Opinions on Educate Together

deisemum

seavill wrote: »

I really feel people put too much emphasis on the effect teachings in primary or secondary have on kids. It is down to the parents view and interaction with religion rather than what they are taught in school.

I am a secondary teacher and last year we were up in the church for I think a Christmas mass or something and there were some 15 year olds that didnt know what to do with communion bread, they kept it in their hands and looked around to see what to do.
These are children that went to a religious primary and secondary school.

I did also and my mother brought us to mass every Saturday until i was probably 16, however teachings etc were not forced on us. I had no interest in being there and have not gone since as for me it is not part of my life.
Again I cam from a religious primary and secondary.

Yes one religion is focused on in "standard" primary schools, however in reality it makes little or no difference to us when we grow older. We do not feel forced to follow the "rules" as someone mentioned earlier.

I have spoken with an ET teacher from Dublin in the past and one point they made to me was that some of the ET parents were so obsessed with being atheist that they were quite forceful with their views and were actually not one bit open to other view points on religious and other things outside of religion, almost being contradictory towards the ethos they say they stand for. (not sure is it the same in Waterford but it was just an interesting viewpoint in relation to the religious aspect of the school form his point of view)

Yeah that's partly what I was refering to re the mouthy parents with their own agenda.

seavill

deisemum wrote: »

Yeah that's partly what I was refering to re the mouthy parents with their own agenda.

Now just to clear up before anyone jumps on me I DID NOT SAY THAT.

I just said that his experience was (and I am discussing this in relation to the religious discussion not in relation to a certain type of parents or kids) that although some would say they are open minded to a lot and would consider themselves atheists, they are in fact not as open minded as they would like to believe.

AD 80

Thanks for all your comments they've been really helpful especially yours newtotown. For those of you defending religion.......no comment. To the rest of you thanks again.

mike65

Christ on a bike - you'd think Atheism was a crime committed by cranks reading some of this thread.

Schools should be non-religious in every aspect, keep Church (any church) in Church or the home.

wmpdd3

Both me and my partner are Atheist, I'm currently looking into schools for my 2 kids. I put their name down in the 2 local schools, both catholic schools, neither one made any issue of the fact the kids aren't christened.

I'm more inclined to look for a school that's co-ed more than non-denominational.

2 of my friends schooled their non- christened children, in Waterford schools without too much hassle, so I'll try too.

To me the school seems to adopt a Montessori type view of education, they can be a great start in life.

Where is the Educate Together school currently?

tar_man

I know someone who taught at an ET. They really liked it at first, but it wore a bit thin after a while.

With an ET you get a broad mix of religious/atheist backgrounds. However you get a very narrow socio-economic background. I went to a bog-standard national school (Catholic, but not run by an order) and to De La Salle secondary. There were non-Catholics in the class who got along grand.

I think I benefited from mixing from people from poorer and richer backgrounds. I'm fairly well off now, but I have a strong sense of social solidarity. I know other people weren't as lucky as me, and in my own way I try to make the world better. I consider myself a (non-militant, non-anti-religion) atheist, but I think the core Christian message is a good one. Sure I had to learn catechism, but if one message was drilled into us it was love your neighbour.

I suppose in Dublin its different. You can sort all national schools by social class, but as Waterford is so small the standard primary schools will have a good social mix.

I agree with the above point about co-ed. I know of someone who went to all-boys school up to 18, and found it hard to adjust to talking to girls. That social skill just passed him by. It probably set him back a few years.

We learn so much in school, not just maths or religion, but how to deal with other people. I think a standard school is a much closer reflection of societal as a whole than the ETs.

Also, I'm strongly in favour of school uniforms. I don't want my children to think their clothes are an expression of their individuality. I consider that a bit shallow. They can learn to express themselves in their art lessons, English/Irish essays, school plays and so on. To me a school uniform doesn't say 'we are all the same' it says 'we are all equal'.

There are benefits to an ET, but for me they are outweighed by the costs.

Finnbar01

mike65 wrote: »

Christ on a bike - you'd think Atheism was a crime committed by cranks reading some of this thread.

Schools should be non-religious in every aspect, keep Church (any church) in Church or the home.

What if parents want their child to receive religious instruction in school?

mike65

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What if parents want their child to receive religious instruction in school?

Send them to a private religious denominated school (I should have clarified that aspect earlier).

Kracken

Finnbar01 wrote: »

I disagree, if you don't want one religion to be forced on your child, why would you want several?



How is that working out for the UK?

I would agree with Cabaal on this, its about allowing clear understanding of all religions and parent's wishes. It's about allowing a school to teach children and shape their minds without the influence of one religion.

A lot of Irish schools are still influenced by the church (catholic, protestant, etc) and their parish, therefore their doctrine can often times overrule the curriculum being proposed.

Therefore, teaching a child either about all faiths or none, equates to the same thing. Balanced and unbiased opinions of other people beliefs.

In addition; it's about the freedon of choice, granted some parents have no choice but to send their child / children to a religous school, but those who can choose should not be seen as outcasts or having airs above their station.


I have a daughter who I will be sending to ET, when she is old enough. I have already been asked in other schools if she has been christened and I think that if a school is state-funded then, religion should be a choice-subject like physics or accountancy. As plenty of Muslim, Hindu, and other religious families pay taxes that fund schools, who don't cater for their religion. Therefore ET is their only option.

Finnbar01

mike65 wrote: »

Send them to a private religious denominated school (I should have clarified that aspect earlier).

What about parents who are taxpayers and want their children to be educated in a religious school? We can't just ignore them.

deisemum

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What about parents who are taxpayers and want their children to be educated in a religious school? We can't just ignore them.

They can have their religious instruction after school. I think the majority of parents would like a choice.

Dan133269

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What about parents who are taxpayers and want their children to be educated in a religious school? We can't just ignore them.

What about parents who are taxpayers and want their children to be educated in a school which is not religious? You can't just ignore them either.

Who wins out in this situation? Well, no one has to lose out I would say.

The solution, I would posit, would be to have public taxpayer schools completely devoid of religious instruction, and then parents would be free to instruct their child in a particular religion in their own time, expense and discretion as they so wish. That would be secularism.

If someone is so hell-bent on educating their child in a religious environment, then they should provide for it themselves, imo.

By deferring to Church demands, the State merely breeds a sectarian religious attitude in the domain of public education.

There is no good reason why the State should provide parents, at public
expense, with schools for their children from which other children are
excluded simply because of their religion. Canon law does not request merely that the State establish schools in which the religious belief of young Catholics are respected . . . Instead it demands that the State finance schools from which children and teachers of other religious denominations are excluded because, by their presence in any given school in sufficiently large numbers, the ethos of the school is changed

D Clarke, ‘Education, the State and Sectarian Schools’

Finnbar01

deisemum wrote: »

They can have their religious instruction after school. I think the majority of parents would like a choice.

I have nothing against choice whatsoever. AFAIK, surveys carry out suggested that a majority of parents want their children to recieve religious instruction in school. If that is their choice, then the state has a duty to uphold it.

BTW, I want to be absolutely clear I have nothing against ET or other non denominational schools.

username123

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What about parents who are taxpayers and want their children to be educated in a religious school? We can't just ignore them.

What has paying tax got to do with religious indoctrination?

Sully

I don't like the Waterford Educate Together after the way someone I know was treated during a work experience program their from college. It had nothing to do with the kids, but I wouldn't feel comfortable sending a child of mine or recommend it for those personal reasons. If similar happened anywhere, I would feel the same.

In general, I have no doubt the the Educate Together ethos is well founded and a fantastic idea. But, I don't see the big deal with letting your kids being thought the biggest religion in Ireland and probably the world. Its still education and most parents will force the "No Religion" on their kids just as much as a school would put religion onto a kids shoulders.

We need a school that teaches about all religions and let the kids, not the parents or the school, make up their mind. Yes I feel schools should be forced to separate religion so that the school covers more than just their one religion. Yes it should be optional whether or not you wish to go and do communions etc. But that's a reform this government must tackle. Creating new schools that abandon religion and are more free spirit approach to teaching isn't the way to go - its a cop out by the state to avoid challenging the church. We do not need a two tier education system.

Ireland is a very religious country, whether people like it or not, and while it was much more acceptable years ago for such schools the world has changed with new beliefs, religions and cultures which we need to welcome and are slowly doing as a nation. A good start would be in schools, and not creating a new type of school.

username123

Sully wrote: »

But, I don't see the big deal with letting your kids being thought the biggest religion in Ireland and probably the world.

Perhaps not everyone wants their children taught that homosexuality is a sin or that sex outside of marriage is a sin or that contraception is sinful or that there is such a thing as an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity running the show and he knows if you have been bold and if you have, you might go to a place where there is a lot of fire and be tortured for all eternity after you die. Id certainly rather see my taxes paying for science and the teaching of rational enquiry instead of religious indoctrination.

Or that all other religions are false as this breeds intolerance and hatred.

Finnbar01

Dan133269 wrote: »

Who wins out in this situation? Well, no one has to lose out I would say.

The solution, I would posit, would be to have public taxpayer schools completely devoid of religious instruction, and then parents would be free to instruct their child in a particular religion in their own time, expense and discretion as they so wish. That would be secularism.

But again if we have taxpaying parents who want their children instructed in a particular religion, that's what the state has to provide for.

If someone is so hell-bent on educating their child in a religious environment, then they should provide for it themselves, imo.

They are providing it for themselves, through paying taxes and supporting the school through other financial means.

By deferring to Church demands, the State merely breeds a sectarian religious attitude in the domain of public education.

I don't agree with this. There is absolutely no evidence that we have a sectarian problem here in the Republic.

AFAIk, some acrhbishop came out recently and welcomed the Labours partys' recommendation of having more non RC schools.

bradknowell

username123 wrote: »

Perhaps not everyone wants their children taught that homosexuality is a sin or that sex outside of marriage is a sin or that contraception is sinful or that there is such a thing as an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity running the show and he knows if you have been bold and if you have, you might go to a place where there is a lot of fire and be tortured for all eternity after you die. Id certainly rather see my taxes paying for science and the teaching of rational enquiry instead of religious indoctrination.

Or that all other religions are false as this breeds intolerance and hatred.

Everyone I know went to a religious school growing up and most of them seemed to turn out ok. Some of them are even gay omg , I know, its mental isnt it?
To be honest I find all this anti religion talk is just getting annoying. Im an atheist and find it annoying lol. religion isnt the only thing in "normal" schools. Any fella's that I went to school with who where not religious just studied or arsed around for the class. Never had any problems with any of us getting onto them.

wellboytoo

Did ya hear about the agnostic Dyslexic insomniac?, he used to lay in bed at night wondering was there a Dog.

username123

Finnbar01 wrote: »

But again if we have taxpaying parents who want their children instructed in a particualr religion, that's what the state has to provide for.

Finnbar01 - what exactly is the connection between paying taxes and religious indoctrination? I just dont understand it?

Why should the state have to provide for religious instruction in the public education system?

Sully

username123 wrote: »

Perhaps not everyone wants their children taught that homosexuality is a sin or that sex outside of marriage is a sin or that contraception is sinful or that there is such a thing as an all seeing all knowing supernatural entity running the show and he knows if you have been bold and if you have, you might go to a place where there is a lot of fire and be tortured for all eternity after you die. Id certainly rather see my taxes paying for science and the teaching of rational enquiry instead of religious indoctrination.

Or that all other religions are false as this breeds intolerance and hatred.

I'm not sure they teach that in school. Do you want to me to pick faults with other religions? There are many! But as I said in my post, if you actually decided to read it, is that I believe -all- options should be thought. Making your kids grow up and have absolutely no understanding of the biggest followings in the world and wondering wtf its all about is a sin (:D).

Also for what its worth - I went to a catholic primary and secondary school. Even the college has religious references. I'm not anti-gays. Neither do I think its a sin to have sex before marriage, sleep with someone before marriage, wear condoms and so on. I think the Catholic Church is rotten to the core and despite all their riches they expect churches to fund themselves and fund schools independently. They have also proven to be not exactly in sync with their own teachings and they go against their own religion daily.

But its one part of the religion - not all of it. Most people dismiss the old teachings and carry on with part of what they believe in, dismissing the rest.

bradknowell

Sully wrote: »

I'm not sure they teach that in school. Do you want to me to pick faults with other religions? There are many! But as I said in my post, if you actually decided to read it, is that I believe -all- options should be thought. Making your kids grow up and have absolutely no understanding of the biggest followings in the world and wondering wtf its all about is a sin (:D).

Learning about all of them then you'd never have time top learn anything else.
I shall rename you silly haha only messing man. Yeah it would be nice for kids to choose themselves whether to believe or not and also have there decision based on education of whatever they choose and not because their parents want them to go for this or that .

username123

Sully wrote: »

I'm not sure they teach that in school. Do you want to me to pick faults with other religions? There are many! But as I said in my post, if you actually decided to read it, is that I believe -all- options should be thought. Making your kids grow up and have absolutely no understanding of the biggest followings in the world and wondering wtf its all about is a sin (:D).

They taught it in my primary school! And Limbo, wheres that gone now?

Im not sure why you are being smart with the

if you actually decided to read it

?

It would be extremely difficult in these days of easy access to information, a multi cultural society, social media and tv/radio/magazines etc for a child to grow up ignorant of the concept of religion. If you were really that worried about it then Ive no problem with you telling your children what religion is. Now do I have a problem with a school telling a child what a religion is, or that there are many of them. But there is a difference between:

There exists a concept called religion where different people of different faiths have different belief systems.

and:

There is only one right way to be thinking and thats the Catholic way and all other religions are wrong etc...


One is education, one is indoctrination. Some people think that indoctrinating children is wrong and as bad as child abuse. Thats an extreme view of course, but Id still rather no indoctrination happens in schools that my taxes contribute towards.

As I side issue I have problems with the Catholic Church as an organisation, but thats not relevant to religious instruction in this context.

Finnbar01

username123 wrote: »

Finnbar01 - what exactly is the connection between paying taxes and religious indoctrination? I just dont understand it?

Why should the state have to provide for religious instruction in the public education system?

Why should the state have to provide for anything for that matter?

username123

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Why should the state have to provide for anything for that matter?

Im not sure what this means? If you wish to understand why it benefits society to pay taxes to pay for things like public education systems then I suggest you educate yourself on it. Perhaps you do not know because your time in school was wasted on religious indoctrination, presenting myth and superstition to children as though it was fact.

freedominacup

newtotown wrote: »

The focus these past few months has been very much on developing the language of the senior infants with writing, reading, comprehension, etc -- basically readying them for class 1 and "proper" learning. They're also encouraged to develop their own feelings, communication, etc -- to the point where there was even a section in his end of year report marking him on how well he effectively communicates his feelings.

There are no religious teachings, obviously (which I'm glad about), and at age 6 he's already being taught sex/health education. *Not* about sex itself -- last month the topic was the womb. Some people will be put off by their kids learning that kind of thing so young, but I'm just as open with him at home, so it's not a bother for me personally.

The school does try to get the parents involved a lot. Whenever there are events going on, parents are asked to contribute.

The lunch rules are a bit annoying. There's a very strict list of things he's allowed and not allowed in his lunch and any breaking of that rule will result in a letter home. I don't feed my kid a lot of junk but some of what they consider junk is ridiculous and you have to get really creative in order to give your child a bit of variety.

Do I think my son is in the best school for his needs? It's impossible to tell in infants/senior infants. Class 1 & 2 will be telling and at the end of next year I will be assessing the situation and sitting him down to ask if he's happy to stay on there or if he'd rather change. He would still be young enough to have time to settle in a new school, but obviously I'd rather avoid that if I can, as he's already changed schools this year. But for now I'm happy with his progress and looking forward to seeing how he gets on over the coming year.

So basically ET is exactly the same as my children's small rural "catholic" school down to the school reports (section marked your childs personal and social development) and the lunchbox rules? The only difference that I can see is that my kids' school have a very good book rental scheme which means that our book outlay for this Sept is less than €100 intotal for 2nd 4th and 5th class. Oh and the bit of religion.

All schools try to get parents involved but as is usual in all walks of life a few people turn up to expose themselves to endless criticism from those who won't bother their holes when the decisions taken don't suit.

Is there a sex/health education subject? I think 6 is a bit young to be doing more than answering whatever questions your child comes up with on their own.

I think most parents have their own version of the anxiety you express in your last paragraph. Worrying comes with the territory.

Finnbar01

username123 wrote: »

Im not sure what this means?

If you don't know what I mean, why comment on it than?

If you wish to understand why it benefits society to pay taxes to pay for things like public education systems then I suggest you educate yourself on it.

I fully understand why people pay taxes. And when those people pay for it, they usually call the shots. Get it?

Perhaps you do not know because your time in school was wasted on religious indoctrination, presenting myth and superstition to children as though it was fact.

You do not know what schooling I've had.

Anyways, have you been schooled or should I say, indoctrinated, to believe that religious schools are bad?

freedominacup

username123 wrote: »

Perhaps not everyone wants their children taught that homosexuality is a sin or that sex outside of marriage is a sin or that contraception is sinful.

Or that all other religions are false as this breeds intolerance and hatred.

Where is all of this happening beyond your fevered imaginings?

I know that the only case where I felt the need to correct a child for gaybashing in my house his parents were about the most secular/non religious amongst the parents of my son's friends. Funny thing about it was his uncle is as gay as Christmas and very close to the childs mother to boot. Nothing that kid was being taught in school had anything to do with his attitude and it wasn't the last time I heard offensive language from him.

marienbad

Educate together are just brilliant , at least in Limerick . We are on our second generation of kids going there and can only speak well of them. Here's hoping they get a secondary school in Limerick soon.

And as for the transition from ET to seconday school - our kids had no problem and all excelled academically and in the sports arena .

Or maybe it was just in the levi's

angelfalling

I feel, and many non-religious parents do, that anything regarding Catholicism is false. I don't to have to explain, somehow, to my 5 year old (and every year after that) how one class in the place she goes to learn facts teaches untruths, while the rest she can trust. Everything else taught in school is based on fact, English is English, Irish is Irish, Maths is Maths and History is History.

If you want religious instruction, arrange it yourselves. It's hardly unfair to the religious masses. The attitude of, "well I had to take that class and I'm gay/atheist/etc" doesn't help anything. It didn't affect you, but it affects some. Hell I'm from bible belt America and the closest we got to having religion in schools is "under God" in the pledge of allegiance every morning.