Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

Peregrine

Most of you don't know what you're talking about.
I go to an Edmund Rice Trust school and while I do have 2 Religion classes a week, I have never been taught about Catholicism specifically. It was mostly discussions in the Junior cycle, nowadays it's mostly about effects of cults etc.
I like it..

But our school only has the mainstream subjects for Leaving Cert. 3 Sciences, History, Geo, Business and Art. We have no other options. We don't have a Chemistry lab, we didn't even have Chemistry at all until last year. We have one Physics teacher and there was a chance we wouldn't have Physics at all this year. But it's all okay..


We have 3 feckin Irish teachers

Piliger

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's almost enough to make me vote for him !!!!!!! OMG I never thought I would EVER suggest that

Thank goodness someone has stood up and said the unsayable in this nationalist - religious dominate country.

Irish needs to be made optional - and religion abandoned - people can send their children to some kind of Church organised weekend religion class if they chose.

The ironic thing for me is that if Irish were made optional it would more than likely become more popular (yuk!)

Canard

philologos wrote: »

I won't post my expected response. I think computer science and programming should be taught at both primary and secondary level. Likewise I think RE should expand to cover religious belief and philosophy. I'm not opposed to schools having an ethos though.

But that's the thing though, Religion is largely philosophy. We did Socrates, Plato etc in our religion class. Mind you, not a single person was interested in the slightest, but all the stuff about cults was very enjoyable.

The main thing everyone keeps missing is that religion is not compulsory. It's either a relaxing class that most students don't protest against, or it's an optional exam subject just like geography and the rest. You have it at most three times a week. Hardly excessive for what is essentially a break and, like it or not, acceptable in a Catholic school. They don't even teach religion, all we did was watch movies. :pac:

MadsL

Patchy~ wrote: »

The main thing everyone keeps missing is that religion is not compulsory. It's either a relaxing class that most students don't protest against, or it's an optional exam subject just like geography and the rest. You have it at most three times a week. Hardly excessive for what is essentially a break and, like it or not, acceptable in a Catholic school. They don't even teach religion, all we did was watch movies. :pac:

And that's why we have a culture of it not being taken seriously as an academic subject.

Canard

MadsL wrote: »

And that's why we have a culture of it not being taken seriously as an academic subject.

But we weren't studying it as an academic subject, that's my point. Therefore we weren't really doing "religion" so I sort of disagree with the notion that too much time is being spent on it - it's just as logical as saying that study classes should be done away with, because that's all they really are, and if it's being studied as an academic subject then it's the student's choice.

MadsL

Patchy~ wrote: »

But we weren't studying it as an academic subject, that's my point. Therefore we weren't really doing "religion" so I sort of disagree with the notion that too much time is being spent on it - it's just as logical as saying that study classes should be done away with, because that's all they really are, and if it's being studied as an academic subject then it's the student's choice.

...and my point is that is should be studied as an academic subject. I fail to see why an understanding of the causes of WW1 is an important academic achievement when an understanding of the major belief systems of the world is relegated to the attitude of a "doss class". Baffles me.

Canard

MadsL wrote: »

...and my point is that is should be studied as an academic subject. I fail to see why an understanding of the causes of WW1 is an important academic achievement when an understanding of the major belief systems of the world is relegated to the attitude of a "doss class". Baffles me.

...and it can be. My best guess would be that no one studies history and doesn't sit the exam, unlike religion, so it is pretty wasteful from a really academic point of view unless you're doing the syllabus and dedicate yourself to it. Also the fact that 99% of people (even a large amount of people on this thread) seem to think "religion" is bible-bashing class taught be the local priest rather than a pretty eye-opening subject.

philologos

Patchy~ wrote: »

But that's the thing though, Religion is largely philosophy. We did Socrates, Plato etc in our religion class. Mind you, not a single person was interested in the slightest, but all the stuff about cults was very enjoyable.

The main thing everyone keeps missing is that religion is not compulsory. It's either a relaxing class that most students don't protest against, or it's an optional exam subject just like geography and the rest. You have it at most three times a week. Hardly excessive for what is essentially a break and, like it or not, acceptable in a Catholic school. They don't even teach religion, all we did was watch movies. :pac:

In some schools it is compulsory. When I was at secondary school I had to sit Junior Cert religion. Then there was a choice. By the by, a religion class which actually doesn't talk about religion but instead watches movies is not a religion class. It is no wonder that many people regard the subject as a joke when it is being taught as a joke in many schools.

I think if you're going to be a Catholic school then actually be one, if not there's no reason why the school shouldn't be secular. The same is true of Protestant schools also. I think there should be a choice as there is in the UK at the moment, but I don't agree with half-assed faith schools. Either go for it 100% or don't.

Canard

philologos wrote: »

In some schools it is compulsory. When I was at secondary school I had to sit Junior Cert religion. Then there was a choice. By the by, a religion class which actually doesn't talk about religion but instead watches movies is not a religion class. It is no wonder that many people regard the subject as a joke when it is being taught as a joke in many schools.

I think if you're going to be a Catholic school then actually be one, if not there's no reason why the school shouldn't be secular. The same is true of Protestant schools also. I think there should be a choice as there is in the UK at the moment, but I don't agree with half-assed faith schools. Either go for it 100% or don't.

Oh, same actually. But again, the JC religion that I did was mostly Islamic stuff and morality, and some kind of project, but I forget what it was on. No more of a waste of time than things like music or CSPE which I dropped after 3rd year - I enjoyed it, it was interesting.

They weren't trying to teach it though, really. I assume that's what Quinn means anyway...because it makes no sense to blast the academic subject as opposed to any arts subjects. We did do actual religion sometimes, and the movies were always relevant enough (we watched one on Scientology for example), but there was no point having a stressful class full of books only to do no exam in the end.

philologos

Patchy~ wrote: »

Oh, same actually. But again, the JC religion that I did was mostly Islamic stuff and morality, and some kind of project, but I forget what it was on.

They weren't trying to teach it though, really. I assume that's what Quinn means anyway...because it makes no sense to blast the academic subject as opposed to any arts subjects. We did do actual religion sometimes, and the movies were always relevant enough (we watched one on Scientology for example), but there was no point having a stressful class full of books only to do no exam in the end.

If one has to study religion at school then it should be a serious subject about educating people about belief systems and philosophies and I think schools should offer the State curriculum on it and make sure that people are going to sit an exam and that it is a real subject, with real significance in the world, and it really matters.

El Siglo

I kind of feel like a dick when I'm talking to one of my northern friends who speaks fluent Irish and learned it because he just enjoyed the language as opposed to having been forced to learn it.

I have no problem with religion or Irish being taught, but I'd make Irish optional. Religion in schools isn't like being taught only about the Catholic church stuff, they do learn about world religions and all that stuff which is fair enough. And it might give the odd theology graduate a job which isn't all bad. Science should be developed more but equipment and fieldtrips cost money.

If I was to propose any changes to the current system I'd get rid of transition year, straight from junior to leaving cert but have the leaving cert as three years where they do more course work (i.e. it's shocking seeing undergrads not having a clue about how to work a computer or do some simple excel tasks). However, it'd probably cost a load of money so they're probably just going to cut things and we'll end up with shite.

Osgoodisgood

Wibbs wrote: »

The emboldened bit I don't agree with. Religion and the politics of it have had a huge impact on world history, ditto for various philosophies. To not have them as part of the subject matter in the teaching of history would be beyond daft.

As I said earlier. include reference to religion where relevant in history or social sciences but don't give it special treatment and don't treat it as a subject in its own right.

You'd swear I wanted every church turned into a neon lit whorehouse.

carlmango11

El Siglo wrote: »

I have no problem with religion or Irish being taught, but I'd make Irish optional. Religion in schools isn't like being taught only about the Catholic church stuff, they do learn about world religions and all that stuff which is fair enough. And it might give the odd theology graduate a job which isn't all bad.

Religion in primary education is, at least in my own case and others I've spoken to, taught as fact.

The point about employing theology graduates is fairly weak - with that money we could employ a scientist or purchase equipment which you said was costly.

MadsL

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

As I said earlier. include reference to religion where relevant in history or social sciences but don't give it special treatment and don't treat it as a subject in its own right.

You'd swear I wanted every church turned into a neon lit whorehouse.

It is a subject in it's own right, if not, it would not be possible to earn a degree, a masters and a doctorate in it!! FFS.

Great suggest on the neon though, those whorehouses are a bugger to find.

carlmango11 wrote: »

Religion in primary education is, at least in my own case and others I've spoken to, taught as fact.

Religions are a fact of life. It is a fact that some people believe their mythology as factual, many others however recognise the value of their morality tales. What aspect of "taught as fact" do you mean? Creationism?

The point about employing theology graduates is fairly weak - with that money we could employ a scientist or purchase equipment which you said was costly.

Ah well then, stop teaching the Arts in school altogether, we can be first at mixing chemicals in school labs to get them to change colour. :rolleyes:

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

As I said earlier. include reference to religion where relevant in history or social sciences but don't give it special treatment and don't treat it as a subject in its own right.

You'd swear I wanted every church turned into a neon lit whorehouse.

Not teaching about religion would be dumb. Bringing up a nation of children who would be ignorant of different belief systems would be dumb particularly when people will have to engage with it at one point or another in varying forms.

kippy

In general I'd agree with Quinn, however the opinions of some of the posters here intrigue me.
There is obviously going to be a bias on a site such as boards.ie (due to the makeup of the posters) however pushing for Computer science to be taught in primary school (as some here have asked for) is absolutely crazy. Yeah, teach basic science but computer science/HTML and indeed some of the crazy subjects mentioned shouldn't be gone near in primary school.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's important that primary school does not become a conveyor belt into the "employment" market.
Subjects that encourage creativity and enjoyment should all be taught as well.

gallag

mckenzie84 wrote: »

Yes, more lazy, inactive, obese children is just what we need :rolleyes:

Or Mabey the parents can take them walks and sports clubs etc, seems like the responsibility of the children's health should be on the parents, not the academics educating the children.

Osgoodisgood

MadsL wrote: »

It is a subject in it's own right, if not, it would not be possible to earn a degree, a masters and a doctorate in it!! FFS.

As an exercise in circular logic that was terrific.

Kent Hovind has quite a few letters after his name I'm told.:D

philologos

kippy wrote: »

In general I'd agree with Quinn, however the opinions of some of the posters here intrigue me.
There is obviously going to be a bias on a site such as boards.ie (due to the makeup of the posters) however pushing for Computer science to be taught in primary school (as some here have asked for) is absolutely crazy. Yeah, teach basic science but computer science/HTML and indeed some of the crazy subjects mentioned shouldn't be gone near in primary school.

As someone mentioned earlier, it's important that primary school does not become a conveyor belt into the "employment" market.
Subjects that encourage creativity and enjoyment should all be taught as well.

Why not teach about how computers work? Even if that was the full extent of it, it wouldn't be bad to teach in primary school.

Also philosophy, I don't think is impossible to teach in primary schools.

Definitely in secondary schools. I remember programming stuff out of personal interest while I was a teenager and I don't think the Irish education system recognises computing / programming as a valuable means of education at least as far as the Junior and Leaving Cert are concerned.

Osgoodisgood

philologos wrote: »

Not teaching about religion would be dumb. Bringing up a nation of children who would be ignorant of different belief systems would be dumb particularly when people will have to engage with it at one point or another in varying forms.

Indeed..........................and what has that to do with my comment?
I didn't suggest removing religion from discussion in school.

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

Indeed..........................and what has that to do with my comment?
I didn't suggest removing religion from discussion in school.

You said don't teach it as a subject. That seems daft to me.

byhookorbycrook

The irony that no-one has picked up on here is that it is R Quinn who is in charge of setting out the amount of time spent on each subject per week. He can and has changed time allocations if he so wishes.

More and more children are learning Scratch at primary level. To my mind ,it's not all about the program content but in fostering attitudes to learning/problem solving

lily09

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

The irony that no-one has picked up on here is that it is R Quinn who is in charge of setting out the amount of time spent on each subject per week. He can and has changed time allocations if he so wishe

More and more children are learning Scratch at primary level. To my mind ,it's not all about the program content but in fostering attitudes to learning/problem solving

Agreed. His comments suggest it is out of is hands. Teachers teach the curriculum they are given in the time allocations laid out by his dept. The Inspectorate would not be happy if we all decided to change the curriculum according to our beliefs and whims.

bleepp

In a Catholic school religion is suppose to be informally taught throughout the whole day, not just for 30 mins. I heard that teachers don't get even get paid to teach religion? there was an agreement between church and state years ago to allow mins of formal instruction, usually from 12 to 12:30.

It's pointless for people to suggest religion should not be taught, even educate together schools have it on their curriculum however it is not doctrinal as it is in the other 94% of schools.

Frankly I think the school day isn't long enough anyway and the curriculum is packed with too many subjects. Irish isn't thought properly from the word go so has nothing really to do with time spent on the subject.

It would be better in my view to space the teaching of subjects among the 8 years in primary school where by the junior cycle focus on the basics such as numeracy and literacy and other subjects are introduced gradually as the child progresses through the school. Do 5 year old's really need to study music/art/history for 8 years only to arrive at 6th class with just a basic level of literacy and little or no Irish grammar?

MadsL

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

As an exercise in circular logic that was terrific.

Kent Hovind has quite a few letters after his name I'm told.:D

Kent Hovind's letters are in Religious Education not Theology. And he's a twat. Do you have letters after your name? See where that argument leads you.

As to circular logic, the logical extension of your argument is that:

Religious Studies are not a separate subject and should be taught as part of History; but History is a Humanity, so should be taught as part of Humanities; but Humanities is part of the Arts so should be taught through the Arts. Which would mean that it would be valid to teach the causes of WW1 through the medium of Modern Dance. :rolleyes:

Mardy Bum

MadsL wrote: »

Kent Hovind's letters are in Religious Education not Theology. And he's a twat. Do you have letters after your name? See where that argument leads you.

As to circular logic, the logical extension of your argument is that:

Religious Studies are not a separate subject and should be taught as part of History; but History is a Humanity, so should be taught as part of Humanities; but Humanities is part of the Arts so should be taught through the Arts. Which would mean that it would be valid to teach the causes of WW1 through the medium of Modern Dance. :rolleyes:

Howard Gardner's (im)famous multiple intelligences theory have inspired monstrosities like the above.

Dave!

Replace Religion with a Critical Thinking class.

Eramen

Dave! wrote: »

Replace Religion with a Critical Thinking class.

Religion is a real element of the world, a depth to human personality and meaning, along with many other things. Are we going to start forcing our kids not to see religion based on an ideological context, when it plainly exists?

Sounds like we really do need this critical-thinking class.

It's nothing more than trying to replace the 'old sacred' with a new unquestionable 'sacred'.. it's silliness.

Lelantos

Eramen wrote: »

Religion is a real element of the world, a depth to human personality and meaning, along with many other things. Are we going to start forcing our kids not to see religion based on an ideological context, when it plainly exists?

Sounds like we really do need this critical-thinking class.

It's nothing more than trying to replace the 'old sacred' with a new unquestionable 'sacred'.. it's silliness.

Religion has nothing to do with human meaning & everything to do with human control

Osgoodisgood

MadsL wrote: »

As to circular logic, the logical extension of your argument is that:

Religious Studies are not a separate subject and should be taught as part of History;

The voice of reason

but History is a Humanity, so should be taught as part of Humanities; but Humanities is part of the Arts so should be taught through the Arts. Which would mean that it would be valid to teach the causes of WW1 through the medium of Modern Dance. :rolleyes:

The voice of The Daily Mail