ESRI: Religion is fourth-most important subject in primary school

robindch

The ESRI released a report today into primary schools, looking at where the time's being spent, whether the kids find it fun, teacher time, experience and much else besides. The full report is available here:

http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3398

And the PDF is here.

A few interesting points to note:

• Page 9, Table 4.1: of all topics studied, religion Religion is the fourth-most important topic in primary school, following English, maths and Irish (that being another topic). Also, the spend on religion is twice that of science.
• Page 14, Table 2.2b: girls spend more time on religion than boys, especially those at girls-only schools; gaelscoils spend less time, rural schools more.
• Page 17, Table 2.4b: except for newly-employed teachers (sucking up to the powers-that-be?), the older the teacher, the more time is spent on religion
• Page 18, Table 2.5: if more time is spent on religion, then maths is the main casualty.
• Page 50, Table 4.2: the more education a kid's mum has, the more they'll enjoy maths, English and Irish; but unless the mum has a post-grad degree, then the kid is not likely to enjoy maths (with mums who only completed secondary school having a particularly baleful influence). Being the child of an immigrant is massively positive correlated with having a good attitude towards maths.

On a possibly-related note, my company's trying to hire a developer at the moment and over the last month, we've received 38 cv's: Thirty-four were from immigrants, four from Irish citizens; we called twelve people to interview, including three of the four Irish guys and today, one of the Irish guys didn't even bother showing up (the other two are due tomorrow). Perhaps we should be setting up tax-free churches and hiring priests instead.

.

RichieC

or some of the immigrants?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps we should be setting up tax-free churches and hiring priests instead.

Perhaps you should apply that logic to your own organisation (Irish Skeptics) which indeed is tax free?

strobe

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps you should apply that logic to your own organisation (Irish Skeptics) which indeed is tax free?

Heh... burn!!

(Sorry Robin, I just appreciate a good burn.)

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

The ESRI released a report today into primary schools, looking at where the time's being spent, whether the kids find it fun, teacher time, experience and much else besides. The full report is available here:

http://www.esri.ie/publications/latest_publications/view/index.xml?id=3398

And the PDF is here.

A few interesting points to note:

• Page 9, Table 4.1: of all topics studied, religion Religion is the fourth-most important topic in primary school, following English, maths and Irish (that being another topic). Also, the spend on religion is twice that of science.
• Page 14, Table 2.2b: girls spend more time on religion than boys, especially those at girls-only schools; gaelscoils spend less time, rural schools more.
• Page 17, Table 2.4b: except for newly-employed teachers (sucking up to the powers-that-be?), the older the teacher, the more time is spent on religion
• Page 18, Table 2.5: if more time is spent on religion, then maths is the main casualty.
• Page 50, Table 4.2: the more education a kid's mum has, the more they'll enjoy maths, English and Irish; but unless the mum has a post-grad degree, then the kid is not likely to enjoy maths (with mums who only completed secondary school having a particularly baleful influence). Being the child of an immigrant is massively positive correlated with having a good attitude towards maths.[/list
  .

Well obviously as far as the primary school system is concerned it is equally important for those entering Secondary school to be able to reel off answers to philosophical questions such as 'where is God?' as to be able to divide 16 by 4 and add 7 or recognise what a verb is....

They don't really need to know that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius - sure the kettle takes care of that like.

Morbert

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They don't really need to know that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius - sure the kettle takes care of that like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rx4ZalfLW0

Knasher

The reason for newly-employed teachers spending more time on religion is because, at least according to my sister who is a teacher, it is one of the hardest subjects to teach as it isn't an state exam subject in the majority of schools so the kids make absolutely no effort with it.

Which of course makes it an unpopular subject for teachers and then one of the easiest subjects for new teachers to actually get a job through.

MagicMarker

Ah sure, what are math and science good for anyway?

Corkfeen

Knasher wrote: »

The reason for newly-employed teachers spending more time on religion is because, at least according to my sister who is a teacher, it is one of the hardest subjects to teach as it isn't an state exam subject in the majority of schools so the kids make absolutely no effort with it.

Which of course makes it an unpopular subject for teachers and then one of the easiest subjects for new teachers to actually get a job through.

The report is into primary schools........ Anyway, it really does annoy me when both Irish and Religion are considered to be more important than History. At least with History, it most definitely matters and has legitimate substance. Think my history degree has made me protective of the subject...

robindch

philologos wrote: »

Perhaps you should apply that logic to your own organisation (Irish Skeptics) which indeed is tax free?

Ah, this tired old warhorse again.

The ISS is not my "own organisation". It's run by a small number of decent folks who do whatever's needed without receiving a penny from the ISS (and neither do I, either for moderating the ISS forum, or this one, fwiw). So far as I'm aware, the entire turnover is spent on (a) hiring rooms to hold their occasional lectures and (b) basic travel expenses for the people who do them. Most lecturers, I believe, have not charged for their services.

Contrast this with your religion which, by selective manipulation and presentation of obviously made-up stories, determines that protestants must pay 10% of your gross annual turnover to your local religious service provider. I genuinely can't believe that most religious people fall for this. And I feel embarrassed that most religious people do.

Even if there were to be significant amounts of money floating around -- as it is with your religion -- then I, and I'm sure the other members would be more than happy to pay whatever's the going corporate tax rate on the profits that the ISS would declare. Business is business after all. At least on this side of the fence. And I'm sure that all board members would pay whatever personal tax rate applies to whatever cash that the directors + managers receive. At this point in time, I don't believe that a single member of the ISS has received a penny from it since it was founded ten years ago. Can you say this about your religious service provider?

As it is, the ISS turns over probably less than €5,000 per year (I don't see their accounts) and it chooses to spend this pathetically small amount on helping people to learn how to think and running a few loss-making lectures per year. I'd have thought that this was money well-spent, but perhaps you disagree since that amount is probably less than a single Irish megachurch turns over from a single religious believer in a single year.

Similarly helpfully, the ISS is non-supremacist, non-exclusivist and non-discriminatory -- three attributes that do not apply to your religious service provider. The ISS does not tell its flock of eyes-shut believers that non-members (a) will burn in hell for all eternity; (b) are moral derelicts; (c) are incapable of demonstrating true love or any genuine feeling; (d) and that members are blessed creatures who'll stay alive when they die, but only if they continue to hand over, voluntarily of course, 10% or more of their income and say the magic words "I accept Jesus as my personal saviour" or whatever other dumb bromide happens to be made up on the spot.

I really can't believe that you are seriously comparing religious organizations such as yours to the ISS which has, on its homepage, the following:

Dawkins, via the ISS wrote:

We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance.

philologos

I was just pointing out that secular / atheist organisations are not at a disadvantage. It seems that when you refer to €5,000 turnover, it's just an issue of you saying that more people support churches than such organisations. However, this doesn't mean that the State doesn't give you the same benefits as it does to churches.

It seems that you don't understand the concept of profit, versus donations which are used for solely furthering the aims of the organisation.

As for the tripe you've spouted about nonsense and utterly made up stories, this is simply your POV. I'm pointing out the simple fact that the organisation that you are a part of receives no less benefit in terms of tax.

Peregrinus

Interesting stuff.

A few points/quibbles:

1. The ESRI Report doesn’t establish that Religion is the “fourth most important subject” in primary school; just that it gets the fourth most amount of time in primary school classes for nine-year-olds.

2. To put this in context, it’s quite a distant fourth, compared to the first three: English, 4:15 hrs; Maths, 3:45 hrs; Irish 3:30 hrs; Religion 2 hrs.

3. This ranking is easily manipulated, depending on the outcome we want. We could aggregate English and Irish as “languages”; Religion would then come third. Or we could aggregate History, Geography and Science as “SESE” (which in fact the Department of Education does); Religion would them come fifth. If, as well as aggregating those three, we aggregated Arts, Music and Drama (as, again, the DoE does), Religion would come sixth. So, what result would you like?

4. Another way to look at this would be to say that religion occupies 2 hrs out of a 21 hr school week. Is that too much, or too little? Obviously, if you think religion shouldn’t be in schools at all, it’s too much. But, if you don’t make that assumption, it’s not obvious that it is too much. Arguable, but not obvious.

5. It’s less than the DoE recommends (30 mins/day, which translates to 2:30 hrs per week).

6. As Robin points out, the table on page 18 shows that more time spent on Religion comes at the expense of time on Maths to a greater extent than time spent on any other subject. It would be a mistake to conclude, however, that the object of having more time on Maths is therefore best achieved by spending less time on Religion. While the strongest negative correlation for time on Religion is time on Maths, the strongest negative correlation for time on Maths is time on Science, followed by time on Drama. Religions comes third, followed by History and Geography. In fact these five are all bunched together; the correlation for all of them varies between -0.37 and -0.41.

7. It’s also interesting to note the positive correlations; schools which spend more time on Religion also spend more time on Music, Arts and Drama. Whereas schools which spend more time on Maths also spend more time on English and Irish.

8. And, worthy of note, time spend on Science is strongly negatively correlated with time spent on Maths, whereas it is only very weekly correlated with time spent on Religion, with the curious result that spending more time on Maths impacts science education much more adversely than spending more time on Religion. Make of that what you will.

9. What all of this suggests to me is a “camel hump” graph; as regards time allocation for different subjects, schools can be roughly grouped into one of two models. One model focuses on the “key” subjects of English, Irish and Maths (the subjects on which, by an amazing coincidence, the school’s performance is going to be rated by the DoE) and minimizes time spend on all other subjects. The other seeks to provide time to a wide range of subjects, necessarily at the expense of less time on the core subjects. Religion does better in the second type of school, not necessarily because the school has a particularly religious ethos, but because it has a commitment to diversity in a broader curriculum.

10. It’s debatable how important is the actual subject of study, for a nine-year-old. A large part of what children learn in primary school is not really the subject studied. Children learn personal skills, social skills, values, self-esteem and confidence, educational skills (“how to learn”), etc. You can learn these (or fail to learn them) regardless of the topic of study. That’s not to say that the topic is completely unimportant; just that it is nothing like as important as it will be in secondary school.

11. I’m not convinced that any of this is connected with Robin’s recruitment problems. The fact that 34 out of his 38 applicants are non-Irish and that one of the Irish applicants failed to show for interview may say something about the Irish educational system. On the other hand, it may say something about the sector Robin’s company is in, or even - gasp! - about Robin’s company in particular.

vibe666

Morbert wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rx4ZalfLW0

Seth Rogen called, he wants his voice back. :pac:

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

3. This ranking is easily manipulated, depending on the outcome we want. We could aggregate English and Irish as “languages”; Religion would then come third. Or we could aggregate History, Geography and Science as “SESE” (which in fact the Department of Education does); Religion would them come fifth. If, as well as aggregating those three, we aggregated Arts, Music and Drama (as, again, the DoE does), Religion would come sixth. So, what result would you like?

The honest one? The one where we take each taught subject by itself and compare the time spent on each one separately? It seems to me that your manipulations only muddy the water with respect to how much time is spent on religion as a subject compared to each other subject.

Peregrinus wrote: »

6. As Robin points out, the table on page 18 shows that more time spent on Religion comes at the expense of time on Maths to a greater extent than time spent on any other subject. It would be a mistake to conclude, however, that the object of having more time on Maths is therefore best achieved by spending less time on Religion. While the strongest negative correlation for time on Religion is time on Maths, the strongest negative correlation for time on Maths is time on Science, followed by time on Drama. Religions comes third, followed by History and Geography. In fact these five are all bunched together; the correlation for all of them varies between -0.37 and -0.41.


8. And, worthy of note, time spend on Science is strongly negatively correlated with time spent on Maths, whereas it is only very weekly correlated with time spent on Religion, with the curious result that spending more time on Maths impacts science education much more adversely than spending more time on Religion. Make of that what you will.

Couldn't this be a result of schools who spend more time on science take time away from maths instead of religion? And therefore in order to increase time on both science and maths (or at least increase one without impacting the other) time should (or could) be taken away from religion?

Peregrinus wrote: »

10. It’s debatable how important is the actual subject of study, for a nine-year-old. A large part of what children learn in primary school is not really the subject studied. Children learn personal skills, social skills, values, self-esteem and confidence, educational skills (“how to learn”), etc. You can learn these (or fail to learn them) regardless of the topic of study. That’s not to say that the topic is completely unimportant; just that it is nothing like as important as it will be in secondary school.

And do kids learn these because of education curriculum and methodology or in spite of it? And might not some personal skills, values of education skills be better than others?

Peregrinus wrote: »

11. I’m not convinced that any of this is connected with Robin’s recruitment problems. The fact that 34 out of his 38 applicants are non-Irish and that one of the Irish applicants failed to show for interview may say something about the Irish educational system. On the other hand, it may say something about the sector Robin’s company is in, or even - gasp! - about Robin’s company in particular.

Or it might say something about how pathetic the personal, social and educational skills someone develops as a child if the schools they went to just assumed that they magically osmose them from the walls with little to no guidance.

Morag

I've been told that RE/faith formation is covered for 30 mins a day everyday in school as it is vital for children to be instilled with a moral compass and to learn right from wrong and compassion for people. That opting a child out is setting them up to fail and lead miserable lives, and as the school was good enough to admit my non christian child as an act of charity that it was in order to instal christian values in them, opting them and making a fuss was spitting in the face of the school and the church.
Aren't the 92% of our primary school just grand.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The honest one? The one where we take each taught subject by itself and compare the time spent on each one separately? It seems to me that your manipulations only muddy the water with respect to how much time is spent on religion as a subject compared to each other subject.

Hold on. I point out that the “most important in primary school” claim is based on evidence about how much time is spent on the subject in Year 4 classrooms, and that the ranking of “fourth” could just as defensibly be presented as third, fifth or sixth, and then I suggest that a more objective and absolute statement is that religion takes up 2 hrs in a 21-hour school week, and I’,m the one who’s “manipulating” and “muddying the water”?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Couldn't this be a result of schools who spend more time on science take time away from maths instead of religion? And therefore in order to increase time on both science and maths (or at least increase one without impacting the other) time should (or could) be taken away from religion?

Schools who wish to spend more time on maths could indeed take the time from religion. But, by and large, they don’t. They could take the time from any subject, but the data tells what subjects they do take the time from. And I don’t think we should ignore data about how the real world actually works, do you?

I suggest that what the data shows is that, when a school spends more time on maths, that has little to do with the school’s attitude to religion, and everything to do with the schools attitude to the “key” subjects on which school performance is rated. They spend more time on maths (and, commonly, other key subjects) by spending less time on all the non-key subjects - science, religion, history, geography and others. Wishing it were otherwise is not going to make it so.

If your true object is to promote science education, this evidence shows clearly what will work - make science a “key” subject. Reducing time spent on religion, however, is unlikely in itself significantly to promote time spent on science - the saving in time is likely to accrue largely to maths, English and Irish.

(This assumes, of course, that religion is not replaced by time spent on ethics, values development, philosophy, critical thinking, or some combination of these. I think there’s a good case for saying that it should be.)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And do kids learn these because of education curriculum and methodology or in spite of it? And might not some personal skills, values of education skills be better than others?

They learn through and with the curriculum and methodology. Some skills, etc, might well be more important than others. If you want to argue that more science education would develop the more important skills more effectively than religious education, best to start by setting out your evidence.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or it might say something about how pathetic the personal, social and educational skills someone develops as a child if the schools they went to just assumed that they magically osmose them from the walls with little to no guidance.

I suppose it might. But with no evidence presented to suggest that it does I don’t think I need entertain the suggestion at too much length at this point.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on. I point out that the “most important in primary school” claim is based on evidence about how much time is spent on the subject in Year 4 classrooms, and that the ranking of “fourth” could just as defensibly be presented as third, fifth or sixth, and then I suggest that a more objective and absolute statement is that religion takes up 2 hrs in a 21-hour school week, and I’,m the one who’s “manipulating” and “muddying the water”?

Yes, you are. Even though 2/21 hrs sounds small, it still puts religion as fourth (out of 10, just counting the subjects you mentioned), so it doesn't represent the full situation. What exactly is dishonest about comparing each single subject, based on the time spent on them, to each other?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Schools who wish to spend more time on maths could indeed take the time from religion. But, by and large, they don’t. They could take the time from any subject, but the data tells what subjects they do take the time from. And I don’t think we should ignore data about how the real world actually works, do you?

Who said we should ignore it? My interpretation is based on the evidence from the real world. We see in the study that when maths goes up, science goes down and vice-versa, religion is unaffected. This is, in fact, the problem that people here have with the education system - when trying to increase time on important subjects like maths and science, time is taken from other important subjects like science and maths, instead of superfluous subjects like religion (there are others, but they are for a different discussion). But that is merely how it is done, not how it must be done.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suggest that what the data shows is that, when a school spends more time on maths, that has little to do with the school’s attitude to religion, and everything to do with the schools attitude to the “key” subjects on which school performance is rated. They spend more time on maths (and, commonly, other key subjects) by spending less time on all the non-key subjects - science, religion, history, geography and others. Wishing it were otherwise is not going to make it so.

Except if that was the case, that there are schools that only really care about the Maths, English and Irish (the stuff that the school is measured by), it would not make sense that they seem to only take time away from science in order to increase time on maths. If they didn't have a bias towards taking time from certain subjects, then there would be an even negative bias across all subjects in relation to maths (as they would, more or less, randomly take time away from each one to increase time on maths), religion included. It seems, from the data on the real world, that science is singled out more than anything else, which contradicts your idea, as science would be a boon to mathematical ability, so more time should be spent on it to improve maths, not less.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If your true object is to promote science education, this evidence shows clearly what will work - make science a “key” subject. Reducing time spent on religion, however, is unlikely in itself significantly to promote time spent on science - the saving in time is likely to accrue largely to maths, English and Irish.

Or, even better, get rid of this "key" subject business that the DOE relies on, and just base subject importance on how relevant they are for becoming a competent, productive member of society. So (with some alterations of their curriculum) maths, science, english and a second language (not irish) would be compulsory and at the top, history geography, arts, music and the rest would be underneath and mostly optional. I agree that the problems in the education system go beyond how it views religion class, but it is a strong aspect of it : Religion is given 4 times more time than science in Primary school teacher training .

Peregrinus wrote: »

(This assumes, of course, that religion is not replaced by time spent on ethics, values development, philosophy, critical thinking, or some combination of these. I think there’s a good case for saying that it should be.)

TBH, I would like for both English (as it is now) and Religion to be scrapped, and instead have a subject that, early on in school, teaches you reading and writing and all that, and then later brings in debating, public speaking, ethics, critical thinking and philosophy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They learn through and with the curriculum and methodology. Some skills, etc, might well be more important than others. If you want to argue that more science education would develop the more important skills more effectively than religious education, best to start by setting out your evidence.

You mentioned it yourself, up above. Critical thinking Even if you assume that thorough religious study can give you a real ability for critical thinking, the wishy-washy, never-tell-the-kids-the-nasty-parts-of-the-bible crap they do in primary religion classes adds nothing to someone's ability to critically think, not least because the text books lie: my nephew is in second year in a secondary school in dublin and his religion book flat out says that believing in god and evolution at the same time is justified because no-one can explain the evolution of the eye (that's American deep-south creationist level misinformation).

Can you explain what personal, social, education skills kids get from primary school religion?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suppose it might. But with no evidence presented to suggest that it does I don’t think I need entertain the suggestion at too much length at this point.

And your suggestion that I was responded to has whole encyclopaedias of evidence to support it. :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, you are. Even though 2/21 hrs sounds small, it still puts religion as fourth (out of 10, just counting the subjects you mentioned), so it doesn't represent the full situation. What exactly is dishonest about comparing each single subject, based on the time spent on them, to each other?

I didn’t say that it was dishonest. My point is that it’s easily manipulated and, even if we don’t manipulate, it’s not as informative as it could be. After all, the time spent on religion could be anything from just over one hour per week to just under three and a half hours per week, and it would still have been fourth in the ranking. Thus, saying that it’s fourth isn’t really enough to let us make a judgment about whether the time spent is too much or too little. Saying that it’s two hours per week, out of 21, is both less subject to manipulation, and gives more useful information.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who said we should ignore it? My interpretation is based on the evidence from the real world. We see in the study that when maths goes up, science goes down and vice-versa, religion is unaffected. This is, in fact, the problem that people here have with the education system - when trying to increase time on important subjects like maths and science, time is taken from other important subjects like science and maths, instead of superfluous subjects like religion (there are others, but they are for a different discussion).

If your concern is really about spending more time on maths, they are very much for this discussion. What the data shows is that the amount of time spent on maths isn’t really driven by attitudes to religion teaching. This may be inconvenient, from the point of view of someone who wants to use the need for more maths teaching to campaign for less religion teaching, but that doesn’t entitle us to ignore it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except if that was the case, that there are schools that only really care about the Maths, English and Irish (the stuff that the school is measured by) . . .

There’s no “if” about it; there are such schools. the ESRI Report to which Robin links says so on page 19.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

. . . . it would not make sense that they seem to only take time away from science in order to increase time on maths.

They don’t “seem to take time away only from science in order to increase time on maths”. They take time away from a range of non-key subjects, including not only science and religion, but also history, geography and drama. The negative correlation between time on maths and time on all these subjects is more or less the same. As I pointed out in post number #12, and as the ESRI Report sets out in the table on page 18.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they didn't have a bias towards taking time from certain subjects, then there would be an even negative bias across all subjects in relation to maths (as they would, more or less, randomly take time away from each one to increase time on maths), religion included.

Yes, this is exactly what they do.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It seems, from the data on the real world, that science is singled out more than anything else, which contradicts your idea, as science would be a boon to mathematical ability, so more time should be spent on it to improve maths, not less.

Where are you getting this “data on the real world” from? The ESRI Report flatly contradicts you, and supports me. If you have better evidence, now is the time to present it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Or, even better, get rid of this "key" subject business that the DOE relies on, and just base subject importance on how relevant they are for becoming a competent, productive member of society.

You should think twice before getting rid of the “key subject business”. The ESRI Report suggests that time spent on maths is substantially increased by the fact that it is a key subject.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So (with some alterations of their curriculum) maths, science, english and a second language (not irish) would be compulsory and at the top, history geography, arts, music and the rest would be underneath and mostly optional.

Ah, you don’t want to get rid of the key subjects; you just want to change the key subjects and make them even more key, by making all other subjects optional. Good luck trying to find an educationalist - or a parent - who will agree that history, art, music and the rest should be optional in primary schools. Are they optional in any of the primary schools of our competitor economies? Is there any evidence that the rather narrow curriculum you propose will be more effective at producing “competent productive members of society”? You'll be fighting an uphill battle to have these views accepted, and you will need powerful evidence.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you explain what personal, social, education skills kids get from primary school religion?

My point, Mark, was that the skills children get in the primary cycle are to a large extent not subject-specific.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And your suggestion that I was responded to has whole encyclopaedias of evidence to support it.

My “suggestion”, as you put it, was that there was no evidence that Robin’s experience said anything significant about the Irish educational system, and that it might equally cast light on quite other matters. I need evidence to support this suggestion? I never said that it did cast light on other matters.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

I didn’t say that it was dishonest. My point is that it’s easily manipulated and, even if we don’t manipulate, it’s not as informative as it could be. After all, the time spent on religion could be anything from just over one hour per week to just under three and a half hours per week, and it would still have been fourth in the ranking. Thus, saying that it’s fourth isn’t really enough to let us make a judgment about whether the time spent is too much or too little. Saying that it’s two hours per week, out of 21, is both less subject to manipulation, and gives more useful information.

Saying that its 2/21 hr doesn't tell us anything about how much time is spent on any other subject relative to religion. What exactly is so wrong about just comparing the times of each individual subject to each other? It gives is the information we need to compare religion to each other subject and unless you are claiming that it is manipulated, pointing out that its possible to manipulate it is irrelevant.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What the data shows is that the amount of time spent on maths isn’t really driven by attitudes to religion teaching

Hold on, you said, in your first post: "more time spent on Religion comes at the expense of time on Maths to a greater extent than time spent on any other subject". So it seems that, according to your own post, that the time spent on maths is driven by attitudes to religious teaching. And then, when time goes up on Maths, its not taken from religion to a greater extent than any other subject (ie taken back from religion), it first comes from science and drama before religion, and a similar amount is taken from history and geography. So, it seems, that religious teaching seems to be very much in favour in schools - time is taken from a "key subject" to increase time in it, and when time has to be put back, it gets taken from a variety of sources.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You should think twice before getting rid of the “key subject business”. The ESRI Report suggests that time spent on maths is substantially increased by the fact that it is a key subject.

Are you under the impression that if we ranked subjects by importance in creating actual competent, productive members of society that maths still wouldn't be at the top?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Ah, you don’t want to get rid of the key subjects; you just want to change the key subjects and make them even more key, by making all other subjects optional.

I want to get rid of the buzz words. The key subject thing is subjective and largely nonsensical. Why are English (as its taught now) and Irish key subjects? English is a horrible mess as a subject, and spending so much time on Irish is a massive disadvantage for our students on the global market, where useful secondary languages are a major boon. English needs to be changed so that kids are thought English skills that they will actually use, eg public speaking (for business meetings), debating/critical thinking (for everything they will ever do) etc. Irish, at the absolute least, needs to be made functional. Get rid of the poetry and prose (if the appreciation isn't natural then there is no point in forcing it) and just get kids speaking the language (although I would prefer getting rid of altogether and concentrating on a useful language).
The importance of particular subjects is decided by the real world, the environment that the student will enter when they leave school, not by some committee who is too blind to see that it has to be fluid and, to a certain extent, subjective.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Good luck trying to find an educationalist - or a parent - who will agree that history, art, music and the rest should be optional in primary schools. Are they optional in any of the primary schools of our competitor economies? Is there any evidence that the rather narrow curriculum you propose will be more effective at producing “competent productive members of society”? You'll be fighting an uphill battle to have these views accepted, and you will need powerful evidence.

I said largely optional. A year of two at about 10 or 12 years of age were kids would experience each subject and then they get to specialise (while still having to do a small number of non-tested optional subjects). There is no point in forcing people to do some subject they have no appreciation for. Or wasting time or stressing people out on subjects that have nothing to do with what career they will enter. Even in third level education, we have students who have to do a certain number of subjects and so fill their quota with stuff they dont care about and will never remember. Its pointless, adds nothing to the student and only increases stress at exam time.
And if our educationalists or parents in this country where so informed, then Ireland wouldn't be slipping down the educational tables in the world.

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point, Mark, was that the skills children get in the primary cycle are to a large extent not subject-specific.

Except that you said that children "learn through and with the curriculum and methodology". And then you asked for evidence that science education would give children better skills than religion. And I gave it. And I asked what skills you thought that religion gave. I didn't dodge your question, so can you do the decent thing and not dodge mine?

Peregrinus wrote: »

My “suggestion”, as you put it, was that there was no evidence that Robin’s experience said anything significant about the Irish educational system, and that it might equally cast light on quite other matters. I need evidence to support this suggestion? I never said that it did cast light on other matters.

You said it "might" mean something. I said it "might" mean something else. If I need evidence to support my "might", then you also need evidence to support your "might". Fair is fair, after all.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

I point out that the “most important in primary school” claim is based on evidence about how much time is spent on the subject in Year 4 classrooms, and that the ranking of “fourth” could just as defensibly be presented as third, fifth or sixth, and then I suggest that a more objective and absolute statement is that religion takes up 2 hrs in a 21-hour school week, and I’,m the one who’s “manipulating” and “muddying the water”?

I don't think your accusation is all that fair, given that I included references to the table which showed that religion takes up 2 hours during the 21-hour week. One can certainly chop and change the designations to move it up and down, but I'm going with the headline ESRI finding and it seems reasonable to do so.

In terms of how important the religious feel their religion is, I would politely suggest that fourth in importance is a substantial understatement.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

I don't think your accusation is all that fair, given that I included references to the table which showed that religion takes up 2 hours during the 21-hour week. One can certainly chop and change the designations to move it up and down, but I'm going with the headline ESRI finding and it seems reasonable to do so.

In terms of how important the religious feel their religion is, I would politely suggest that fourth in importance is a substantial understatement.

Robin, I didn’t intend to accuse you of manipulation. My point was simply that saying that religion got the fourth-greatest amount of time was presenting a limited amount of information, and presenting it in a way which could just as easily have been manipulated to make religion appear third, fifth or sixth. I suggested that giving the absolute amount of time would be a more objective measure (and of course the absolutely amount of time devoted to other subjects could also be given, though I didn’t say so explicitly in my earlier post).

It was in response to that suggestion that Mark suggested that I was engaged in “manipulations” and “muddying the waters” - an accusation which I felt, and still feel, was unfair.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Saying that its 2/21 hr doesn't tell us anything about how much time is spent on any other subject relative to religion.

That information could also be given, certainly. In fact I gave it in my first post in this thread.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What exactly is so wrong about just comparing the times of each individual subject to each other? It gives is the information we need to compare religion to each other subject and unless you are claiming that it is manipulated, pointing out that its possible to manipulate it is irrelevant.

I told you what was wrong; it’s incomplete. Tell us that religion gets the fourth-most time doesn’t actually tell us how much time religion gets, either absolutlely or relative to any other subject. (We know it gets less time than three other subjects, one of which is maths, but how much less? We’re not told.) Giving the absolute amount of time spent on each subject seems to me the fullest and most objective information, and enables us to compare accurately the time spent on each, and I am at loss to understand how you think doing so can be called “manipulation” and “muddying the waters”.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Hold on, you said, in your first post: "more time spent on Religion comes at the expense of time on Maths to a greater extent than time spent on any other subject".

I did say that, but I also pointed out that that the converse was not true. More time spent on Maths does not come primarily at the expense of time on Religion, but of time on Science - or,when we look at the matter more fully, from a slew of non-core subjects, of which science is simply the first, and religion the third.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So it seems that, according to your own post, that the time spent on maths is driven by attitudes to religious teaching.

No, my own post says something quite different. I pointed to a pattern of both positive and negative correlations, and argued from them that time spent on maths is not a function of attitudes to religious teaching but rather of attitudes to core and non-core subjects. And I note that the ESRI report reaches a similar conclusion.

You may not accept the argument, but that doesn’t excuse you ignoring the fact that I made it, and claiming I said something else instead.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you under the impression that if we ranked subjects by importance in creating actual competent, productive members of society that maths still wouldn't be at the top?

I am. Language skills precede mathematical skills, and at primary level I would expect first language to get the most attention, followed by maths, which is in fact the case. And I suspect you’ll find it’s also the case in all the OECD countries, and most of the non-OECD countries.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I want to get rid of the buzz words. The key subject thing is subjective and largely nonsensical. Why are English (as its taught now) and Irish key subjects? English is a horrible mess as a subject, and spending so much time on Irish is a massive disadvantage for our students on the global market, where useful secondary languages are a major boon. English needs to be changed so that kids are thought English skills that they will actually use, eg public speaking (for business meetings), debating/critical thinking (for everything they will ever do) etc. Irish, at the absolute least, needs to be made functional. Get rid of the poetry and prose (if the appreciation isn't natural then there is no point in forcing it) and just get kids speaking the language (although I would prefer getting rid of altogether and concentrating on a useful language).

I’ve no comment to make on English as it is taught now. I will say that I don’t share your apparent concern with turning out workers who will be useful to a capitalist economy as the first priority of a primary education system; of the various reasons that first language education is important I myself would put conducting business meetings fairly far down the list. But perhaps I take a more holistic view of human development and flourishing that you do. It’s the humanist in me, I guess.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I said largely optional. A year of two at about 10 or 12 years of age were kids would experience each subject and then they get to specialise (while still having to do a small number of non-tested optional subjects).

We’re talking about the primary cycle here, Mark. It starts at age 6 and stops at age 11. The particular data we are looking at in the ESRI report relates to nine-year olds - before they would start dropping subjects and specializing, even in your ideal system.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except that you said that children "learn through and with the curriculum and methodology". And then you asked for evidence that science education would give children better skills than religion. And I gave it. And I asked what skills you thought that religion gave. I didn't dodge your question, so can you do the decent thing and not dodge mine?

I mentioned “personal skills, social skills, values, self-esteem and confidence, educational skills (“how to learn”), etc”. My point has always been that these can be developed regardless of the subject of study; I make no claim that religion in particular is good at developing these skills. I did note you making a claim that science would inculcate critical thinking better than religion, but actual evidence was I’m afraid, sadly lacking. You did have a screed about religion, but I’m afraid nothing, not even a screed, about science. I’m looking here for something verifiable, something tested - you know, results, measurements of outcomes, that kind of thing. The kind of evidence you expect when you make testable claims.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You said it "might" mean something. I said it "might" mean something else. If I need evidence to support my "might", then you also need evidence to support your "might". Fair is fair, after all.

Neither Robin, nor I, nor you have any evidence to support any of our “mights”, which was more or less my point.

But I will say this; when a single company advertising a single job vacancy has a result which includes a single Irishman not turning up to a scheduled interview, common experience and very basic grounding in statistics tells me that this is more likely to point to something relevant about the company, or the job vacancy, or the Irishman than it about the entire national educational system.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

That information could also be given, certainly. In fact I gave it in my first post in this thread.

You only give the time spent on the top 3 subjects, relative to religion. And then you say that religion is "quite a distant fourth". I think its pretty obvious who is manipulating the data to give the outcome they want.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I told you what was wrong; it’s incomplete. Tell us that religion gets the fourth-most time doesn’t actually tell us how much time religion gets, either absolutlely or relative to any other subject. (We know it gets less time than three other subjects, one of which is maths, but how much less? We’re not told.) Giving the absolute amount of time spent on each subject seems to me the fullest and most objective information, and enables us to compare accurately the time spent on each, and I am at loss to understand how you think doing so can be called “manipulation” and “muddying the waters”.

Because you didn't give the absolute time, you just gave the time for the 3 biggest subjects and then said that religion had 2/21 h. That is not giving the full picture. Saying that religion is fourth of all subjects gives a much better idea of the full picture as even though religion is only 2/21 h, thats still more time than the 6 (or 7, or more?) other subjects there are.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I did say that, but I also pointed out that that the converse was not true. More time spent on Maths does not come primarily at the expense of time on Religion, but of time on Science - or,when we look at the matter more fully, from a slew of non-core subjects, of which science is simply the first, and religion the third.

]No, my own post says something quite different. I pointed to a pattern of both positive and negative correlations, and argued from them that time spent on maths is not a function of attitudes to religious teaching but rather of attitudes to core and non-core subjects. And I note that the ESRI report reaches a similar conclusion.

I'm honestly baffled why you think this proves your point. That the converse of "more time spent on Religion comes at the expense of time on Maths to a greater extent than time spent on any other subject" isn't true doesn't support your argument, it directly contradicts it. You have a situation where time is taken much more from Maths to give to religion, but when giving time to Maths, its taken evenly from a variety of subjects. If there was no bias to religion, then the time taken from maths to increase religion, would be taken back straight from religion, not divided across multiple subjects. The evidence shows a maximising of religions time at the great expense of maths, and to a lesser extent of science, drama, history and geography.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You may not accept the argument, but that doesn’t excuse you ignoring the fact that I made it, and claiming I said something else instead.

This is rich, considering you edited out the part where I already explained the above point to you. I can only conclude that you agree with what I'm saying, but don't like it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I am. Language skills precede mathematical skills, and at primary level I would expect first language to get the most attention, followed by maths, which is in fact the case. And I suspect you’ll find it’s also the case in all the OECD countries, and most of the non-OECD countries.

So second from the top then? What difference would that make to what I said?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’ve no comment to make on English as it is taught now. I will say that I don’t share your apparent concern with turning out workers who will be useful to a capitalist economy as the first priority of a primary education system; of the various reasons that first language education is important I myself would put conducting business meetings fairly far down the list. But perhaps I take a more holistic view of human development and flourishing that you do. It’s the humanist in me, I guess.

Who said anything about capitalism? I'm talking about productive, competent members or society. I imagine all societies, be they capitalist, communist or dictatorship want productive, competent citizens.
What's wrong with business meetings? Its just an example of a situation where someone would need public talking skills. Essentially, opening up all avenues of communication should be a priority in first language education - be it through the written word, audio-visual presentation or on the spot public speech. How many in the work force are just bad at talking to customers or patients? How many have no bedside manner or don't know how to give all the relevant information clearly to someone looking to replace a gearbox in their car.
I'm of the opinion that the holistic view of human progress is incredibly naive, not to mention incredible ignorant of human nature. You cant force people to be "well rounded", not least because "well rounded" is an incredibly subjective position. But maybe I just take a more rationalist view of human development, I guess its the pragmatist in me.

Peregrinus wrote: »

We’re talking about the primary cycle here, Mark. It starts at age 6 and stops at age 11. The particular data we are looking at in the ESRI report relates to nine-year olds - before they would start dropping subjects and specializing, even in your ideal system.

And here I thought you were interested in a holistic view of human development :rolleyes:. Even in primary school you need to have optional elements to a lot of subjects. You cant force a kid to be competent or interested in art or music or drama, I certainly wasn't and no amount of forcing would change my inability to sing or lack of interest in painting. You have kids encountering these things at an early age, and you encourage them to try new things, but you still need to let them become the adults they are comfortable with becoming.
That aside, the learn by rote used in many primary subjects (maths times tables, English spelling books) needs to go. Learn-by-rote does not help you understand anything, it only makes it easier for a lazy and ineffective school system to give you standardised tests.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I mentioned “personal skills, social skills, values, self-esteem and confidence, educational skills (“how to learn”), etc”. My point has always been that these can be developed regardless of the subject of study; I make no claim that religion in particular is good at developing these skills. I did note you making a claim that science would inculcate critical thinking better than religion, but actual evidence was I’m afraid, sadly lacking. You did have a screed about religion, but I’m afraid nothing, not even a screed, about science. I’m looking here for something verifiable, something tested - you know, results, measurements of outcomes, that kind of thing. The kind of evidence you expect when you make testable claims.

Its ironic that you are looking for evidence for a testable claim (ie scientific evidence) when the claim is that science gives more and better skills to students than religion. You have answered your own question. Science education is better than religious education, as science education teaches you to ask for evidence when someone makes a testable claim (and to disregard untestable claims). Religious education doesn't teach you anything, as it doesn't promote understanding or criticism.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Neither Robin, nor I, nor you have any evidence to support any of our “mights”, which was more or less my point.

You made a "might" as if it were equally valid to Robins, no talk of evidence. I made another "might", which you disregarded out of hand because of lack of evidence. Then, when I asked for evidence for your "might", you change your tune to "no-one has evidence, no might is supported". All you have been trying to do is nullify Robins anecdote (and I'm happy to call it that), but you did it in a really undignified way.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I will say this; when a single company advertising a single job vacancy has a result which includes a single Irishman not turning up to a scheduled interview, common experience and very basic grounding in statistics tells me that this is more likely to point to something relevant about the company, or the job vacancy, or the Irishman than it about the entire national educational system.

Except that 8 foreign nationals were also interviewed for the job, and they, I assume, all showed up. I admit, its only an example from one company for one job position, but, statistically speaking, when an Irish advertised job, in Ireland, has more applications from foreign nationals than Irish nationals, and all 8 foreign nationals show up, compared to 2 out of 3 Irish applicants, it certainly points to something odd going on the Irish side. It wouldn't make sense for it to be an issue with the company or job position, as 38 people applied for it, and 11 out of the 12 call backs showed up. It is saying something about the Irish man himself, but the question is what is it saying. It could be that he had a sudden personal issue that prevented him from attending, or it could be that he is the product of the Irish education system, assuming that he is Irish raised (a statistically sound assumption to make).
It is only an anecdote, but it is still an interesting observation.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Robin, I didn’t intend to accuse you of manipulation. My point was simply that saying that religion got the fourth-greatest amount of time was presenting a limited amount of information, and presenting it in a way which could just as easily have been manipulated to make religion appear third, fifth or sixth. I suggested that giving the absolute amount of time would be a more objective measure (and of course the absolutely amount of time devoted to other subjects could also be given, though I didn’t say so explicitly in my earlier post).

It was in response to that suggestion that Mark suggested that I was engaged in “manipulations” and “muddying the waters” - an accusation which I felt, and still feel, was unfair.

Except it wasn't manipulated, so your point is moot. Its pretty obvious that you looked at the data expecting it to have been manipulated by someone with an anti-religion agenda, and after finding that it wasn't, are now trying to dispute and discredit it on the basis that it could have been manipulated.

It would be funny if it wasn't so silly (and if you hadn't followed it up with your own manipulations)

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

when a single company advertising a single job vacancy has a result which includes a single Irishman not turning up to a scheduled interview, common experience and very basic grounding in statistics tells me that this is more likely to point to something relevant about the company, or the job vacancy, or the Irishman than it about the entire national educational system.

What on earth are you talking about? I doubt you know what the ad said, anything about me or my company nor the people who applied

FWIW, the candidates were expected to be "a graduate-level software engineer with experience of C++ and web technologies" which is setting the skill-level about as low as it can be set. As it happened two of the three Irish guys who were invited turned up for interview, but neither got the job (though one was close for a separate role). As you seem unfamiliar with the state of the Irish software industry, everybody here, home-grown and otherwise, is screaming to the rafters, complaining about the standard of software graduates and the number of them.

I mean, FFS, last week, I asked 12 people, each of who had claimed to have done degree-level courses in cryptography, to distinguish between symmetric and asymmetric crypto and only three could answer it correctly, only one doing it convincingly, and he was a foreigner. One of the guys who couldn't answer this "What color is grass"-level question claimed to have done a master's degree in "information security". Major, major facepalm. More than half my company's non-Irish and I don't see that changing any time soon.

As I said above in the OP, this lamentable standard may or may not be directly related to what goes on in primary school. But the attitudes, policies and especially results that the department of education and the universities achieve, as evidenced by the skill levels that were on show across the interview table last week, are in need of serious remedial help.

And to this end, a little bit of reality in schools at the expense of religion, might go at least some way to resolving the issue.

.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You only give the time spent on the top 3 subjects, relative to religion. And then you say that religion is "quite a distant fourth". I think its pretty obvious who is manipulating the data to give the outcome they want.

Get real, Mark. Robin told us that religion came fourth in terms of time spent, and identified the three subjects which came ahead of it. I confirmed that, and went on to give fuller information in more absolute terms; the amount of time spent on each of those four subjects in the school week, and the amount of time in the school week as a whole, thus enabling - for those who care - the precise ratio of time spent on religion to time spent on each of the other subjects Robin mentioned to be calculated, and a judgment made about the place of religion in the school week as a whole.

Yes, I could have given still fuller information, but the fact is that I expanced on what Robin had said by giving fuller and more absolute information. It’s a sad day when someone who claims to value critical thinking calls giving fuller and more absolute information on the subject under discussion “manipulating the data to give the outcome they want”.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because you didn't give the absolute time, you just gave the time for the 3 biggest subjects and then said that religion had 2/21 h. That is not giving the full picture. Saying that religion is fourth of all subjects gives a much better idea of the full picture as even though religion is only 2/21 h, thats still more time than the 6 (or 7, or more?) other subjects there are.

I don’t think the word “absolute” means what you think it means, Mark. Saying that religion got the fourth most time is a relative statement. Saying that it got 2 hrs/week is an absolute statement. And giving the absolute time allocated to the top four subjects gives considerably fuller information than simply stating their ranking.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm honestly baffled why you think this proves your point. That the converse of "more time spent on Religion comes at the expense of time on Maths to a greater extent than time spent on any other subject" isn't true doesn't support your argument, it directly contradicts it. You have a situation where time is taken much more from Maths to give to religion, but when giving time to Maths, its taken evenly from a variety of subjects. If there was no bias to religion, then the time taken from maths to increase religion, would be taken back straight from religion, not divided across multiple subjects. The evidence shows a maximising of religions time at the great expense of maths, and to a lesser extent of science, drama, history and geography.

Mark, you need to reread the ESRI report more carefully. This data is not reporting on the choices made by schools which decide to increase or reduce the time they are devoting to maths (or any other subject). It looks at the schools which in fact give above average time to one subject and see where they are giving less time. And it makes this comparison for every subject. But at no point does it measure any change in priorities in time allocation in any school. The data is a point-in-time snapshot; no change is measured.

Right. What the data shows is that schools which spend above average time on maths are doing so at the expense (by comparison with other schools) of science, drama, religion, history, geography, in that order. But “in that order” is a little misleading; theose subjects are closely bunched together, and I suspect the precise order is not really significant. But these schools do not save time from English or Irish; in fact they spend more time on Irish and, even more so, on English.

By contrast, schools which spend more time on religion do so at the expense (by comparison with other schools) of Maths and English to a very large extent, and to a lesser extent at the expense of Irish, history, geography, music and art - again, these are all bunched together.

Apart from the somewhat anomalous correlation between Irish and religion, which is not as strongly negative as would be expected, all of this confirms the picture which the ESRI makes explicit on page 19 of the report; what drives the time allocation to the various subjects is the school’s attitude to the “core” subjects of English, Irish and Maths vis-à-vis the non-core subjects. I realize that it would suit your agenda, both with respect to the uselessness/harmfulness of religion and the importance of maths and science to present the time trade-off as a simple tension between maths and science on the one hand, and religion on the other, but the fact is that the ESRI data presents a considerably more nuanced picture that that.

Assume for the moment that religion disappeared from the curriculum. How would the time saved be distributed? Well, the ESRI report actually has no data directly on that point because, as just mentioned, it doesn’t measure any change in time allocation in any school. But it does give some information which is highly relevant, and which can be used to inform a prediction.

As regards time allocation, schools seem to be clustered around two models: You’ve got a “focussed curriculum” model (my term, not the ESRI’s) in which time is allocated heavily to the core subects, and the non-core subjects get relatively little time. And you’ve got a “broad curriculum” model where time is more evenly distributed across all subjects- not equally distributed, but more equally distributed, with relatively less time on the core subjects, and relatively more time on the non-core subjects. (In absolute terms, though, the core subjects still get more time.)

Right. How would we expect a school following either of these models to distribute time that becomes available? This is a speculation, but with the data we have from the ESRI report it’s a somewhat informed speculation.

In the focussed curriculum model, your first instinct would be to expect time liberated by dropping religion to be devoted to maths, English and Irish, in no particular order. And, if your first instinct is correct, maths will benefit to some extent, though in fact most of the freed-up time could well go to the languages. Science won’t benefit.

But there is another possibility. It may well be that the approach of these schools is to give core subjects all the time they feel they deserve, and to distribute the remaining time among the non-core subjects. If that is their approach, then when more time becomes available they might not allocate it to the core subjects - they already have what is perceived to the the “right” amount of time - but instead redistribute it among other non-core subjects. In that event maths won’t benefit. Science might, though probably not to a large extent.

In the broad curriculum model, you’d expect time saved to be distributed fairly widely. Maths and science might both benefit, but probably not to a large extent.

But, again, there is another possibility - speculative, but not a completely improbable speculation. The allocation of time in the “broad curriculum” schools might reflect a view as to the proper balance between the sciences and the humanities/liberal arts. If so, then time saved by dropping religion might be redistributed in a way which favours history, English, etc rather than science or maths.

On the whole, I see no great reason to expect that the dropping of religion would favour maths or science to any very great extent. If your objective is to improve the time allocation to maths and science, then the way to achieve that is to make science a core subject and, if necessary, to increase the recommended time allocation for maths (on the assumption that actual time allocation is influenced, at least to some extent, by recommended time allocation). To do that, you have to reduce the recommended time allocation elsewhere and that could] be religion. But it doesn’t have to be, for the objective to be achieved.

And, if you want to make the related argument that the time spend on maths and/or science ought to be increased, I don't think the data on time spent on religion is at all relevant. Of much more interest and relevance would be data on time spent on maths and science in the primary cycle in comparator countries.

I’ll stop here. This has gone on long enough, and we are simply repeating ourselves.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

What on earth are you talking about? I doubt you know what the ad said, anything about me or my company nor the people who applied.

That’s exactly my point, Robin. You gave no information about any of this in your post. So we had no way of knowing whether the outcome you described was attributable to some quality in the pool of prospective applicants for the job, or some quality in the company, or some quality in the job vacancy, or even some quality in the bloke who failed to show up.

I don’t want to make too much of this. I understand that you just threw this anecdote out as a “for instance”; an illustration of your concern rather than a grand proof of anything. I’m fine with that.

But when I pointed out in my reply that in fact your experience was consistent with a number of explanations other than the one you pointed to, Mark’s response was to point out that I had offered no evidence that it was in fact attributable to any of the explanations I mentioned.

Notwithstanding his professed devotion to critical thinking, it apparently didn’t occurr to him - or he didn’t think it worth mentioning - that you had also offered no evidence that your experience was attributable to the explanation you pointed to. Which is what I was trying to illustrate by tossing out other equally plausible but equally unevidenced explanations.

Paarthurnax

Knasher wrote: »

The reason for newly-employed teachers spending more time on religion is because, at least according to my sister who is a teacher, it is one of the hardest subjects to teach as it isn't an state exam subject in the majority of schools so the kids make absolutely no effort with it.

Which of course makes it an unpopular subject for teachers and then one of the easiest subjects for new teachers to actually get a job through.

You would wonder are there many Atheist Primary School teachers in this, country. If there are they then have to teach something the dont believe in! That would be some "Penance"

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s exactly my point, Robin. You gave no information about any of this in your post.

Yes. But when somebody's quoting unhappily from their own experiences, as I did, I think it's reasonable to assume they feel that their exasperation is not self-inflicted.

Mark Hamill

I'm editing down the quotes because your post is very long.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Get real, Mark.
.....
I don’t think the word “absolute” means what you think it means,

I meant that you didn't give the amount of time spent on each other subject as well as the top 4. You stopped at religion, because saying that religion gets about half of what each of the top three gets, and only 2 out of 21 hrs, makes it seems that very little time is spent on it. 2/21 implies less than 10% of the time, however we know that out of 10 or more subjects, religion is fourth, meaning it must get a substantial amount more that the other 6 or 7. Saying that religion is fourth shows its position relative to all the subjects, you manipulation only emphasises its relationship relative to the top 4, which is disingenuous (as most people here would have a problem with how much time is spent on religion relative to science, which isn't even in the top 4).

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right. What the data shows is that schools which spend above average time on maths are doing so at the expense (by comparison with other schools) of science, drama, religion, history, geography, in that order. But “in that order” is a little misleading; theose subjects are closely bunched together, and I suspect the precise order is not really significant. But these schools do not save time from English or Irish; in fact they spend more time on Irish and, even more so, on English.

By contrast, schools which spend more time on religion do so at the expense (by comparison with other schools) of Maths and English to a very large extent, and to a lesser extent at the expense of Irish, history, geography, music and art - again, these are all bunched together.

How is it that you can explain in two paragraphs exactly how you are wrong, and yet still come out with a wall of text as if you are right? Or is it because you are so wrong that you are trying to hide it with a wall of text?

It doesn't matter what you say the ESRI's conclusion is, because the data contradicts it. The data shows that time is taken from all three core subjects and given to religion (mostly from Maths and English, and then from Irish along with some others). It also shows that when schools give time to core subjects (notably maths), it comes from a variety of non-core subjects, not specifically religion. If your conclusion was accurate, then we should see an even balance of schools taking time from core subjects and giving it to all non-core subjects (not just religion).
We dont see that, the very opposite happens. School favour giving time to religion from core-subjects and the schools that give time to core-cubjects, take it from across the board (even from science to give to maths, which is just moronic). It shows that religion is favoured in the system. Schools should not be taking time from core-subjects to put it in religion, and they should not be time from supporting subjects to put in core subjects (eg science into maths)

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, if you want to make the related argument that the time spend on maths and/or science ought to be increased, I don't think the data on time spent on religion is at all relevant. Of much more interest and relevance would be data on time spent on maths and science in the primary cycle in comparator countries.

There are only so many hours in the day. Time wasted in pointless or poorly taught subjects (religion is one example, English and Irish are others) is of course going to be relevant. There may be an argument for fixing those other course first, but some can (and seriously need to be) trimmed down and made more efficient, and the extra time would be useful in maths and science (which, tbh, may need to fixed first as well).

robindch

robindch wrote: »

More than half my company's non-Irish and I don't see that changing any time soon.

In the faintest offchance anybody's interested, we hired another non-native today.

Non-natives outweigh natives, five to four at the moment.

MagicMarker

CerebralCortex

robindch wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

More than half my company's non-Irish and I don't see that changing any time soon.

In the faintest offchance anybody's interested, we hired another non-native today.

Non-natives outweigh natives, five to four at the moment.

I worked in the software industry for 4 years half my team were non Irish this trend continued throughout the company.

Turtwig

I'm going to assume that by religion this report means Catholic indoctrination of sorts. Sorry, incompetent Catholic indoctrination, but indoctrination nonetheless.:pac:

I'm going to assume that by science it means learn stuff off. Personally, I think science should be scrapped in primary level. It's an utter waste of time, we give kids a really false inaccurate picture of what science is. Science is curiosity, yet in primary school the kids are rarely afforded the chance to be curious. What happens if one day a kid asks either his parents or his teachers why the moon doesn't crash into the planet? What answer will they give. I'd be willing to bet "gravity" (no data here folks, just a guess). I'd also be willing to bet that eventually after so many similar style questions (why is the sky blue? Why is the sun hot? Why is the planet round? Why do people die? etc. etc.) That a child would become accustomed towards thinking short non specific non answers are actually valid answers.

This is why I feel we've got the approach completely wrong, instead of teaching kids science - whatever that is?- we should teach them the philosophy of science and its evolution, how we questioned things, "why" we questioned them,how we finally began to settle on answers and are these answers accurate or inaccurate? Science as it is practiced today is very different from science in the past, but it is science and what that process is, if there is a process is surely the most important thing a child can learn. Heck, nobody can yet explain what science actually is. . As far as I'm concerned it's just curiosity inspired by an approach to solve problems or discern some facet approximation about nature. Teachings kid the name of the planets or the name of birds, insects, cell types is a waste of time it'll only bore em to death and they can also look that stuff up in a book or the web. Teaching them how we discovered such facts is far more interesting. If they wish then they can learn about the bird. Knowing its name and its picture is nothing.

I don't regard science as a core subject no matter how much I love it. I think so because the way it is taught in primary school makes it an utter waste of time and in many ways paints a lie. If it were up to me the core subjects would be Maths, Music, English, Arts & Crafts. The next highest priorities would be secondary language and sports. Each subject basically provides the foundations for cognitive development of basics skills necessary to learn stuff. History, Science, Politics, Religion and all that crap can come later. Provides kids with the best potential to learn first. So yeah, the thing I find most depressing about the ESRI report isn't the lack of attention to science or the over attention to maths it's the how everyone seems to think that teaching science to a child matters. It doesn't. Science matters, just not to a child.

Corkfeen

I'm gonna backtrack on what I said earlier and agree with Jernal. They don't even encourage critical thoughts in secondary school. And it'd be of far greater benefit to learn it from a young age as it tends to be of great use throughout later life (not just in questioning faith and the likes). To have well developed critical faculties from earlier childhood should be of the most utmost importance.

Mark Hamill

I would agree a lot with what Jernal is saying too. I spent a lot of my previous posts in this thread defending maths and science and explaining the changes that I think English and Irish should undergo, but I do agree that a lot of change needs to happen with maths and science. I do think science can be explained as observation-hypothesis-model-test-rinse-repeat, but I think that this does actually need to be explained schools. Also the difference between science (as above) and Science (as above, but with peer review, lab coats and beakers etc.) should be explained. Things like peer review are a great boon to gathering information, but its perfectly possible to approach a problem scientifically without a lab coat and safety goggles. Too many people see a lab coat, or hear the title "doctor" and think "this person is a scientist, he must represent science". Just look at health food advertising or the MMR scare or even creationist propaganda mills. Go to the conspiracies forum and see how many papers are presented to support some health conspiracy, despite those papers either being laughably flawed, or just simply not supporting the conclusion presented. Its never explained to people in school why science is the way it and why Science uses the checks and balances it does (and how they are supposed to work) and why calling yourself a scientist doesn't mean that everything you say is science. This wouldn't necessarily have to be a "philosophy of science" class. General critical thinking and philosophy covers a lot of this anyway.

I still wouldn't have music and arts/crafts as core subjects though. Too subjective. Not every kid has, or needs to have, an interest or capability in these subjects. Encourage them all you want, but you can't force it. I have no artistic skill whatsoever. Can't draw, paint, sing, act or dance. But thats not because I never learned them, its because I never had them in the first place in order to improve them with an education.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'm gonna backtrack on what I said earlier and agree with Jernal. They don't even encourage critical thoughts in secondary school. And it'd be of far greater benefit to learn it from a young age as it tends to be of great use throughout later life (not just in questioning faith and the likes). To have well developed critical faculties from earlier childhood should be of the most utmost importance.

Don't even get me started - I used to lecture in an Irish university and we had to explain what critical analysis is. Over and over and over again....using increasingly simple language :mad:

Me: 'It's quite simple. Question everything you read. ok?'

Average student: 'ummmmmm.....'

Me: 'Right, so... here we have a document where Martin Luther outlines his issues with the Roman Catholic Church and a copy of Rome's response. Now, why was Luther challenging the Church and did he have valid points?'

AS: 'Cos he hated the Church!'

Cue nodding heads and 2 looking unsure (hopefully because that answer is crap)

Me: 'HA HA...Oh is that actually a serious answer? Really????' Ok...'

Actual conversation with a group of 2nd years...:rolleyes:

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't even get me started - I used to lecture in an Irish university and we had to explain what critical analysis is. Over and over and over again....using increasingly simple language :mad:

Me: 'It's quite simple. Question everything you read. ok?'

Average student: 'ummmmmm.....'

Me: 'Right, so... here we have a document where Martin Luther outlines his issues with the Roman Catholic Church and a copy of Rome's response. Now, why was Luther challenging the Church and did he have valid points?'

AS: 'Cos he hated the Church!'

Cue nodding heads and 2 looking unsure (hopefully because that answer is crap)

Me: 'HA HA...Oh is that actually a serious answer? Really????' Ok...'

Actual conversation with a group of 2nd years...:rolleyes:

In the students' defence, the ones who probably knew the more detailed answers were too shy or ashamed to say so in case they embarrassed their
peers. Nobody, ever wants to embarrass their peers.:D

Corkfeen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't even get me started - I used to lecture in an Irish university and we had to explain what critical analysis is. Over and over and over again....using increasingly simple language :mad:

Me: 'It's quite simple. Question everything you read. ok?'

Average student: 'ummmmmm.....'

Me: 'Right, so... here we have a document where Martin Luther outlines his issues with the Roman Catholic Church and a copy of Rome's response. Now, why was Luther challenging the Church and did he have valid points?'

AS: 'Cos he hated the Church!'

Cue nodding heads and 2 looking unsure (hopefully because that answer is crap)

Me: 'HA HA...Oh is that actually a serious answer? Really????' Ok...'

Actual conversation with a group of 2nd years...:rolleyes:

Ahem, I'm a second year history student. Okay I'll concede, there is a large proportion who are like that.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

In the students' defence, the ones who probably knew the more detailed answers were too shy or ashamed to say so in case they embarrassed their
peers. Nobody, ever wants to embarrass their peers.:D

But, but...I used to give them lollypops. C'mon, who wouldn't jump at the chance to sit there looking smug sucking on a chupa chup .

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

Ahem, I'm a second year history student. Okay I'll concede, there is a large proportion who are like that.

Bet you'd get a lollypop .

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But, but...I used to give them lollypops. C'mon, who wouldn't jump at the chance to sit there looking smug sucking on a chupa chup .

I always knew I should have done history.

spacetweek

Corkfeen wrote: »

Ahem, I'm a second year history student. Okay I'll concede, there is a large proportion who are like that.

Not at third level. That's teenage nonse.

Bannasidhe

spacetweek wrote: »

Not at third level. That's teenage nonse.

Absolutely at bloody 3rd level!

Newaglish

spacetweek wrote: »

Not at third level. That's teenage nonse.

Have you met a second year college student recently?

Sarky

I've met postgrads who could barely tie their own shoelaces, 2nd year undergrads like that wouldn't be at all surprising.

Turtwig

Newaglish wrote: »

Have you met a second year college student recently?

No need to meet them. Just send him/her a sample of their essays.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

I've met postgrads who could barely tie their own shoelaces [...]

Don't get me started about the standard of software graduates in this country (at least as far as I've talked with them!)

Sarky

I was thinking more along the lines of microbiology postgrads who didn't understand why it was stupid to dispose of fish bacteria by tossing them in the sink. But yeah.