Religious Instruction in Schools

mirrorwall14

There are regular debates on the influence of the church on schools. The primary school curriculum syllabi which are set by the Dept of Education are here. The most notable absence among all those syllabi and guidelines is religion.

The state mandate the curriculum and pay the bills so I feel that the biggest and probably easiest change could (and still can) be made without any faffing about with surveys on patronage and bemoaning the influence of the church.

If the government really want to do something in relation to religion in school then why can the Dept of Education not implement a compulsory, broad ranging, multi- denominational religious syllabus including atheism (similar to the current junior cert but without the options for heavy emphasis on Catholicism).

While I am Roman Catholic I want my children to understand that all belief systems including none are completely permissible and widespread. I still regret that my own schooling taught me literally nothing about the other main world religions. There is so much discussion about religion in schools, I simply cannot understand how we do not have a state syllabus in place for it when we have syllabi for every other subject/level in Primary and Secondary School Education.

I'm not a primary teacher, so perhaps I'm being naive. What do others think?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

You took this straight to the realms of fantasy but excluding the matter of patronage. It is THE prevailing factor and cannot be ignored in any discussion on this. And please, look up the principles of patronage before dismissing it.

I would love to see religion removed from schools completely but ...well...I can't discuss it within the limits your proposal sets.

mirrorwall14

Bradley Beautiful Sentinel wrote: »

You took this straight to the realms of fantasy but excluding the matter of patronage. It is THE prevailing factor and cannot be ignored in any discussion on this. And please, look up the principles of patronage before dismissing it.

I would love to see religion removed from schools completely but ...well...I can't discuss it within the limits your proposal sets.

I'm not ignoring it, as stated my instinct is that that is a much, much longer and more difficult battle. Why is something like the above not a decent step along that road?

byhookorbycrook

Religion is not under the remit of the DES. There was no time made for religion in setting up primary schools. It was therefore taught for a half a hour of lunchtime. This is why it was traditionally taught from 12.00 to 12.30 to allow those NOT taking part to go home for lunch.

mikemac1

Will the mandatory syllabus apply to Church of Ireland schools too?

mirrorwall14

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Religion is not under the remit of the DES. There was no time made for religion in setting up primary schools. It was therefore taught for a half a hour of lunchtime. This is why it was traditionally taught from 12.00 to 12.30 to allow those NOT taking part to go home for lunch.

Thats interesting. I am correct in saying though that it is no longer taught at lunchtime? If that change has been made, could a syllabus be implemented?

mirrorwall14

mikemac1 wrote: »

Will the mandatory syllabus apply to Church of Ireland schools too?

I would apply it to every primary school in the state but again this is all just an idea

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

I would apply it to every primary school in the state but again this is all just an idea

But, again, you can't apply it because the patrons will not allow it, and are perfectly entitled to do so under the conditions pertaining to patronage of schools.

_Redzer_

Learn about religion outside of school. School isn't a place for fairytails, it's for learning.

That time could be spent learning a foreign language, so we don't get bombarded by it in secondary school and we get a better base for them -like in other European countries.

mirrorwall14

Bradley Beautiful Sentinel wrote: »

But, again, you can't apply it because the patrons will not allow it, and are perfectly entitled to do so under the conditions pertaining to patronage of schools.

Perhaps you could actually explain why and where this information is? I already said I don't know a huge amount about it.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Learn about religion outside of school. School isn't a place for fairytails, it's for learning.

That time could be spent learning a foreign language, so we don't get bombarded by it in secondary school and we get a better base for them -like in other European countries.

I agree that religion should be taught outside school but I at least respect people's faith and do not consider it fairy tales. Whether it is or not is immaterial to the issue of it's place on a timetable in a school with a religious ethos - as is the issue at hand, is it not?

Kiwi in IE

If this issue cannot be solved quickly or simply due to the patronage issue, then religious instruction (as opposed to education) should be held at the end of every school day as the last subject, so those who are not partaking can go home early. And it should not be mentioned in a way that is bias toward one religion at any other time during the school day! This should be made mandatory in all schools with urgency.

Pablodreamsofnew

I wish school was religion free and it was an elected subject you can take in secondary school if you wish.

I wasn't catholic growing up and It was really awkward for me. I had to sit down during prays and wait outside whilst everyone went to the church. I felt like I was treated differently.

Religion stay out of education!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

Perhaps you could actually explain why and where this information is? I already said I don't know a huge amount about it.

I don't know if it's on line (not everything in this world is) but the local patron will have it as does the dept of education if you contact them. I have a hard copy doc somewhere in the house from my board of management days many years back.

mirrorwall14

MrsYelnekoff wrote: »

I wish school was religion free and it was an elected subject you can take in secondary school if you wish.

I wasn't catholic growing up and It was really awkward for me. I had to sit down during prays and wait outside whilst everyone went to the church. I felt like I was treated differently.

Religion stay out of education!

This I get. I'm just proposing that at least in the meantime that students are taught about all religions instead of just whatever religion the school is

Pablodreamsofnew

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

This I get. I'm just proposing that at least in the meantime that students are taught about all religions instead of just whatever religion the school is

I think we should try and get rid of religion in school altogether and not add more!!

Down with religion :P

genericguy

Hmmm, 2 pages, no thanks, and relatively intelligent discussion.

Nice.

_Redzer_

Bradley Beautiful Sentinel wrote: »

I agree that religion should be taught outside school but I at least respect people's faith and do not consider it fairy tales. Whether it is or not is immaterial to the issue of it's place on a timetable in a school with a religious ethos - as is the issue at hand, is it not?

No matter what way you look at it religion in schools is an utter waste of time. So much more could be done with those hours a week.

Sure we used to do an hour every single solid day in primary school at is was a complete waste of time.

How have stories about Jesus and talking bushes benefitted me?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If this issue cannot be solved quickly or simply due to the patronage issue, then religious instruction (as opposed to education) should be held at the end of every school day as the last subject, so those who are not partaking can go home early. And it should not be mentioned in a way that is bias toward one religion at any other time during the school day! This should be made mandatory in all schools with urgency.

But you have just missed the point! If the school is teaching Catholicism then that is a church patronaged school and those attending are knowingly attending a school with a faith ethos. Such a school will not change all to allow kids go home earlier rather than attend instruction.

Oh, I give up!!!!!!

eviltwin

Learning about religion is fine, could be done as part of geography or a social studies class, it doesn't need to be an ongoing thing though, could be a module within the school year. It's faith formation that most people object to as its exclusionary and takes up vast amounts of time especially coming up to FHC and conformation. That is a large portion of the school day that could be spent on foreign language, sport, computing, science etc.

Glass Prison 1214

Bradley Beautiful Sentinel wrote: »

But you have just missed the point! If the school is teaching Catholicism then that is a church patronaged school and those attending are knowingly attending a school with a faith ethos. Such a school will not change all to allow kids go home earlier rather than attend instruction.

Oh, I give up!!!!!!

That would be fine if parents had viable alternatives to the religiously run schools, which in the vast majority of cases they dont, considering 90 something percent of this countries schools are catholic. Most parents are forced to send their children to religious schools due to there being no alternative.

Pablodreamsofnew

Bradley Beautiful Sentinel wrote: »

But you have just missed the point! If the school is teaching Catholicism then that is a church patronaged school and those attending are knowingly attending a school with a faith ethos. Such a school will not change all to allow kids go home earlier rather than attend instruction.

Oh, I give up!!!!!!

What choice to most people have? There is more catholic and religious schools than non catholic!! When I was growing up, there were zero educate togethers or hippy German schools. My choice was either Protestant or Catholic schools. That was my parents choice and I was neither of those religions!! I was treated very different from the rest and almost like an 'alien' because I didn't take part in religious things. In fact I was forced to attend church but I was allowed to sit at the back. How kind of them. This was completely against my religion at the time.

So no, I think it's unfair to say 'people are knowingly attending a school with faith ethos' What about peoples choice of religion or non religion??

lazygal

Bradley Beautiful Sentinel wrote: »

But you have just missed the point! If the school is teaching Catholicism then that is a church patronaged school and those attending are knowingly attending a school with a faith ethos. Such a school will not change all to allow kids go home earlier rather than attend instruction.

Oh, I give up!!!!!!

I think you're missing the point. Private churches shouldn't have control over state services paerents are legally obliged to avail of for their children.

Kiwi in IE

Bradley Beautiful Sentinel wrote: »

But you have just missed the point! If the school is teaching Catholicism then that is a church patronaged school and those attending are knowingly attending a school with a faith ethos. Such a school will not change all to allow kids go home earlier rather than attend instruction.

Oh, I give up!!!!!!

No I havn't missed the point at all. Presently 90% of state funded primary schools are under Catholic patronage, another 7% COI patronage. This is not an issue that will be solved over night, however in exchange for continuing to obtain full taxpayer funding to run and maintain the schools, I am sure the State is able to impose some rules around times when it is acceptable to prostylise (eg first or last half hour of day) to cater for all the non Christians that have no choice but to attend these schools whilst paying the same tax toward education as Christians! If this were the case Children who are not from a family of the same religion as the school can more easily skip the bollocks.

mirrorwall14

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No I havn't missed the point at all. Presently 90% of state funded primary schools are under Catholic patronage, another 7% COI patronage. This is not an issue that will be solved over night, however in exchange for continuing to obtain full taxpayer funding to run and maintain the schools, I am sure the State is able to impose some rules around times when it is acceptable to prostylise (eg first or last half hour of day) to cater for all the non Christians that have no choice but to attend these schools whilst paying the same tax toward education as Christians! If this were the case Children who are not from a family of the same religion as the school can more easily skip the bollocks.

I suppose this is my point. I'm not talking about faith forming (I very much advocate removing that from teaching time. I will happily bring my children to after school classes for communion etc). I'd like to see the department at least insisting on the religion that is within teaching time being multi-denominational and inclusive

Just reading the education act here. Am I reading article 30(1) wrong? It seems to imply that the minister can do exactly what I proposed.

It is with consultation with the many groups involved but to be honest while the
patron may disagree with a multi-denominational syllabus, it would be an awful PR battle and I suspect most other groups and the media would win out in its introduction.

The minister can also prescribe the amount of instruction time to be allotted to each subject according to this so why can he not reduce the amount of religious instruction time in primary schools?

byhookorbycrook

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

lved but to be honest while the
patron may disagree with a multi-denominational syllabus, it would be an awful PR battle and I suspect most other groups and the media would win out in its introduction.

The minister can also prescribe the amount of instruction time to be allotted to each subject according to this so why can he not reduce the amount of religious instruction time in primary schools?

"He" is actually a she.

mirrorwall14

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

"He" is actually a she.

oops rofl, forgot the reshuffle!