School patronage

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

The State can no longer throw up its hands and say "nothing to do with us, these are private institutions".

And during Catholic Schools Week too! Burn!

The Black Oil

RTE Radio 1 Late Debate now..

The Black Oil

Breda said Minister Quinn's remarks were a distraction to deflect from the impact of cutbacks - held up the model of Catholic schools in Northern Ireland (?) doing well because of investment. Said something about 2 and a bit hours are assigned to religion in the Irish curriculum.

I Heart Internet

I'm sure many won't agree with me but I've always thought it a major failure in imagination to suggest that the teaching of religion (in primary schools) cannot be made to have great benefits to other aspects of education.

It's akin to suggesting that learning from a history book doesn't improve a child's reading ability. Or that learing about nature doesn't improve one's spelling and vocabulary. Or that memorising the names of the 12 apostles or the 10 commandments doesn't improve memory skills.

People may be entirely against it for other reasons, but suggesting that 2.5 hours per week on religion is somehow "wasted" or dead-time is wrong.

lazygal

Teaching about religion is useful. Indoctrination is not for those not being indoctrinated. The problem is schools are used for indoctrination.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm sure many won't agree with me but I've always thought it a major failure in imagination to suggest that the teaching of religion (in primary schools) cannot be made to have great benefits to other aspects of education.

It's akin to suggesting that learning from a history book doesn't improve a child's reading ability. Or that learing about nature doesn't improve one's spelling and vocabulary. Or that memorising the names of the 12 apostles or the 10 commandments doesn't improve memory skills.

People may be entirely against it for other reasons, but suggesting that 2.5 hours per week on religion is somehow "wasted" or dead-time is wrong.

When you compare that this time is over TWICE the OECD average (avg being 4%) for time spent on religion, then yes its wasted time. There is no two ways about it.

http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm

You can claim that religion in general "might" have some benefit to some people, but not when it wastes 10% of school time. This is almost same amount of time that is spent on Maths and English (12%).

If religion is going to be kept in government funded schools then it should be in-line with the OECD avg and it should be kept very general, it should not push any one faith above another. This means kids won't be wasting their time trying to memorize the 12 apostles or the 10 commandments for example.

The current 12% time spent on religion could be much better spent on physical education (Ireland is half of the OECD avg so this without a doubt needs to be improved) or Information Technology subjects,

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

When you compare that this time is over TWICE the OECD average (avg being 4%) for time spent on religion, then yes its wasted time. There is no two ways about it.

http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm

You can claim that religion in general "might" have some benefit to some people, but not when it wastes 10% of school time. This is almost same amount of time that is spent on Maths and English (12%).

The amount of time it takes up is not an indication of its usefulness/wastefullness.

Cabaal wrote: »

If religion is going to be kept in government funded schools then it should be in-line with the OECD avg and it should be kept very general, it should not push any one faith above another. This means kids won't be wasting their time trying to memorize the 12 apostles or the 10 commandments for example.

I disagree and suspect many more parents do likewise.

Cabaal wrote: »

The current 12% time spent on religion could be much better spent on physical education (Ireland is half of the OECD avg so this without a doubt needs to be improved) or Information Technology subjects

There's certainly a case to be made for both of these. But my original point about a lack of imagination stands - mixing strands of various subjects to support cross-cutting learning....writing a simple code to get the 12 apostles across a river...etc. The notion that one cannot learn english, history and geography while learning about religion is just plain wrong.

Cabaal

Ok so you see religion as useful,

So I Heart Internet would you be ok with religion in general as a subject in Irish schools, a subject that gives equal footing to all faiths and doesn't push one above the other?

Also may I just say that your argument for the usefulness of religion (memory etc) is awfully weak, an IT subject could also have these exact same benefits and it would also have the much bigger benefit of helping children get employment in later life.

Mixing religion into other subjects (ie: writing a program to get apostles across a river) is really just laughable, has worrying undertones (religion should not be intergrated into everything in life like you are trying to do) and only segregates children of other faiths and non-faiths even more in school, this can and does lead to bullying....I've seen this first hand from both other students and teachers.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The amount of time it takes up is not an indication of its usefulness/wastefullness.

The amount of time it takes up shows how much time it takes from other subjects,

If you think its useful then please outline the massive benefits to the huge amount of time, kids find out all about morals and difference of good/bad?

Delirium

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok so you see religion as useful,

So I Heart Internet would you be ok with religion in general as a subject in Irish schools, a subject that gives equal footing to all faiths and doesn't push one above the other?

Also may I just say that your argument for the usefulness of religion (memory etc) is awfully weak, an IT subject could also have these exact same benefits and it would also have the much bigger benefit of helping children get employment in later life.

Mixing religion into other subjects (ie: writing a program to get apostles across a river) is really just laughable, has worrying undertones (religion should not be intergrated into everything in life like you are trying to do) and only segregates children of other faiths and non-faiths even more in school, this can and does lead to bullying....I've seen this first hand from both other students and teachers.

Spotted this today.

"“They integrated religion into every subject in the school,” said Martijn Leenheer, an atheist who moved from the Netherlands to a small village in west Ireland eight years ago. “For instance, in biology, they would say ‘God created these flowers.’ Even in math they do it. They basically make religion part of everything in the school.”

Although he requested that his son opt out of religious classes, Leenheer later found that his son was learning how to recite prayers and said the school’s principal was unsympathetic to his concerns.

.....


Long the most powerful institution in Ireland, the Catholic Church has established more than 2,500 schools under the system. Educate Together has 68 schools, mainly in urban areas.
Source

Knasher

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's akin to suggesting that learning from a history book doesn't improve a child's reading ability. Or that learing about nature doesn't improve one's spelling and vocabulary. Or that memorising the names of the 12 apostles or the 10 commandments doesn't improve memory skills.

People may be entirely against it for other reasons, but suggesting that 2.5 hours per week on religion is somehow "wasted" or dead-time is wrong.

Your example doesn't really seem like much of a justification. If simply memorizing names improves memory skills (and I'm pretty sure that memory doesn't work like that, but I still take your point), that is a secondary benefit that could also be derived from learning something that is unequivocally useful instead. So spending time on religion is still something that must be justified on the benefits that only come from spending time on religion.

Cabaal

Knasher wrote: »

Your example doesn't really seem like much of a justification. If simply memorizing names improves memory skills (and I'm pretty sure that memory doesn't work like that, but I still take your point), that is a secondary benefit that could also be derived from learning something that is unequivocally useful instead. So spending time on religion is still something that must be justified on the benefits that only come from spending time on religion.

Spot on,
If memory, spelling etc is justification for so much religion class time then spending 12% time on an IT related subject would be far better use of this time, for example:

- Teaches IT knowledge
- Teaches keyboard skills (most people suck at typing)
- Improves English
- Improves memory (got to remember how to code, IT stuff etc etc)
- Teaches better hand/eye co-ordination, you could have a practical IT lessons on putting together a PC, electrical stuff.
- Encourages interest in IT, engineering, design, graphic art etc
- Improves job prospects

Physical education also has such benefits

- Can be used to improve English (you have to read books about the sports/subjects)
- Improves memory (health body, health mind...you have to remember training etc)
- Teaches healthy living
- Improves children diet
- Ultimately can reduce cost to the HSE as kids get older as they'll likely be healthier, this could save the state billions
- Could help reduce smoking, drinking
- Encourages an interest in sports, not just football but running, cycling etc
- If kids keep a healthy lifestyle when they are employed then statistically they'll be off work sick less then somebody who doesn't exercise.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok so you see religion as useful,

So I Heart Internet would you be ok with religion in general as a subject in Irish schools, a subject that gives equal footing to all faiths and doesn't push one above the other?

Yes. I would be ok with that. But I also think that faith formation within church-run schools is fine and I'm broadly supportive of it.

lazygal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes. I would be ok with that. But I also think that faith formation within church-run schools is fine and I'm broadly supportive of it.

As long as the taxpayer isn't paying for indoctrination I couldn't care what church run schools do. Churches can indoctrinate in the buildings which are purpose built for such uses and let state funded schools educate, including about all faiths and none.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Spot on,
If memory, spelling etc is justification for so much religion class time then spending 12% time on an IT related subject would be far better use of this time, for example:

- Teaches IT knowledge
- Teaches keyboard skills (most people suck at typing)
- Improves English
- Improves memory (got to remember how to code, IT stuff etc etc)
- Teaches better hand/eye co-ordination, you could have a practical IT lessons on putting together a PC, electrical stuff.
- Encourages interest in IT, engineering, design, graphic art etc
- Improves job prospects

Physical education also has such benefits

- Can be used to improve English (you have to read books about the sports/subjects)
- Improves memory (health body, health mind...you have to remember training etc)
- Teaches healthy living
- Improves children diet
- Ultimately can reduce cost to the HSE as kids get older as they'll likely be healthier, this could save the state billions
- Could help reduce smoking, drinking
- Encourages an interest in sports, not just football but running, cycling etc
- If kids keep a healthy lifestyle when they are employed then statistically they'll be off work sick less then somebody who doesn't exercise.

Religion provides the following benefits:


Salvation for ones immortal soul

Teaches about culture, history and traditions
Teaches about other languages and regions of the world regularly in the news
Can encourage kids to think about their own place in the world/universe
Touches on the classics - the bible is the only piece of classical literature many people will ever encounter
Can reinforce the message of loving ones neighbour - which should be pervasive in all schools
Explains what "that pointy building at the end of the street" is
Can be used to bolster confidence in children through song and performance

lazygal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Religion provides the following benefits:


Salvation for ones immortal soul

Teaches about culture, history and traditions
Teaches about other languages and regions of the world regularly in the news
Can encourage kids to think about their own place in the world/universe
Touches on the classics - the bible is the only piece of classical literature many people will ever encounter
Can reinforce the message of loving ones neighbour - which should be pervasive in all schools
Explains what "that pointy building at the end of the street" is
Can be used to bolster confidence in children through song and performance

Do you think my children, who are being raised in no faith, won't be educated about any of those things? That pointy building, seriously? You'd want to do better than that.

Banbh

So we teach kids something that is false to improve their understanding of other matters instead of teaching the other matters without the lies.

How about killing small animals helps with understanding about life.
Collecting birds eggs is useful to study ornithology.
Chopping down trees shows where wood comes from.
Hitting smaller children can explain about bullying.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Religion provides the following benefits:


Salvation for ones immortal soul

:rolleyes:

- Teaches about culture, history and traditions (History already does this)

- Teaches about other languages and regions of the world regularly in the news (History does this as do civics classes, far more accurate info then the bible provides as well)

- Can encourage kids to think about their own place in the world/universe (Geography, History and Science subjects already properly cover this, also teaching kids to believe in a imaginary friend isn't a very good idea. Most kids grow out of this by the age of 4/5)

- Touches on the classics - the bible is the only piece of classical literature many people will ever encounter (English covers this, you are claiming classics aren't included in the English subject?)

- Can reinforce the message of loving ones neighbour - which should be pervasive in all schools (Don't need religion for this, also religion has no impact on reducing crime in our country and anti-social behavior in youths if it did we'd have the lowest in the OECD due to the silly amount of time spent on religion in schools)

- Explains what "that pointy building at the end of the street" is (not a good enough reason I'm afraid

- Can be used to bolster confidence in children through song and performance (Most schools already cover music and increasing sporting activities can also increase confidence)

Not very good reasons,

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Religion provides the following benefits:


Salvation for ones immortal soul

Teaches about culture, history and traditions
Teaches about other languages and regions of the world regularly in the news
Can encourage kids to think about their own place in the world/universe
Touches on the classics - the bible is the only piece of classical literature many people will ever encounter
Can reinforce the message of loving ones neighbour - which should be pervasive in all schools
Explains what "that pointy building at the end of the street" is
Can be used to bolster confidence in children through song and performance

What importance is that in a classroom?

The rest of the points are covered by other subjects in school.

I Heart Internet

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think my children, who are being raised in no faith, won't be educated about any of those things? That pointy building, seriously? You'd want to do better than that.

I never said that these things were exclusive to the teaching of religion.

lazygal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I never said that these things were exclusive to the teaching of religion.

So why bother teaching religion in schools when the benefits you mentioned can all be covered in other non religious curriculum subjects? Religious people would then be able to do indoctrination in their religious buildings.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Not very good reasons,

At the very least, if nothing else, the teaching of religion will ensure they are aware of the social convention that a lay man removes his hat in churches.

What I've been suggesting is that the teaching of religion is not the "waste of time" some suggest it is.

But apart from that point, it is the right of parents and religious communities to support faith formation in their state funded schools.

I Heart Internet

lazygal wrote: »

So why bother teaching religion in schools when the benefits you mentioned can all be covered in other non religious curriculum subjects? Religious people would then be able to do indoctrination in their religious buildings.

See my point above. The fact that it has other practical educational benefits is a secondary issue (but is regularly denied by some).

What you fail to see is that church-run schools ARE "religious buildings" they are an essential part of the local church community (the parish). It is not an accident that tend to be organised along parochial lines.

Banbh

But apart from that point, it is the right of parents and religious communities to support faith formation in their state funded schools

Now you're getting to it. The because-we-say-so argument.

Is it also the right of parents who are not members of these 'religious communities' but are just members of the local community to have their children educated in plain education in their state-funded schools?

Delirium

I Heart Internet wrote: »

See my point above. The fact that it has other practical educational benefits is a secondary issue (but is regularly denied by some).

What you fail to see is that church-run schools ARE "religious buildings" they are an essential part of the local church community (the parish). It is not an accident that tend to be organised along parochial lines.

If they're (public schools) religious buildings then the state should cease funding them immediately as they are supposed to educational buildings.

lazygal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

See my point above. The fact that it has other practical educational benefits is a secondary issue (but is regularly denied by some).

What you fail to see is that church-run schools ARE "religious buildings" they are an essential part of the local church community (the parish). It is not an accident that tend to be organised along parochial lines.

So let the church pay for their own schools and stop taking state money.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

At the very least, if nothing else, the teaching of religion will ensure they are aware of the social convention that a lay man removes his hat in churches.

Now you're just trolling
:rolleyes:

If anything moving religion to church's makes far more sense, we know from the RCC own stats that Church's are under used so running a Sunday school service either before or after mass makes perfect sense.

This ensures parents are more involved as well, after all little kids need their mammy and daddy* to bring them to the building of the holy god and they'll be bringing them to mass every week anyway...won't they?

*I say mammy and daddys because we know the RCC doesn't like daddys and daddys or mammys and mammys.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

"that pointy building at the end of the street" is [...]

On the offchance you're being serious, my kid learned a lot about pointy buildings and pointy hats in Rome. About as much as I'd like her to learn, quite frankly.

I Heart Internet

Banbh wrote: »

Now you're getting to it. The because-we-say-so argument.

Is it also the right of parents who are not members of these 'religious communities' but are just members of the local community to have their children educated in plain education in their state-funded schools?

It's more because-the-constitution-says-so.

Yes, that is a right of parents too. It is a responsibility of the state to fulfill that right. To date it's been done (for better or worse) by using existing church-run schools with an opt-out of religious aspects.

I Heart Internet

SW wrote: »

If they're (public schools) religious buildings then the state should cease funding them immediately as they are supposed to educational buildings.

They are not public schools.

They are state funded, religious ethos, private schools.