap
I read this, and didn't find it at all reassuring.
Most of it was basically a whinge that people are not being nice to bishops.
I'd take particular exception to this:
"Would, for example, faith-based schools be forced to admit children not of
the faith of the schools and refuse admission to children who are of the
school's faith, in a situation where school places were limited?"
In my view, if church schools are taking money from the government
to provide education then it is their duty to admit pupils
regardless of their religion, at least unless there is a school
in the neighbourhood offering such a service.
I would have thought that if parents have no other choice,
for a school to refuse to teach their children
would be contrary to the Constitution;
and I am glad to see from the Bishop's whinge
that the EU Parliament agrees with me.
In my view, the Bishop in this as in other matters
is completely out of touch with his own congregation,
and he would do better to consult with the Principals of church schools
about how _they_ think their schools should be run,
instead of pontificating on matters better left to theologians.
Sophistry Made Simple
"Timothy Murphy" <gayl...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:4b41286e$0$1109$4faf...@reader4.news.tin.it...
> I'd take particular exception to this:
> "Would, for example, faith-based schools be forced to admit children not
> of
> the faith of the schools and refuse admission to children who are of the
> school's faith, in a situation where school places were limited?"
>
> In my view, if church schools are taking money from the government
> to provide education then it is their duty to admit pupils
> regardless of their religion, at least unless there is a school
> in the neighbourhood offering such a service.
School boards are bound by law to "establish and maintain an admissions
policy which provides for maximum accessibility to the school" but must do
so while upholding the "characteristic spirit" of the school. This
"characteristic spirit" more normally referred to as the school's 'ethos'
gives all schools the right to refuse entry to any child considered inimical
to that characteristic spirit. Make of that what you will.
EX_OWM
>
> No - you might now research the concept of a school's ethos.
Which is exactly what you and a few others around here need to do. The
attitude seems to be that a school is entitled to have a particular ethos as
long as that is not a Catholic ethos.
Timothy Murphy
>> In my view, if church schools are taking money from the government
>> to provide education then it is their duty to admit pupils
>> regardless of their religion, at least unless there is a school
>> in the neighbourhood offering such a service.
>
> School boards are bound by law to "establish and maintain an admissions
> policy which provides for maximum accessibility to the school" but must do
> so while upholding the "characteristic spirit" of the school. This
> "characteristic spirit" more normally referred to as the school's 'ethos'
> gives all schools the right to refuse entry to any child considered
> inimical to that characteristic spirit. Make of that what you will.
To me this is meaningless verbiage.
In effect education at primary level in most parts of the Republic
has been delegated to the catholic church,
and it is their duty to provide education for all
unless there is an alternative available in the neighbourhood.
I'm quite sure this is the view of the principals and teachers
at these schools.
It is just the bishops who are whinging about the trouble
this is causing them.
Let them pass on the role of Patron to someone else
if they are incapable or unwilling to take it on.
This whole thing about "ethos" is more or less nonsense today.
The idea that allowing a presbyterian child into a school
is somehow going to upset the teaching of the rest
would only occur to a bishop who is totally out of touch with the world.
Mens sana
Precisely. To allow a cult that actively facilitated the most grotesque
sadism and paedophilia have control of children is reckless to the point of
criminality. No organisation represents a greater threat to the safety and
well-being of Irish children than the RC church.
That your concern is exclusively focused on the assets of your cult rather
than the safety of children speaks volumes about
Mens sana.
Ulick Magee
The things I mentioned above are all explicitly legal at present - child
abuse is not - although some bishops seem unsure
EX_OWM
> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I was badly informed on that specific aspect, the local contribution
>> was abolished in 2001. There are, however, a number of costs that
>> are currently absorbed under the Patronage system that are unlikely
>> to be absorbed in an entirely state run system; as Bishop Leo
>> O'Reilly, Chair of the Irish Bishops' Commission on Education put it
>> in his address to the McAuley Conference Series earlier this year:
>
> Very amusing - so let's look at them...
[...]
> I have no interest in reading what one of the senior managers of this
> child abuse enabling organisation has to say.
There's nothing like a bit of consistency, Howard is there? And that is
nothing like a bit of consistency.
EX_OWM
> "EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7qdts7...@mid.individual.net...
>> Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> No - you might now research the concept of a school's ethos.
>>
>> Which is exactly what you and a few others around here need to do.
>> The attitude seems to be that a school is entitled to have a
>> particular ethos as long as that is not a Catholic ethos.
>>
>
> Precisely. To allow a cult that actively facilitated the most
> grotesque sadism and paedophilia have control of children is reckless
> to the point of criminality. No organisation represents a greater
> threat to the safety and well-being of Irish children than the RC
> church.
I've told you before that your life would be so much more pleasant if you
could get rid of that demon on your shoulder.
> That your concern is exclusively focused on the assets of your cult
> rather than the safety of children speaks volumes about
Mind you, I suppose a demon on your shoulder is some sort of excuse for
telling lies.
EX_OWM
Thank you, Howard, for reminding me how much of a waste of time it is to try
to have a rational discussion with somebody who doesn't even grasp the
fundamentals of what they are tryng to argue about.
Sophistry Made Simple
Who said it wasn't?
Mens sana
It's your cult leaders who are the liars only they call it mental
reservation. Did you slip them a few bob yesterday to keep them in style?
As for demons, you're the one with imaginary friends not me. It's easier
though, isn't it, to talk shite about demons rather than deal with the
vermin who run your cult.
Mens sana.
EX_OWM
The usual culprits.
Stephen O'Connell
> Howard wrote:
>> I have no interest in reading what one of the senior managers of this
>> child abuse enabling organisation has to say.
>
> There's nothing like a bit of consistency, Howard is there? And that is
> nothing like a bit of consistency.
You expect consistency on Usenet?!!
Sophistry Made Simple
They were talking about control, not ethos.
Howard
Howard
> Howard wrote: > Ulick Magee <ulickatm...@feckoff.invalid> wrote: >
> >> EX_OWM wrote: >>> So what you are saying is that you have no problem
> with and education system >>> based on voluntary and community groups -
> just so long as the Catholic >>> Church is excluded. >> Just so long as
> religious indoctrination, religious discrimination in >> admission policy
> and religious discrimination in the hiring of staff are >> all excluded
> from publically funded schools, yes. > > Ehhh... you overlooked the child
> abuse...
>
> The things I mentioned above are all explicitly legal at present - child
> abuse is not - although some bishops seem unsure
Ah.. yes :D
H
Sophistry Made Simple
"Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1jbtki6.1y5olgo14trvn8N%Howar...@home.com...
When he's talking about parish funds and local contributions he's talking
about fundraising - bag packing, bingo, pub quizzes, raffles - all the stuff
that every school has to debase itself with just to keep itself in toilet
rolls.
Paul Carr
"EX_OWM" <allthesp...@gmail.com> д����Ϣ����:7qeufb...@mid.individual.net...
It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who references the
Catholic church with the pronoun "she".
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Fergus O'Rourke
[snip]
> I have no interest in reading what one of the senior managers of this
> child abuse enabling organisation has to say.
What about the biggest "child abuse enabling organisation" in Ireland
(adopting your usages) i.e. the Government ?
Will you refuse to read all documents emanting from that source as well ?
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)
EX_OWM
> It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who references
> the Catholic church with the pronoun "she".
Not as hard as trying to have one with someone who hates something simply
for existing.
Westprog
> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:1jbrh2a.1ilcnfboj3g00N%Howar...@home.com...
> [snip]
>> I have no interest in reading what one of the senior managers of this
>> child abuse enabling organisation has to say.
>
> What about the biggest "child abuse enabling organisation" in Ireland
> (adopting your usages) i.e. the Government ?
> Will you refuse to read all documents emanting from that source as
> well ?
It's been fairly clearly shown that the government, the police, the
judiciary and the Irish people failed the abused children just as the church
did. Unfortunately, an educational system must still be maintained.
--
J/
SOTW: "One Life Stand" - Hot Chip
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=101286758
http://galaxies-sf.monsite.orange.fr/page1.html
Sophistry Made Simple
>
>> It's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who references
>> the Catholic church with the pronoun "she".
>
> Not as hard as trying to have one with someone who hates something simply
> for existing.
You just make things up as you go along. The existence isn't the issue, it's
what it does is the problem.
Sophistry Made Simple
"Westprog" <west...@hottmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhvall$jj$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Fergus O'Rourke wrote:
>> "Howard" <Howar...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:1jbrh2a.1ilcnfboj3g00N%Howar...@home.com...
>> [snip]
>>> I have no interest in reading what one of the senior managers of this
>>> child abuse enabling organisation has to say.
>>
>> What about the biggest "child abuse enabling organisation" in Ireland
>> (adopting your usages) i.e. the Government ?
>> Will you refuse to read all documents emanting from that source as
>> well ?
>
>
> It's been fairly clearly shown that the government, the police, the
> judiciary and the Irish people failed the abused children just as the
> church did.
The government is indeed culpable, but not equally, not in the same way, not
even nearly. The state, the government, the police, all consisting of the
same loyal faithful catholics as the rest of the country, had just the same
amount of trust in their church, even atheists like me were as astonished as
anyone else at the revelations. They had every reason to trust them.
The members of the church on the other hand, had full knowledge of what was
happening - as perpetratrors, as enablers, as conspirators, as apologists.
Fergus O'Rourke
[snip]
>The Church itself never ever dipped into
> it's own pockets.
What are its "own pockets" ?
How did those pockets get filled (to the extent that they did) ?
Fergus O'Rourke
> EX_OWM <allthesp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Howard write
>
>> > I am never amazed at the nonsense you post sometimes. I think the
>> > Catholic Church is lucky it is not being banned. Any other
>> > organisation would be if it were discovered to have been involved
>> > with child abuse the way it has.
>>
>> So that justifies a jackboot ideology where the State is free to seize
>> private property.
>
> We seize the property of other criminals. We should do the same here.
The proceeds of crime are what is seized under current legislation. I
presume that is what you have in mind.
What were the proceeds of these crimes ? And please do specify the
criminals.
Fergus O'Rourke
news:4rq0n.110$I8...@news.indigo.ie...
How do you distinguish a "cult" from a "church" or a "sect" ?
If there is no distinction, what is your point in choosing that word ?
eugene
"Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote in message
news:hhvier$8v6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Because he is a twisted git, like all the other rabid anti-Catholics here!
>
--
And in the end
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make
Mens sana
"Fergus O'Rourke" <us...@irish-lawyer.com> wrote in message
news:hhvier$8v6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I don't distinguish between them.
The word 'church' enjoys a certain (undeserved) respectability which the
word 'cult' doesn't. Cult is therefore more appropriate.
MS.
Mens sana
"eugene" <eug...@home.com> wrote in message
news:NaOdnawyuq9z6t7W...@bt.com...
Now, now Eugene, remember your pixie says you have to love me. Apologise now
or you'll make baby Jesus cry.
MS.
mothed out
> "Mens sana" <SoftOption@where else but eircom.net> wrote in messagenews:4rq0n.110$I8...@news.indigo.ie...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:7qdts7...@mid.individual.net...
> >> Sophistry Made Simple wrote:
>
> >>> No - you might now research the concept of a school's ethos.
>
> >> Which is exactly what you and a few others around here need to do. The
> >> attitude seems to be that a school is entitled to have a particular ethos
> >> as long as that is not a Catholic ethos.
>
> > Precisely. To allow a cult that actively facilitated the most grotesque
> > sadism and paedophilia have control of children is reckless to the point
> > of criminality. No organisation represents a greater threat to the safety
> > and well-being of Irish children than the RC church.
>
> > That your concern is exclusively focused on the assets of your cult rather
> > than the safety of children speaks volumes about
>
> How do you distinguish a "cult" from a "church" or a "sect" ?
>
It's increasingly difficult nowadays. 'Cults get raided, religions
have parades' was one criterion recently suggested to me, but with all
these criminal revelations coming up the old distinctions are
dissolving.