Primary School and Religious Education 2

Gerry T

The idea for this thread is coming from another I have been following. In simple terms the debate had an underlying theme with the participants split over this item.
If you could decide in the morning would you have religious education as part of the primary school curriculum in state funded schools. Not that religious eduction should disappear but if parents wanted their child to have a specific faith taught to them, like Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish... then parents would send their kids to after school classes for this.
My own position for what its worth is RE should be taken out of state funded schools, I would be accepting of a general RE class, which didn't favour one religion over another, and even Atheism should be explained/taught.

homer911

I dont think its that simple.

My kids went to a Church of Ireland primary school, with a strong ethos and many of the teachers were committed Christians. The school supported the children from Catholic backgrounds and while there were no Holy Communion classes during school time, they were held on school premises after school hours. I dont believe there were any exemptions for children of atheists - all are entitled to be educated in the Christian faith.

The minority cant dictate to the majority

lazybones32

Aside from First Communion and Confirmation, it is entirely at the Teacher's discretion what religious education is taught in the Primary curriculum. A vocal minority would have us believe that every child, in every school is being forcefully indoctrinated into a Religion but the reality is far from it. "You teach them what you want." - a Primary Teacher who I asked.

A Secondary Teacher said she teaches what she chooses, regarding Catholicism/Religion outside the curriculum, and she hasn't been fired or hauled before the Bishop for Inquisition. She is a Religion Teacher.

Gerry T

On another thread the debate of RE classes in primary school raged for pages, which is why I set up the poll. First in A&A but felt that was a skewed result as may be expected and came to this forum to address a balance.
A key point that was mentioned is children have a constitutional right to a education and one free of religious class if they wish. My own kids school allowed children that didn't want religious teaching to sit in another class room and do other studies. This arrangement worked perfectly fine.
The current situation is NO primary school in Ireland is free from RE class, the Educate together movement teaches all faith systems.
For me I would favour a general class on RE or non at all, that's just my opinion. Under this system if I wanted my kids to follow a faith system I would take "sunday" school.

Gerry T

lazybones32 wrote: »

Aside from First Communion and Confirmation, it is entirely at the Teacher's discretion what religious education is taught in the Primary curriculum. A vocal minority would have us believe that every child, in every school is being forcefully indoctrinated into a Religion but the reality is far from it. "You teach them what you want." - a Primary Teacher who I asked.

A Secondary Teacher said she teaches what she chooses, regarding Catholicism/Religion outside the curriculum, and she hasn't been fired or hauled before the Bishop for Inquisition. She is a Religion Teacher.

90% of primary schools in Ireland are under the Roman Catholic Church. I would guess most of these schools would teach about christianity, god etc... I'm not saying there is anything wrong with them doing that, as the RCC are patrons.

Secondary schools do tend to be different in that they take a more rounded approach to RE and cover more than the Catholic religion, this poll is more about Primary Schools. Its Children at that age 5-12 that can be led to believe anything you tell them that's important.

lazybones32

I don't know if the kids have the Constitutional Right but their Parents sure do.

Maybe when there are enough people in a District that want a "Religion-Free" school, the need may be met?

Are you respecting your child's wishes though? You want him/her educated in an environment that doesn't teach religion but what if he/she wants to learn the subject? Are you just projecting your own bias by deciding because you don't want it, your child shouldn't want it?

Adds: Sorry, I had this typed before reading your reply.

Yes, the majority are under RC Patronage but as I wrote, it's up to the Teacher what is taught. The days of a Priest inspecting the religious knowledge of children are gone and there is no standardized testing for Primary-level subjects.

Why are you afraid of your child being led to believe something? You, the parent, are the Primary Educator, not the Schoolteacher.

blondeonblonde

lazybones32 wrote: »

Aside from First Communion and Confirmation, it is entirely at the Teacher's discretion what religious education is taught in the Primary curriculum. A vocal minority would have us believe that every child, in every school is being forcefully indoctrinated into a Religion but the reality is far from it. "You teach them what you want." - a Primary Teacher who I asked.

A Secondary Teacher said she teaches what she chooses, regarding Catholicism/Religion outside the curriculum, and she hasn't been fired or hauled before the Bishop for Inquisition. She is a Religion Teacher.

You don't simply teach them what you want. Catholic schools follow the Alive O programme and all schools (should) have a policy governing what is taught in Religion. If teachers don't follow the policy/programme then that is another matter.

Kh1993

I'm a teacher, a catholic educated, and trained in a catholic third level institution. Something has to change

The Alive O program is outdated, the world has changed, it's not relevant anymore (and its not much of a choice, I've had to follow the programe in any school I've been in). And kids don't learn much from, mostly colouring in and listening to stories/singing songs. We make the mistake in thinking that the only place to teach morals and ethos is in an Alive O program.

Then there's the issue that most catholic schools aren't filled 100% with children of that faith anymore, not necessarily a bad thing. There's no choice for parents (and there really isn't - ET schools aren't widespread enough). There should be religion taught, but other faiths should be incoporated, instead of the whole 'catholicism is right and everything else is wrong'.

And there's the problem. I haven't answered any of my own queries, because I can't. But the current RE system is outdated. Yet I don't know how to fix it. One thing I'd do is at least leave specific religions til at least the middle classes, instead of practically force feeding infants into a specific religion. That helps no one.

PopePalpatine

What is so threatening about a secular-ethos school to a child's religious beliefs? It's not as if ET teachers are going to read from The God Delusion for half an hour every day.

byhookorbycrook

What about "no religion whatsoever in schools" as a poll option? Some people would probably respond to that option too.

PopePalpatine

I think that might be covered by the second option.

Manach

Given the historical excellence of Catholic education and that there is a significant portion of parents who wish their children raised in that ethos,then of course there is a duty on the state to work within the existing established schools to give the religious eduction. Schools not only exist due to the curricula but through the generations of traditions that have developed. To cut this away both diminishes the standards and experience of the children and removes their cultural heritage.

PopePalpatine

And if you're a non-Catholic in the middle of nowhere in Donegal/Kerry/Galway/Mayo, and the nearest non-Catholic school is at least half an hour's drive away, screw you because tradition. :rolleyes:

Manach

As per the constitution, feel free to educate at home, move or set up your schooling with likeminded. Don't expect the whole world to revolve itself for your own convenience, which displays a rather familiar set of self-interest.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

As per the constitution, feel free to educate at home, move or set up your schooling with likeminded. Don't expect the whole world to revolve itself for your own convenience, which displays a rather familiar set of self-interest.

As Catholics have been doing for the best part of the last century in this country? :rolleyes:

I (or my hypothetical spouse) might not have the time to home-school my children. I might not be able to move home, because I could be up to my eyes in negative equity or I'm in an area that's not attractive on the housing market. I might not be able to find enough like-minded parents to convince the state to fund an ET school in my area. Perhaps you could compromise on your heartless conservatism?

Manach

Perhaps you could back to your progressivism 101, which is fairly old hat by always seeking to introduce the emotive edge cases so as to drive social changes "oh think of the children.". Speaking of talking through owes ... ahem hat, the constant denigration of the historical Irish school systems seems to be also held up with any comparison with the international norms or how other school systems have been designed from the start by the state to push an ethos de jour or controlled by lobbying groups to maximise benefit from their members.
Deconstructing a traditional school system for the few and making it a plaything of whatever progressive ideology passes for the zeitgeist, a brave new world for the kids is being crafted :rolleyes:

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps you could back to your progressivism 101, which is fairly old hat by always seeking to introduce the emotive edge cases so as to drive social changes "oh think of the children.". Speaking of talking through owes ... ahem hat, the constant denigration of the historical Irish school systems seems to be also held up with any comparison with the international norms or how other school systems have been designed from the start by the state to push an ethos de jour or controlled by lobbying groups to maximise benefit from their members.
Deconstructing a traditional school system for the few and making it a plaything of whatever progressive ideology passes for the zeitgeist, a brave new world for the kids is being crafted :rolleyes:

You can't see how ironic that bolded bit is, considering the control the RCC exerts on the state's school system for the benefit of its hierarchy?

What's so horrifying about an ET school anyway? Like I said, The God Delusion ISN'T being read for half an hour every day in these schools!

Nick Park

Generally, developed western industrial nations tend to have a State-funded educational system which remains neutral in the matter of religion.

Third world countries generally can't provide such a service, so churches and other charitable organisations try to fill the gap and set up schools.

For some reason Ireland has the worst of both worlds. We have religious indoctrination in schools and the State funds it.

I would love to see a proper secular educational system in Ireland where the basic facts are taught about various religious beliefs (including atheism) and no one religion or ideology is favoured. Indoctrination and preparation for religious rites of passage is a job for churches and parents - not the schools.

If religious organisations want to run their own schools then they should be allowed to do so (providing the education is of a reasonable level) but should not receive a single penny from the State.

Nick Park

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps you could back to your progressivism 101, which is fairly old hat by always seeking to introduce the emotive edge cases so as to drive social changes "oh think of the children.". Speaking of talking through owes ... ahem hat, the constant denigration of the historical Irish school systems seems to be also held up with any comparison with the international norms or how other school systems have been designed from the start by the state to push an ethos de jour or controlled by lobbying groups to maximise benefit from their members.
Deconstructing a traditional school system for the few and making it a plaything of whatever progressive ideology passes for the zeitgeist, a brave new world for the kids is being crafted :rolleyes:

And, when it comes to the subject of education, who should we thinking of, if not of the children?

Gerry T

Manach wrote: »

Given the historical excellence of Catholic education and that there is a significant portion of parents who wish their children raised in that ethos,then of course there is a duty on the state to work within the existing established schools to give the religious eduction. Schools not only exist due to the curricula but through the generations of traditions that have developed. To cut this away both diminishes the standards and experience of the children and removes their cultural heritage.

That's what the poll is about. to say "that's the way we have always done it" or "sure aren't the majority catholic in Ireland" doesn't really work. The catholic church have given a lot to establishing schools in Ireland and we could debate their reasons. Is it that they wanted to help the people or is it they want to get to young impressionable children and have them indoctrinated in their belief system before they are too old. But that's a different debate.

The crux of the matter is your child has a right to an education, say 90% of schools are RCC, not 90% are practising Catholics. So if the 90% of schools say that you have to follow the RE ethos of the school parents don't have a choice. You may say that's tough luck, but where schools are state funded there is the real issue.

The excellence of education has no link to the religious education. IF the RE half hr class per day is removed or made a general RE class or one that covers civics then the excellence in education won't change. Whats the problem with that ?

I would concede a primary school that self funds could make any requests from pupils and that's fine, their school -- their rules

Gerry T

Manach wrote: »

As per the constitution, feel free to educate at home, move or set up your schooling with likeminded. Don't expect the whole world to revolve itself for your own convenience, which displays a rather familiar set of self-interest.

That's the point the state has a constitutional obligation to provide an education system to our children, and if those children wish to not participate in RE then that's the child's choice.
You say the whole world, but as the Poll is demonstrating the majority of people are not saying that a specific RE class, which is what we have in majority at the moment, should be the way to go.

Gerry T

PopePalpatine wrote: »

As Catholics have been doing for the best part of the last century in this country? :rolleyes:

I (or my hypothetical spouse) might not have the time to home-school my children. I might not be able to move home, because I could be up to my eyes in negative equity or I'm in an area that's not attractive on the housing market. I might not be able to find enough like-minded parents to convince the state to fund an ET school in my area. Perhaps you could compromise on your heartless conservatism?

I'm agreeing with you, the state has an obligation to provide an education for your child, if the majority don't want a specific RE class but something else - like a general RE class or no religion at all, then that's what the state should do.

If the local state funded schools don't comply then that school should have its state funding removed. That money can then be put toward providing a school to meet the demand of the people

Gerry T

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

What about "no religion whatsoever in schools" as a poll option? Some people would probably respond to that option too.

This poll ran in A&A and that same question came up there. Option 2 was meant to be for no RE whatsoever, but I felt I shouldn't change the wording so we are comparing apples with apples.
Take it option 2 does imply no RE class as option 3 is for a general RE class.

santing

I am not an RC and my children went to RC schools - there was not really any choice.
But in a sense I liked the RC education, better than no RE education or an attempt to teach all religions- but preparation for confirmation and first communion should not be done during school hours, there is way too much time spend on those events

Gerry T

santing wrote: »

I am not an RC and my children went to RC schools - there was not really any choice.
But in a sense I liked the RC education, better than no RE education or an attempt to teach all religions- but preparation for confirmation and first communion should not be done during school hours, there is way too much time spend on those events

If all students wanted an RE specific school then time on RE lessons is a good thing. But time for communion and confirmation should be outside the school time.

Berserker

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What's so horrifying about an ET school anyway?

I have no problem with state funded ET schools, as a Christian. I fail to see the point in parents sending their children to RCC schools, if they are not active in their faith and they do not wish to bring up their children up in that faith.

Gerry T wrote: »

The crux of the matter is your child has a right to an education, say 90% of schools are RCC, not 90% are practising Catholics.

How are you quantifying what practicing means? According to the last census, 85% of the population are RCs. By your logic, 85% of the schools should be RC. You don't need to go to mass every Sunday to be a practicing RC, I would imagine.

Personally, as a non-RC christian, I would like see a state funded school system which caters for all. ET schools and religious schools. All schools should receive an equal amount state funding. That is the fairest solution. Giving state funding to the ET schools only, would be discrimination against the children in religious schools, surely?

Gerry T

Berserker wrote: »

I have no problem with state funded ET schools, as a Christian. I fail to see the point in parents sending their children to RCC schools, if they are not active in their faith and they do not wish to bring up their children up in that faith.



How are you quantifying what practicing means? According to the last census, 85% of the population are RCs. By your logic, 85% of the schools should be RC. You don't need to go to mass every Sunday to be a practicing RC, I would imagine.

Personally, as a non-RC christian, I would like see a state funded school system which caters for all. ET schools and religious schools. All schools should receive an equal amount state funding. That is the fairest solution. Giving state funding to the ET schools only, would be discrimination against the children in religious schools, surely?

I may not have made my point clearly. My preference is for all kids to be able to choose, if they want RC, Jewish, Muslim then they should have access to that teaching. I think the best way is for schools to be secular and if parents want to teach a particular belief they can, outside the academic time.

Gerry T

For those not following the thread, a copy of this was but into both the A&A and Christianity forums. Combining both polls the results would be

Schools teaching a single belief 9 people 8.11%
Schools teaching no belief 46 people 41.44%
Schools teaching all beliefs 56 people 50.45%

Over half the people that participated would like schools to teach a general RE class covering all beliefs, followed closely by roughly 42% preferring no RE teaching and only 8% wanting a single belief.

Even when you only look at the Christianity form results, only 30% wanted to teach a single belief system, the obvious conclusion from those that participated is the current system of RCC dominating over 90% of all schools in the country is not wanted.
The majority choice in the Christianity forum was for schools to teach all belief systems at 41% which was also the majority in A&A at 52%.

Christianity
Schools teaching a single belief 5 people 29.41%
Schools teaching no belief 5 people 29.41%
Schools teaching all beliefs 7 people 41.18%

A&A
Schools teaching a single belief 4 people 4.26%
Schools teaching no belief 41 people 43.62%
Schools teaching all beliefs 49 people 52.13%

Hotblack Desiato

Berserker wrote: »

How are you quantifying what practicing means? According to the last census, 85% of the population are RCs. By your logic, 85% of the schools should be RC.

That doesn't follow.
First off, many people interpret that question as meaning the faith one was baptised into. It's perfectly possible to tick the RC box and not believe in god at all.
Second, the 84% ticking RC is the population as a whole. The older generations among the population are more likely to profess a faith, but they are not parents of school-going children or future parents of same.
Third, there is no correlation between number of schools and number of places, non-RC schools make up 10% of primary schools but not 10% of places, these schools tend to be smaller. E.g. where I live there are 3 RC primary schools with several junior infants classes a year between them, there is half a junior infants class a year in the CoI school.
Fourthly, by no means everyone professing a faith wants religious-patronage education to be the default for state funded schools. There is very little difference between the poll result here and the one in A&A.

Gerry T

You make some interesting points

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That doesn't follow.
First off, many people interpret that question as meaning the faith one was baptised into. It's perfectly possible to tick the RC box and not believe in god at all.

That's true, and by doing that it makes it harder for people that want a teach together or secular education.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Second, the 84% ticking RC is the population as a whole. The older generations among the population are more likely to profess a faith, but they are not parents of school-going children or future parents of same.

Like above if older people that won't have any children in primary school were removed from the poll's how would the numbers then stack up.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Third, there is no correlation between number of schools and number of places, non-RC schools make up 10% of primary schools but not 10% of places, these schools tend to be smaller. E.g. where I live there are 3 RC primary schools with several junior infants classes a year between them, there is half a junior infants class a year in the CoI school.

Again this is not taken into consideration, they tend to compare schools and not places. A good point

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Fourthly, by no means everyone professing a faith wants religious-patronage education to be the default for state funded schools. There is very little difference between the poll result here and the one in A&A.

There was a difference, in A&A only approx 4% wanted "single faith schools". But in Christianity approx 30% did.

If a country wide poll was done, that was addressed to 18yr old's up to anyone that felt they may put a child through primary school. You may find the result would swing more towards teach together or secular.
But my guess is the status quo won't change in the foreseeable future. Most people just don't care enough. The decision on what school to send your child to is more about the perceived standard of the school, how the school manages kids with difficulties (dyslexia, dyspraxia, etc...), attitudes to bullying, sporting opportunities, closeness to home, is the school a feeder to a particular secondary. If the chosen school happen to be Jewish, RC, teach together I'm guessing most people would send there kids to that school. Getting the patronage is not high enough up the priority list for most people grinding out the daily routines. But if the question was put to them on a ballot, then you would see change being requested.

Hotblack Desiato

Gerry T wrote: »

There was a difference, in A&A only approx 4% wanted "single faith schools". But in Christianity approx 30% did.

You're right, I meant to say the most popular option in both is ET-style teaching about all religions rather than instructing in one, or having no religion at all.

But my guess is the status quo won't change in the foreseeable future. Most people just don't care enough.

Or are willing to just go along with it e.g. baptise when they wouldn't otherwise have.

neemish

One model I am growing more and more fond of are Community National Schools, which are under the Patronage of the VEC. Basically, they don't follow one religion but acknowledge that spirituality in whatever form is a part of life. So they have lesson time on the different religions, but at certain times of the year there are specific classes for different religions and none. They build in reflection time into the week. I prefer this because it doesn't say leave your faith at the door. In some ETs, not even a Christmas tree is allowed. Diwali and Ede are celebrated (which I have no problem with), but you can't mention Christmas.

Hotblack Desiato

Oh no, not the 'war on christmas' myth again

neemish

It may be a myth in your experience, but not in mine!

Hotblack Desiato

For starters a christmas tree is a pagan symbol not a christian one, not that that should make any difference.
Which are the ET schools where you 'can't mention christmas'?
It would be explicitly against the entire ethos of ET to celebrate muslim festivals, but not christian (or pagan) ones.

lazygal

neemish wrote: »

It may be a myth in your experience, but not in mine!

Where was your experience? Why were other festivals but not Christmas celebrated? Not all christians celebrate christmas anyway.