any thoughts ? [Archive]

Hepcat

09-04-2007, 06:42

Well we have one Catholic school here in Rotorua. And it is mostly white, though there are a number of Asians who go there. It has a reputation as a rich, snobby school. Even though the school fees and all that aren't very different from my school, it's because they get all the Asian immigrants who have to pay extra fees.

I've never thought they were prejudice about there students, but then again, there aren't many Maori students, though I think that's just the area it's located in. I've never wanted to go there but even if I did my grandfather would never have stood for it, being militantly atheist. :sweatdrop:

But isn't the problem here a need for more schools? If they are church run schools then wouldn't it make sense that applicants should have to be a member of that church? And would Muslims really want to send their children to a school which is going to be teaching them Catholicism is the one true religion?

Tribesman

09-04-2007, 07:00

Well my thoughts were wow february that isn't bad .
And concerning this bit...
Some parents questioned why white families who had moved this year into the town had managed to overcome the registration deadlines to get their children into schools.

...perhaps some families think that if they are moving to an area with their children then its a good idea to ensure their education will be sorted before they move , but maybe thats just me thinking eh :shrug:

InsaneApache

09-04-2007, 08:48

@ Tribes

Being an atheist and secularist would I be able to get my kids edumacated in Eire? If 98% of all schools are run by the catholic church, is this a problem for non religionstas?

I find it boggling that the Irish state allows a third party (the church) to monopolise the education system.

gaelic cowboy

09-04-2007, 16:50

Well sorry I dont see the problem its a catholic school then catholics should be first. Just cos its mostly Black people turned away is not a racism issue as evidenced by the fact that this issue only crops up in areas lacking in extra school places where massive development has occured. If the state want to run eduacation policy in these schools it will have to buy them back simple as.

econ21

09-04-2007, 19:57

Are they private? I hope so, if not, that's pretty bad.

There's no way 98% of a country's schools are private.

Well sorry I dont see the problem its a catholic school then catholics should be first. ... If the state want to run eduacation policy in these schools it will have to buy them back simple as.

I suspect the state pays for the teachers. Using taxpayers' money to favour admission of one religious group seems bizarre. Building extra schools just for the kids of asylum seekers and other immigrants seems about the worst way possible to integrate them into wider society.

Tribesman

09-04-2007, 21:15

Being an atheist and secularist would I be able to get my kids edumacated in Eire? If 98% of all schools are run by the catholic church, is this a problem for non religionstas?

Thats 98% of english speaking primary schools not 98% of all schools . Seeking primary schools you can find protestant (mainly 2 flavours) muslim , jewish or jehovas witness schools , you can also find non denominational and multi denominational schools , you can even opt for completely private or even home education .
Or you can go to Irish primary schools (they are trying to get them to teach english now though ....half an hour for the first two years~:eek: ) .

So for your question Apache , the answer would be ...it depends where you live and what schools are there or which you can travel to , if however you wanted to open a flying spahgetti monster school or any sort of school you then you can , and get paid by the state for every pupil you teach once you have the school .
Which leads to your second question....
find it boggling that the Irish state allows a third party (the church) to monopolise the education system.
It isn't a monopoly , its just that they got in first , most primary schools and their catchment are based around an area that is known as a parish , organisations in that area get or have land that they then develop for the education business in that area , its just that most of those happen to be Catholic and that church has large land holdings .
With the price of land nowadays its very expensive for other groups to get into the business .
Not prohivitivly so though , theres a group in Balbrigganthat leased part of the racecourse for temporary buildings until they got the proper school built , or there is another group that had a protest today and moved their 160 pupils to have their lessons in a field in Ennistymon (something to do with still being in temporary leased buildings instead of the proper school that they had planned to have built in that field by now) .

Hey its Ireland , its a banana republic , what do you expect ?
Proper planning and unified policies or something remotely resembling it?:shrug:

There's no way 98% of a country's schools are private.

Correct there is no way 98% of a countries schools are private , 100% of this countrys' primary schools are privately owned as schools or privately leased as schools .

gaelic cowboy

09-04-2007, 22:10

I suspect the state pays for the teachers. Using taxpayers' money to favour admission of one religious group seems bizarre. Building extra schools just for the kids of asylum seekers and other immigrants seems about the worst way possible to integrate them into wider society.

Yes they do pay their wages which allows the state to specify the curriculum but not the ethos which is gauranteed by the patron of the school not neccasarily but likely to be a member of the clergy. Since the early days of our state there has been a cosy relationship with the church which led to a situation where education run by the state was catholic because the church was the only organisation with both manpower the resources and intellectual capacity to see the reason for a school in a backwoods area of say Connemara or Erris. often times state responsibility was left to faith based people to plug the gaps so to speak. As product of one of these schools we never had problems like this when I was young simply because our biggest problem was the closure of schools in the bad old eighties. Protestant children went to our school because it was both practical and because we had plenty room in the school.
Now the opposite is happening schools are filling up in the suburbs faster than they can be built. This story about black children being discriminated against is pure nonsence if racism is at the root of it let charges be brought. The reality is the children are new arivals to the area the places are at a premium someone has to lose unfortunately. Interestingly no white people have being asked how they feel about having no place for their child which I can assure the members of the org is happening due in no small part to unrestricted development and the demographic explosion in the suburbs. Also schools are still closing in the inner city of Dublin and I will bet 100 euro they are majority catholic schools if immigrants and non catholic wished they could go there but problem is it could be an hour or two on a bus in the morning for those children. I lived for a good while in Maynooth well known as the town where priests are trained for the catholic church the school had to use temporary porta-cabins for some classes and many children were turned away with no place because of safety and size restrictions. Simply put the goverment should have got off its ass years ago and projected these trends but it didnt so now we have the situation we are in. Not racism but INACTION

econ21

09-04-2007, 22:14

... 100% of this countrys' primary schools are privately owned as schools or privately leased as schools .

But how many are free of tuition fees due to the state picking up the tab?

If the state pays all - or almost all - the tuition costs, then one might expect it to insist that disadvantaged groups are not excluded due to having the wrong religion.

However, as Englishman, it seems I can't complain too much as apparently the same thing goes on here (although as Catholic schools are probably closer to 2% than 98% of the total, the consequences are unlikely to be so severe):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4407874.stm

The link includes reference to a complaint that London Oratory (the school the Blairs' used) gives preference to Catholics. Bizarrely, religious complaints (only, apparently) were referred to the Minister of Education to adjudicate. As she was Ruth Kelly, an Opus Dei member, her decision was perhaps predictable.

gaelic cowboy

09-04-2007, 22:31

Goverment policy is supposed to be free education across the board in any school in Ireland of course free education is a joke ask any parent about that one. A policy based on religon is regretable but a policy on a school having to have so many disabled so many coloured so many x so many y is worse. Interestingly yesterday a woman was interviewed on RTE news at one o'clock she had three children the two youngest had places but not the third older child. Regardless of religon two of her children got a place which shows that race was not a factor. Eventually the third child will get a place as the policy is religon first then if there is room you can apply to go to the school then if you have siblings in the school you on a higher level than even a new catholic to the area. So consequently as long as its all on the up and up the last child avails of the sibling rule next year. Remenber the school takes you on because it says it can put you through school all the way to the end not just for the year.

econ21

09-04-2007, 22:34

Yes they do pay their wages which allows the state to specify the curriculum but not the ethos which is gauranteed by the patron of the school not neccasarily but likely to be a member of the clergy.

Ethos is distinct from admissions. I've seen Catholic schools keep their ethos despite very multi-cultural and multi-faith admissions. (In fact, they are famous for it in parts of the world like Africa.)

This story about black children being discriminated against is pure nonsence if racism is at the root of it let charges be brought. The reality is the children are new arivals to the area the places are at a premium someone has to lose unfortunately. Interestingly no white people have being asked how they feel about having no place for their child which I can assure the members of the org is happening due in no small part to unrestricted development and the demographic explosion in the suburbs.

You may be right, but the report was about one suburb were only blacks turned up at the meeting of excluded parents and where some complained of queue-jumping by newer white arrivals.

Simply put the goverment should have got off its ass years ago and projected these trends but it didnt so now we have the situation we are in. Not racism but INACTION

Again, you may be right about the long term. But the short term government reaction - build a new school for the 100 excluded blacks - sounds weak. I'd prefer them to build the school and from day one make sure admissions were mixed - if need be using lotteries and overriding with the two elementary school's admissions policies (which have failed).

Tribesman

09-04-2007, 23:13

if need be using lotteries and overriding with the two elementary school's admissions policies (which have failed).

They didn't fail , its just that some people didn't register their children in time , blame the parents .

If the state pays all - or almost all - the tuition costs, then one might expect it to insist that disadvantaged groups are not excluded due to having the wrong religion.

OK forget the myth about free education , thats the same as the myth about free health care over here .
A privately run/owned school has its own policies(within limits) it cannot insist that it excludes certain groups , but if it is oversubscribed it can choose its customers .
It could increase its intake , either by building more classrooms which means more land and more expense , or it can increase class sizes , which leads to lowering the quality of the goods it delivers which in turn leads to less customers wanting its services .

But the short term government reaction - build a new school for the 100 excluded blacks - sounds weak.
The government reaction is to see if they can encourage someone else to build a new school .

InsaneApache

09-05-2007, 00:08

I think I may well be considering my next business plan. Sorted! :laugh4:

econ21

09-05-2007, 09:56

They didn't fail , its just that some people didn't register their children in time , blame the parents .

The report seems ambiguous on this. The parents of excluded children seem to think that religious preference - rather than just failure to register - played a role. They also think some whites did not register in time and got places. Maybe they are wrong, but the fact that all the excluded pupils at the meeting were black makes it smell to me.

If the excluded parents are right, then the policies did fail in that they end up with 100 excluded black kids. If it were 100 randomly selected kids, then that's just a planning issue - not one of discrimination. But as it is, you really are storing up trouble for the future with that kind of social exclusion. It may not matter to the individual school who set the policies, but collectively for the community, it is a failure.

OK forget the myth about free education , thats the same as the myth about free health care over here .

Enlighten me - what will the parents be paying to enrol in those two elementary schools? A real private school in England charges about £6k per child minimum.

A privately run/owned school has its own policies(within limits) it cannot insist that it excludes certain groups , but if it is oversubscribed it can choose its customers .

What it can or cannot do ultimately is a political issue (especially if, as I suspect, it is dependent on state funding). That's what we are debating - unless you want to move to the liberatarian side of the political alignment graph.

The government reaction is to see if they can encourage someone else to build a new school .

That sounds even weaker than I thought. Most people accept there's a right to basic education - if someone else won't provide it, the state should step in.

Tribesman

09-05-2007, 19:32

The report seems ambiguous on this. The parents of excluded children seem to think that religious preference - rather than just failure to register - played a role. They also think some whites did not register in time and got places. Maybe they are wrong, but the fact that all the excluded pupils at the meeting were black makes it smell to me.

Many things played a role , the influx into the area is the main one coupled with badly planned development . Some parents at the meeting say it was religeous , others say it was racial , others say it was because they didn't understand the system , others say that because they didn't know where they were moving to they didn't get a chance to apply , others say that because they havn't got cars they cannot do what other parents who missed places did and try other areas (some parents are going as far as Drogheda to obtain a school place .
So for you to mention that all the families were black does lead onto both the housing market and housing policies , which could be said to be failing . Which nicely deals with your next section
If the excluded parents are right......but collectively for the community, it is a failure.

Enlighten me - what will the parents be paying to enrol in those two elementary schools? A real private school in England charges about £6k per child minimum.

I don't know , the wife deals with all that stuff , but it cannot be compared to real public school fees in Britain , they are not meant to be free are they , unless you get a scholarship ?

What it can or cannot do ultimately is a political issue
Yep , but its Irish politics , they don't like issues . If however the parents were to pay a few errrr.....political donations in the right direction they would have all the schools they could wish for .

That sounds even weaker than I thought. Most people accept there's a right to basic education - if someone else won't provide it, the state should step in.
Yep , the state did step in , they asked a group that runs some schools to step in , the step in will provide 56 places in the short term until someone else wants to step in .
Most people accept that there is a right to basic education , just like there is a right to decent healthcare , roads that are not pothole filled death traps , tap water that you can actually use ......it doesn't mean that you get them though

InsaneApache

09-05-2007, 19:44

It sounds like an unmitigated disaster for the kids and Eire.

Tell me, has the ROI got to grips with 'multiculturalism'* or is it just being ignored by the powers that be?

*Subtext; Immigration.

Tribesman

09-05-2007, 20:21

It sounds like an unmitigated disaster for the kids and Eire.

Eire is an unmittigated disaster from the outset of independance:shrug:

Tell me, has the ROI got to grips with 'multiculturalism'* or is it just being ignored by the powers that be?

usual knee jerk short term fixes with a very large measure of ignoring .
What can you say when Bertie makes a new cabinet position of minister for integration , then puts a racist biggot in charge:dizzy2:
But anyway on education , there is a primary school at the bottom of the road , it gives good education results , it gets extra funding and very big grant assistance .
Unlike the schools in Balbriggan it didn't close this septembers registration back in february (which is quite late really) it closed it about two and a half years ago , it doesn't matter what your religeon is if you apply , it has no nationality or colour code , this years new class intake is over 30% of african extraction , they knew to get their kids registered in time if they wanted to go to that school :idea2:
The only condition it places on admittance is that you don't have your kids taught English at school .

InsaneApache

09-05-2007, 21:37

Eire is an unmittigated disaster from the outset of independance

Your not a closet unionist are you? :inquisitive:

I'm no educationalist, but it seems that the current GCSE's are about as relevant as the old CSE. There is a website, god knows where, in it they compare GCE's with GCSE's.

Guess what?

They (GCE's) were harder. Not to mention more academic.

Our kids are being manipulated for social engineering. An utter disgrace.

Sorry to pull it off topic. :shame:

Don Corleone

09-05-2007, 22:04

I think its unfortunate that circumstances wound up the way they did, but as others have highlighted, not enough information is provided by the article to form a strong opinion.

The key question is when did these black parents attempt to register their children and whether there were any white (or, if you want to follow the Papist discrimination route, Catholic) families that registered after the black families that found seats in the class. If that could be shown, its an open and shut case of bigotry.

I noticed that the article studiously avoided publishing numbers of the numbers of black children that were accepted for this school year, and what percentage the 100 children were. It may be a cultural issue... that these parents didn't know any better and simply showed up on the first day of school with their kids, not knowing they were supposed to pre-register. Or, it may be discrimination. Its hard to say based solely on that article and the speculation found in this thread. :shrug:

Tribesman

09-05-2007, 22:06

Your not a closet unionist are you?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
nice:2thumbsup:
The trouble with rebellions is that lots of the decent folks end up dead so you end up with the muppets who are left over , even in the last election, 80 years after the conflict we still had civil war politics raising its ugly head .
Its not as bad as it used to be ,women are allowed to teach now even after they get married :dizzy2: . Careers options are no longer a simple boat or plane question .
But its still the backward unplanned banana republic of Ireland .

Tribesman

09-05-2007, 22:21

Here you go Don , another discussion on it

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0903/morningireland_av.html?2284683,242,209
If you search that site or the 2FM one off it there are lots of stories about it , the UN reports warning of possible problems with the policies is on there somewhere too . (though the latest ones on education will probably be about another schools topic , central regulation of individual schools extra curricular programs and community based groups using school facilities , something about contracts , liabilty and payments)

Don Corleone

09-05-2007, 22:31

Right. According to your radio article (and I only listened to the first 5 minutes, sorry, I've only got so long) it appears to be a matter of 1) not enough seats in the schools and then 2) because 98% of the schools are administered by the Catholic church, Catholic kids are getting preferential treatment, legally.

Well, since its Catholic kids that are getting the goodies, I see no problems here. :laugh4:

Just kidding. Well, actually no, but not quite like that. Correct me if I'm wrong Tribesman, but the Catholic Church actually wrote the Constitution for the ROI, right? And there's no mention of it being a secular republic ala the USA or France, correct? Frankly, as much as it might irk some folks, if the country is legally a 'Catholic country', it has every right to discriminate in favor of Catholics. This is similar to countries like Iran and Egypt that discriminate in favor of muslims, India which discriminates in favor of Hindus, or Utah. :laugh4:

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'd have more of an axe to grind with the racial discrimination angle than the religious discrimination one. And nobody's actually saying muslim and protestant kids can't get an education, they're just saying they won't be first in line. Hey, if you don't like it, don't move to Ireland. :shrug:

Tribesman

09-05-2007, 22:48

Correct me if I'm wrong Tribesman, but the Catholic Church actually wrote the Constitution for the ROI, right? And there's no mention of it being a secular republic ala the USA or France, correct?
Since you asked .
You are wrong Don , completely on all points mentioned there .
The holy catholic and apostolic church has a special position due to it being the religeon of the majority , but the state cannot endorse any one religeon , neither can it discriminate against any religeon(apart from on public safety grounds or something like that ).
One thing that is in the constitution though , the State guarantees free education , we don't get it though .

Don Corleone

09-05-2007, 23:55

Since you asked .
You are wrong Don , completely on all points mentioned there .
The holy catholic and apostolic church has a special position due to it being the religeon of the majority , but the state cannot endorse any one religeon , neither can it discriminate against any religeon(apart from on public safety grounds or something like that ).
One thing that is in the constitution though , the State guarantees free education , we don't get it though .

My mistake. I would have sworn that the Catholic Church wrote your Constitution, which was why divorce & remarriage was constitutionally prohibited until 10 years ago and why the Republic paid the settlements on the sexual abuse cases over there. Oh well, live and learn.

If you are a secular republic, by Constitution, than you're out of luck. You shouldn't be giving state funds to the Catholic church to run your schools, any schools the church sets up should be self-funded. Some would argue they shouldn't be allowed period, that all children should be forced to go to state schools (though I wouldn't). As long as the Church is taking State funds, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on a religious basis.

Tribesman

09-06-2007, 07:02

econ21

09-06-2007, 11:16

...if the country is legally a 'Catholic country', it has every right to discriminate in favor of Catholics.

Such a hypothetical country might have a legal right, but morally, I think would still be wrong. For me, no discrimination on grounds of race, sex, creed etc is right up there with no torturing innocent kittens as a no-brainer. It seems a surprisingly relativist approach for you, Don, to imply that constitutions trump morals. :inquisitive:

India which discriminates in favor of Hindus,

No officially, it doesn't. With 16% muslims, it was founded as a secular state and has had Muslim Presidents etc. According to Wikipedia, a recent report to the government found evidence of discrimination against Muslims in state employment etc. But the ruling and secular Congress Party is the one pushing for action on this. Unsurprisingly the opposition Hindu fundamentalist BJP is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India

As long as the Church is taking State funds, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on a religious basis.

I think this is the bottom line. When effectively contracting out its services, the state should still insist on such fundamental principles as non-discrimination being upheld. Sadly, my own government (UK) apparently does not agree.

gaelic cowboy

09-06-2007, 15:17

The real question is are we allowed to raise our children as we see fit the Irish goverment has enshrined this in law called the equal status act which allows a school to protect its ethos this could be Jewish Hindu Muslim probaly even atheist if some group of people wished for one and applied and recieved funding. Since parents are the ultimate gaurdian of any child the state should keep well out of it and only intevene in the case of abuse or neglect. The solutionis a comprimise state funding for your religons school. Naturally schools have in the past accomadated people of other religons in there schools but I believe that schools should be allowed to preferentially choose co religionists if others see it as discrimation thats there right as it is mine to raise my child Jedi if I so wish. People suffered greatly to obtain these rights and sweeping them away because we either do not share these values or are even hostile to them will cause just as many problems. If I remember the US had lots of debate on a no prayer policy in school a few years ago. I cant pretend I know anything about it but I guess these schools were more state run than religous in nature which meant of course that it was correct to ban prayer however this will only drive people out of state schools and into the murky water of completely religously controlled schools. The state would then have the horrible job of clamping down on peoples chosen education in a bid to stamp out say a kind of Hardline Madrassa type school. By funding religous schools we preempt extremist type schools by allowing people their choice education. No principal could ignore a ruling from his paymaster if he was preaching hatred in school which is exactly what happened a while ago in a muslim school here the department was concerned at some of the content by certain teachers and took steps to warn and remedy the situation. Probably the easiest way out of this is to encourage schools to set aside say 5 to ten percent admisions for immigrants and other religons this would ease it in the short term till more permanent things could be done like building a bigger school.

Don Corleone

09-06-2007, 15:42

Such a hypothetical country might have a legal right, but morally, I think would still be wrong. For me, no discrimination on grounds of race, sex, creed etc is right up there with no torturing innocent kittens as a no-brainer. It seems a surprisingly relativist approach for you, Don, to imply that constitutions trump morals. :inquisitive:

Oh dear. I apparently left myself open to misinterpretation. I suppose I should have clearly stated that there is a difference between what a being is entitled to do by virtue of their sovereign rights and what a moral course of action in a given situation would be.

In this particular case, I was linking the right or the ability to pursue a course of action as being legally valid to the Constitution that defines said sovereign state. I did not mean to imply that I thought it was a good thing, just that it was a legally permissable thing.

Honestly, I agree with you that discrimination is one of those areas that Christian and secular principles coincide. Jesus didn't rant on ad nauseum, adding up his collected teachings makes for a rather short read. Each of His teaching parables was chosen as a pearl of wisdom and the one about the good Samaritan, groundbreaking for its day, makes it quite clear how He thinks we should treat 'the other'.

From a purely self-interested point of view, I think the Church has got this bass-ackwards. They should give preferential treatment to non-Catholics. Why? Their ultimate goal is to spread the gospel, especially to those who haven't heard it, right? How are they going to spread it to these 100 kids they kept out of class? Who's most likely to have not heard the gospel, the Catholic kids or the 100 children of African refugees (most likely muslim)?

Tribesman

09-06-2007, 20:11

Don , what makes you think that the africans are most likely muslim ?

Don Corleone

09-06-2007, 20:36

Don , what makes you think that the africans are most likely muslim ?

The article said they were predominately muslim and some evangelical protestant.

Edit: Need to read more closely. The line I was thinking of actually read "Some were muslim, evangelical protestant or of no spiritual background".

The radio bit had also made mention of it being more a matter of religious, rather than racial discrimination as well. Even if we're talking about evangelical protestants or no spiritual basis, if the Church views the schools as a means to an end, bringing more into the fold, they're not going about it the right way.

Tribesman

09-06-2007, 20:42

No it didn't....from the article........Some of the African applicants were Muslim, members of evangelical Protestant denominations or of no religious creed.

Don Corleone

09-06-2007, 20:45

Beat you to it. :-p

It doesn't change my point, though. Or is it your point that it really is a nativist stance?

Tribesman

09-06-2007, 20:46

forget the last post

Tribesman

09-06-2007, 20:54

Beat me to it again :2thumbsup:

If it was a natavist stance then would the head "exective" of the two schools in question and of 3 others in the area be suggesting that they sell one of the five schools to another group so they could then run it as a non-denominational school ?

Patricius

09-08-2007, 02:39

My mistake. I would have sworn that the Catholic Church wrote your Constitution, which was why divorce & remarriage was constitutionally prohibited until 10 years ago and why the Republic paid the settlements on the sexual abuse cases over there. Oh well, live and learn.

If you are a secular republic, by Constitution, than you're out of luck. You shouldn't be giving state funds to the Catholic church to run your schools, any schools the church sets up should be self-funded. Some would argue they shouldn't be allowed period, that all children should be forced to go to state schools (though I wouldn't). As long as the Church is taking State funds, they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on a religious basis.

Eamonn De Valera wrote it, and rejected a few rather pushy clerical suggestions. Apart from the special position provision which was deleted later, the remainder that had a religious bearing was slight enough for the time, and can be re-interpreted fairly smoothly in a less sectarian, more secular way - i.e, the meaning of marriage might be de-gendered in the future or not. I would note that Ireland remained democratic throughout its existence and managed with no more than two constitutions, and no fascist movement of any size. A good others failed in that regard.

This story is a sham. Admisions in Ireland are needlessly complicated, or more correctly highly arbritrary. Some children failed to gain admission through a failure to grasp the system. That paper used a complicated situation to attack both church and state.

The church role in so many schools is so slight as to be barely noticeable.

Delegating certain educational functions to a given body, whether a church or semi-private vocation body, might be something of a relic, but a state system would be a headache no one wants. If a certain organisation is utilised, its ethos has to be taken on board - note that this never really involves barring children on the basis of religion as in the UK. Remember too that a good deal of resources comes from the Church through property (personnel in the past) and some level of donations. The government would sooner want a hole in the head than sustain the full cost of education.

Nearly all the abusive facilities were in the charge of autonomous religious orders. A bishop has limited enough authority over his own priests, and effectively none over an order. I don't think the state took up the tab out of the goodness of its heart. There are probably legalities not disclosed that make the state pay. Who knows?

Some thoughts... that's all...