Quinn: Schools spend too much time on religion and Irish

COYW

kippy wrote: »

That said one needs to look at the jobs and pay currently on offer to see that putting all eggs in the language/IT basket is not a smart move either.

No, I agree that it must be an option. The area of computing is not for everyone but we need to do more to enable students to have a career in the area.

laoch na mona wrote: »

religon fine get rid of it but gaeilge thats part of who we are

If the student wants to study it or the family feel strongly about their son/daughter studying it, the option to do so is there. Also, if Irish is such a strong part of the national identity, why are people not speaking it?

laoch na mona

COYW wrote: »

If the student wants to study it or the family feel strongly about their son/daughter studying it, the option to do so is there. Also, if Irish is such a strong part of the national identity, why are people not speaking it? My mother is French, it is part of who I am, so speaks to us in French.

i just dont think the state should stop teaching the national language. most dont speak irish because they made a balls of teaching it which they only started to correct they shouldn't stop just when its getting better

kippy

COYW wrote: »

No, I agree that it must be an option. The area of computing is not for everyone but we need to do more to enable students to have a career in the area.

Right now there is a shortage in suitably qualified "IT" people. Ten years ago there were shortages begging to appear in suitably qualified personal in the construction industry...........
For the past few years the drop out rates in many IT courses in third level have been huge.
One has to ask why to both of these. I don't believe teaching these topics at primary (whatever about secondary) level will change either of these statistics being honest.

I think it's far more important go get these fundamental skills (Maths, English, Science of a broad nature,) and then some of the "life" skills that are not focused on now, as well as the more creative and thinking sides of our character taught, rather than focus too much on one area (especially at the age groups we are talking about here.

MadsL

Bambi wrote: »

Can we have a dungeons & dragons class, seems as how we're entertaining fantasy in schools?

It is not a fantasy that religions play a role in world society and politics.

Having a basic grasp of what the basic belief systems of the world guide people to think and believe is part of a well-rounded education.

obplayer

MadsL wrote: »

It is not a fantasy that religions play a role in world society and politics.

Having a basic grasp of what the basic belief systems of the world guide people to think and believe is part of a well-rounded education.

To teach religion as history, what a marvellous dream!

kippy

laoch na mona wrote: »

i just dont think the state should stop teaching the national language. most dont speak irish because they made a balls of teaching it which they only started to correct they shouldn't stop just when its getting better

The national language is all but dead and forcing people into getting taught it isn't going to improve that - we've seen that from experience.

If you want people speaking the language you have to give them a reason to do so.
I dont want to see the language disappear altogether, but it's teaching hours have at least got to be reduced.

MadsL

obplayer wrote: »

To teach religion as history, what a marvellous dream!

As you quoted me, where did I mention history?

Religious belief is a major factor in world politics, it seems strange to try and ignore that fact in writing the school curriculum.

laoch na mona

kippy wrote: »

The national language is all but dead and forcing people into getting taught it isn't going to improve that - we've seen that from experience.

If you want people speaking the language you have to give them a reason to do so.
I dont want to see the language disappear altogether, but it's teaching hours have at least got to be reduced.

they are putting more emphasis on speaking irish in school now and the increase in gaelscoileanna shows the use of the language is increasing

obplayer

MadsL wrote: »

As you quoted me, where did I mention history?

Religious belief is a major factor in world politics, it seems strange to try and ignore that fact in writing the school curriculum.

An extension of the thought of teaching religion in the context of it's social effects rather than as belief led me to history. If you are offended by my quoting you then I am very, very, very sorry.

kippy

laoch na mona wrote: »

they are putting more emphasis on speaking irish in school now and the increase in gaelscoileanna shows the use of the language is increasing

Do you know why there is an increase in Gaelscoileanna? (It's got nothing to do with the popularity of the language)
FORCING people into speaking a language is never a good thing.

As I said, it's sad that the use of Irish is decreasing in the real world. That's just a reality of life.
The amount of time spent on it in primary and secondary school HAS to be reduced.

LordSutch

laoch na mona wrote: »

religon fine get rid of it but gaeilge thats part of who we are

. . . but only since 1922.

Click on 25 mins, 30 seconds > > > http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10088625%3A1475%3A25-11-2012%3A

MadsL

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

The voice of reason



The voice of The Daily Mail

Yes, showing quite clearly the absurdity of your argument. If you cannot see how the study of the interpretation of sacred texts and their application to moral and value systems is different to the study of history, then you probably think architecture is the same as engineering.

obplayer wrote: »

An extension of the thought of teaching religion in the context of it's social effects rather than as belief led me to history. If you are offended by my quoting you then I am very, very, very sorry.

I thought you were interpreting me as saying religious studies should teach religion as history (as in no longer active) - no offence taken.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

It is not a fantasy that religions play a role in world society and politics.

Having a basic grasp of what the basic belief systems of the world guide people to think and believe is part of a well-rounded education.

Religion should have no role in politics.

Religion can be taught as part of history, as far as I know there is no current affairs class?

Teach children there is religion but to go into the eccentricities of each one is imo, a waste of time and detrimental.

Wibbs

laoch na mona wrote: »

they are putting more emphasis on speaking irish in school now and the increase in gaelscoileanna shows the use of the language is increasing

Gaelscoileanna pupils make up 7% of primary school pupils. The numbers for secondary are far less. Indeed due to exemptions fewer students are taking Irish for the leaving cert an increase of 35% in 5 years.

The landscape is changing on all fronts and we need to keep up with those changes in the future. Wasting years of education on a language the vast majority don't/won't/cant speak and/or religion classes while one in four school leavers fail basic literacy tests is beyond daft. That's not even regarding the changes we need to make to give our coming generations the ability to prosper in a worldwide marketplace.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

Religion should have no role in politics.

Religion can be taught as part of history, as far as I know there is no current affairs class?

Teach children there is religion but to go into the eccentricities of each one is imo, a waste of time and detrimental.

Teaching it as history presumes that religious belief is obsolete. As much as atheists might want to believe that it isn't true in the real world.

How is teaching people about religion "detrimental". Sounds like more eccentric Richard Dawkins style nonsense.

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

Teaching it as history presumes that religious belief isn't obsolete. As much as atheists might want to believe that it isn't true in the real world.

How is teaching people about religion "detrimental". Sounds like more eccentric Richard Dawkins style nonsense.

Not sure if you've phrased that correctly. As I said, you teach history and religion is a motivation behind many events without going into the specifics of said religions.

How is it eccentric exactly? Teaching religious beliefs is detrimental as it's in direct conflict with science class, time wasting in the extreme particularly when you think of all the wild and wonderful religions currently and throughout history. I'm sure I can think of other reasons.

philologos

Ush1: blame predictive typing on Windows Phone. I've also forgotten what adjective I did want in there

Teaching about faith isn't in direct contradiction with science. I've heard this trotted out time and time again. The reality is that many people of faith contributed and contribute to science.

Anything else is just empty atheist assumption.

And yes I meant is obsolete rather than isn't.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Not sure if you've phrased that correctly. As I said, you teach history and religion is a motivation behind many events without going into the specifics of said religions.

I'm feeling that at this moment in history it would be useful to know some of the features of the Sunni, Shia and Wahhabism styles of Islam. That requires some understanding of the base tenets of Islam.

How is it eccentric exactly? Teaching religious beliefs is detrimental as it's in direct conflict with science class, time wasting in the extreme particularly when you think of all the wild and wonderful religions currently and throughout history. I'm sure I can think of other reasons.

Teaching about religious beliefs is very different to teaching someone how to be religious. Can we stop confusing the two?

You consider it a waste of time to try and consider how other people in the world think and what value systems cause them to act in particular ways? Even when in your own country, for instance, religious value systems prevent abortions from saving the life of the mother? That's a waste of time huh?

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

Ush1: blame predictive typing on Windows Phone. I've also forgotten what adjective I did want in there

Teaching about faith isn't in direct contradiction with science. I've heard this trotted out time and time again. The reality is that many people of faith contributed and contribute to science.

Anything else is just empty atheist assumption.

And yes I meant is obsolete rather than isn't.

It's irrelevant that people of faith have contributed to science. So Jesus walked on water, tell me how that is not in contradiction with science exactly?

It's an athiest assumption based on what is written of in the bible.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

I'm feeling that at this moment in history it would be useful to know some of the features of the Sunni, Shia and Wahhabism styles of Islam. That requires some understanding of the base tenets of Islam.

Like I said, I don't think there is a current affairs class or do students get taught about the 2nd Persian Gulf etc..?

Teaching about religious beliefs is very different to teaching someone how to be religious. Can we stop confusing the two?

You consider it a waste of time to try and consider how other people in the world think and what value systems cause them to act in particular ways? Even when in your own country, for instance, religious value systems prevent abortions from saving the life of the mother? That's a waste of time huh?

You're talking about religion as an abstract idea. What age exactly would you be teaching this to?

What way would the teachers phrase it and what religions are going to be covered? Which religions are more worthy than others?

The reason this country is so heavily influenced is precisely because it was taught in school.

As for teaching the motivations behind people doing things, why not teach basic psychology then instead?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

It's irrelevant that people of faith have contributed to science. So Jesus walked on water, tell me how that is not in contradiction with science exactly?

It's an athiest assumption based on what is written of in the bible.

Teaching you about the fact that some people believe that Jesus literally walked on water, whilst others believe that he was an historical human being who preached a moral life has no contradiction with science as far as I can see.

Again, you seem unable to see the difference between learning about religions and practicing a religion. Is there some way I can make that clearer to you?

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

It's irrelevant that people of faith have contributed to science. So Jesus walked on water, tell me how that is not in contradiction with science exactly?

It's an athiest assumption based on what is written of in the bible.

There is nothing contradictory. Science doesn't preclude miracles by the by. Nor does it preclude the idea that there very well could have been a creator.

Now if Christians said that those things were common place then I would agree with you.

Atheists don't own science. Ramming atheist assumptions into it is no better than ramming Christian assumptions into it.

Knasher

philologos wrote: »

How is teaching people about religion "detrimental".

Time spent teaching children religion is time that can't be spent on other subjects. At a primary level, children in Ireland spend about 10% of their time on religion and 12% on maths, compared to an average among other developed countries of 4% and 18%. I don't have an objection to children learning about religion, as apposed to what most schools in Ireland do and indoctrinate into a specific religion, but either way school-goers are spending all together too much time on it.

laoch na mona wrote: »

i just dont think the state should stop teaching the national language. most dont speak irish because they made a balls of teaching it which they only started to correct they shouldn't stop just when its getting better

Too much time is spent on Irish as well, more than other countries spend on teaching English as a second language as far as I know. The problem with teaching languages to English speakers is that it is so very rare for people to be exposed to these other languages in their daily life. No matter how the curriculum is changed, fluency rates are always going to be rock bottom unless this is somehow addressed, and I just don't see how it can be fixed.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Teaching you about the fact that some people believe that Jesus literally walked on water, whilst others believe that he was an historical human being who preached a moral life has no contradiction with science as far as I can see.

Again, you seem unable to see the difference between learning about religions and practicing a religion. Is there some way I can make that clearer to you?

No, I can see your point and have addressed it. The other poster is referring to something else as far as I can see.

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

There is nothing contradictory. Science doesn't preclude miracles by the by. Nor does it preclude the idea that there very well could have been a creator.

Now if Christians said that those things were common place then I would agree with you.

Atheists don't own science. Ramming atheist assumptions into it is no better than ramming Christian assumptions into it.

mir·a·cle

/ˈmɪr ə kəl/ Show Spelled [mir-uh-kuh l] Show IPA
noun 1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.


You've seriously lost me here, turning water into wine, virgin births, etc... are unscientific ideas.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Like I said, I don't think there is a current affairs class or do students get taught about the 2nd Persian Gulf etc..?

I'm sure that the invasion of Kuwait and the 1st Gulf War will be on the syllabus soon enough. Currently there are topics like "Race relations in France in the 1980s" so Islam is certainly a factor in studying history at LC level.

You're talking about religion as an abstract idea. What age exactly would you be teaching this to?

Children from an early age encounter moral systems "It is wrong to lie", it is easy enough to start with moral systems and progress to structured religions as children get older. It is not like kids don't encounter ethics from a very early age.

What way would the teachers phrase it and what religions are going to be covered? Which religions are more worthy than others?

You think there are too many religions to cover over 12 years or so??? Really, which ones do you think would be neglected?

The reason this country is so heavily influenced is precisely because it was taught in school.

...and no-one went to Mass. Sure, whatever you say.

As for teaching the motivations behind people doing things, why not teach basic psychology then instead?

Psychology of Religion has a role to play, but the problem is the complexity of examination of religious belief systems. Even agreeing a definition of Religion is highly debated by academics. A bit complex for Junior Cert don't you think. Psychology could be a Leaving Cert option but why would you teach it when you can make a lot more as a Therapist or Medical professional - then you would have half-trained teachers trying to teach it.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

I'm sure that the invasion of Kuwait and the 1st Gulf War will be on the syllabus soon enough. Currently there are topics like "Race relations in France in the 1980s" so Islam is certainly a factor in studying history at LC level.

Hardly current then is it? What class is that topic covered in?

MadsL wrote: »

Children from an early age encounter moral systems "It is wrong to lie", it is easy enough to start with moral systems and progress to structured religions as children get older. It is not like kids don't encounter ethics from a very early age.

Moral systems are certainly not religions.

MadsL wrote: »

You think there are too many religions to cover over 12 years or so??? Really, which ones do you think would be neglected?

Hang on, are you teaching right or wrong? Or seer stones and Xenu?

MadsL wrote: »

...and no-one went to Mass. Sure, whatever you say.

Chicken or the egg? You're not legally obliged to take your children to mass.

MadsL wrote: »

Psychology of Religion has a role to play, but the problem is the complexity of examination of religious belief systems. Even agreeing a definition of Religion is highly debated by academics. A bit complex for Junior Cert don't you think. Psychology could be a Leaving Cert option but why would you teach it when you can make a lot more as a Therapist or Medical professional - then you would have half-trained teachers trying to teach it.

The made up beliefs of religion are as complex and as irrelevent as you want to be. Psychology is universally applicable. Trying to remember what all the kosher rules are is not.

philologos

Ush1 wrote: »

mir·a·cle

/ˈmɪr ə kəl/ Show Spelled [mir-uh-kuh l] Show IPA
noun 1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God.


You've seriously lost me here, turning water into wine, virgin births, etc... are unscientific ideas.

Science concerns the natural universe. It doesn't deal with the supernatural in any form. I agree. This doesn't mean that science says that these things can never happen, but it is silent on it.

It's not contradictory no matter how much new-atheists want to claim. Science isn't something for atheists to ram their assumptions into.

Ush1

philologos wrote: »

Science concerns the natural universe. It doesn't deal with the supernatural in any form. I agree. This doesn't mean that science says that these things can never happen, but it is silent on it.

It's not contradictory no matter how much new-atheists want to claim. Science isn't something for atheists to ram their assumptions into.

So Jesus breaking the laws of physics and biology and whatever other discipline of science is something that silence is "silent on".

What sort of apologist rubbish is that?

So you could with a straight face teach your physics students that a man can walk on water? I honestly don't know where to start....

Scanlas The 2nd

seamus wrote: »

No, it's the time spent for relatively little gain that's the problem. 12-14 years of it, at least half an hour a day, and most of the country is barely able to string a sentence together.

It's time to stop flogging the dead horse and spend at least some of that time in areas where we might be able to improve.

The ideal mandatory curriculum would include english (basic literacy skills taught and examined right up to junior cert), maths and one european language. So kids or parents can choose Irish if they wish.

No it's time to learn how to teach languages properly and not waste time.