Religion in junior infants

Paulownia

I think that if you send your child to a catholic school it is inevitable that he will have a catholic education. Surely it's not the end of the world? Is there no Educate Together school near you?

mordeith

Paulownia wrote: »

I think that if you send your child to a catholic school it is inevitable that he will have a catholic education. Surely it's not the end of the world? Is there no Educate Together school near you?

Unless the church is paying the teachers, maintaining the school building etc. it shouldn't have any religious designation imo. Why the heck do you need to be taught your own belief system anyway?

Paulownia

mordeith wrote: »

Unless the church is paying the teachers, maintaining the school building etc. it shouldn't have any religious designation imo. Why the heck do you need to be taught your own belief system anyway?

If they are teaching Catholic religion I think you will find they control the school! need it be seen as a thing which could do harm though?

mordeith

Paulownia wrote: »

If they are teaching Catholic religion I think you will find they control the school! need it be seen as a thing which could do harm though?

That's just it, they don't. They have a presence of the board of management. Apart from that the school is state run and funded. You'll only ever see a priest in a school for communion / confirmation.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Art and English make life bearable...there is nothing more practical than that.

That's not accurate, because it depends entirely on one's linguistic preferences and cultural perspective - in your case, one that is demonstrably Anglo-centric.

And that's quite apart from your (and lazygal's) reductionist assumption that things should be "practical" (according to whose definition?) in order to be worth teaching.

Far be it from this atheist to quote a long-dead Catholic Cardinal in support of my argument, but you would do well to bear in mind the words written in 1851 by John Henry Newman:

"Education is a high word; it is the preparation for knowledge."

It is said that the best definition of "curriculum" is the set of stories that one generation chooses to tell to the next.

If we were to choose to tell our children a story set based on some prejudiced definition of "practicality", then we'd be making a very dull and lifeless choice for them.

zeffabelli

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's not accurate, because it depends entirely on one's linguistic preferences and cultural perspective - in your case, one that is demonstrably Anglo-centric.

And that's quite apart from your (and lazygal's) reductionist assumption that things should be "practical" (according to whose definition?) in order to be worth teaching.

Far be it from this atheist to quote a long-dead Catholic Cardinal in support of my argument, but you would do well to bear in mind the words written in 1851 by John Henry Newman:

"Education is a high word; it is the preparation for knowledge."

It is said that the best definition of "curriculum" is the set of stories that one generation chooses to tell to the next.

If we were to choose to tell our children a story set based on some prejudiced definition of "practicality", then we'd be making a very dull and lifeless choice for them.

Mine is not Anglo centric, as I think there is great practical value in learning Latin, far more so than Irish. 0r French or German. One of languages at the heart of Europe.

I'm more Anglo-Euro co orbital.

zeffabelli

zeffabelli wrote: »

Mine is not Anglo centric, as I think there is great practical value in learning Latin, far more so than Irish. 0r French or German. One of languages at the heart of Europe.

I'm more Anglo-Euro co orbital.

Prejudices are often invisible to those who hold them. Your statement that English "makes life bearable" assumes that English has some fundamental intrinsic value that gives it the capacity to "make life bearable". But logically, English no more has such a capacity than any other language - including those you might dismiss such as Irish.

Whatever one's cultural biases might be, it's potentially a very limiting idea that education of our youngsters should be based on some notion of what is "practical".

But if we are going to insist on "practicality", it's worth keeping in mind that our very definition of what is practical is itself loaded with cultural meanings. So if folk like us want to make our pronouncements in favour of the Google and Intel way, we have to accept that others will be entitled to air their own views of what is valuable for children to learn - and that means the likes of Irish speakers and Catholics.

Gerry T

I would argue that church run schools should divest their control over to the Govt. and let them manage the schools with no focus on any one specific religion. Give children an education, let them see different religious orders and belief systems and let children make an informed decision for themselves if they want to follow a certain belief system.
I have not heard anyone here argue that teaching religion is wrong or teaching Irish is wrong (bar the odd person). That's not the point, its about one grout, in this case a catholic religious order that has total control of the majority of primary schools in Ireland. its wrong. The catholic church says its wrong. The Govt. says its wrong. Its wrong.
If people are not happy with the level of religious education that would get in this "revised" system then they can have their children attend Sunday school, but I would expect the level of religious education the Govt. would roll out under this "revised" system would be no different to the amount of time currently devoted to religious education. With one small change, my guess is it would be a balanced approach to religion.
I'm not against religion or Irish, if that's what people want that's fine,personally I wish I could speak/write and read Irish better than I can.
Finally to all those that have continually wrote "well you don't have to go to a catholic school" or "just go to a educate together school" , do you realise how idiotic those statements are, have you any grasp of the situation ?

One eyed Jack

Gerry T wrote: »

I would argue that church run schools should divest their control over to the Govt. and let them manage the schools with no focus on any one specific religion. Give children an education, let them see different religious orders and belief systems and let children make an informed decision for themselves if they want to follow a certain belief system.
I have not heard anyone here argue that teaching religion is wrong or teaching Irish is wrong (bar the odd person). That's not the point, its about one grout, in this case a catholic religious order that has total control of the majority of primary schools in Ireland. its wrong. The catholic church says its wrong. The Govt. says its wrong. Its wrong.
If people are not happy with the level of religious education that would get in this "revised" system then they can have their children attend Sunday school, but I would expect the level of religious education the Govt. would roll out under this "revised" system would be no different to the amount of time currently devoted to religious education. With one small change, my guess is it would be a balanced approach to religion.
I'm not against religion or Irish, if that's what people want that's fine,personally I wish I could speak/write and read Irish better than I can.
Finally to all those that have continually wrote "well you don't have to go to a catholic school" or "just go to a educate together school" , do you realise how idiotic those statements are, have you any grasp of the situation ?

I have to wonder do people who would rather a secular education have any grasp of the situation or do they understand that it is the parents prerogative that they want their children educated in a religious ethos school?

It's not the Church or the Government that have to convince, it's parents. To those who say they don't want their taxes funding religious ethos schools, well, they're going to pay their taxes anyway, the same as anyone else. It's the Government will decide where they spend their income, and the vast majority of the tax paying public have no issue with their taxes being spend on education in catholic ethos schools. It's no different to water charges protesters claiming that they don't want their taxes being spent on Irish Water. It's really not their choice where the Government spends their taxes because they Government is responsible for everyone in society, not simply a small few who want everything their way.

inocybe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have to wonder do people who would rather a secular education have any grasp of the situation or do they understand that it is the parents prerogative that they want their children educated in a religious ethos school?

It's not the Church or the Government that have to convince, it's parents. To those who say they don't want their taxes funding religious ethos schools, well, they're going to pay their taxes anyway, the same as anyone else. It's the Government will decide where they spend their income, and the vast majority of the tax paying public have no issue with their taxes being spend on education in catholic ethos schools. It's no different to water charges protesters claiming that they don't want their taxes being spent on Irish Water. It's really not their choice where the Government spends their taxes because they Government is responsible for everyone in society, not simply a small few who want everything their way.

I'm a parent, I want secular education. I write letters to make my view known, but I've never been asked to be part of any survey. And since I've sent my child to Catholic schools I'm counted in as a parent who wants that ethos.

frostyjacks

Gerry T wrote: »

Finally to all those that have continually wrote "well you don't have to go to a catholic school" or "just go to a educate together school" , do you realise how idiotic those statements are, have you any grasp of the situation ?

How is it idiotic? Surely the idiotic thing is to send your child to a Catholic school and then moan about the Catholic ethos therein.

Gerry T

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have to wonder do people who would rather a secular education have any grasp of the situation or do they understand that it is the parents prerogative that they want their children educated in a religious ethos school?

It's not the Church or the Government that have to convince, it's parents. To those who say they don't want their taxes funding religious ethos schools, well, they're going to pay their taxes anyway, the same as anyone else. It's the Government will decide where they spend their income, and the vast majority of the tax paying public have no issue with their taxes being spend on education in catholic ethos schools. It's no different to water charges protesters claiming that they don't want their taxes being spent on Irish Water. It's really not their choice where the Government spends their taxes because they Government is responsible for everyone in society, not simply a small few who want everything their way.

You have any proof that its a minority that want a non-secular education system for their children ? you may be surprised how many people want this.
Also I'm in no way suggesting that parents should be stopped from having their children thought in a religious belief system, if that's what the parents want.
Your example of water charges does that not reinforce my argument, In water charge example it is only the people that use water pay for the water, the more you use the more you pay. I would have though the hospital scenario would better describe what your saying...everyone pays irrespective if you use the service or not. In either case everyone has a human right to water and hospital care in a modern society. So I don't see the relavence, unless your suggesting that its practically everyone wants a catholic ethos school ? if so where's your proof ?

One eyed Jack

inocybe wrote: »

I'm a parent, I want secular education. I write letters to make my view known, but I've never been asked to be part of any survey. And since I've sent my child to Catholic schools I'm counted in as a parent who wants that ethos.

Well surely you can see why I argue that it is the parent's responsibility and the parents prerogative if they choose to send their child to a Catholic ethos school, then why should Goverment prioritise secular education when by all impressions people are still sending their children to Catholic ethos schools?

You're suggesting that Government should divest all schools, assuming that the parents should want to educate their children in schools which do not have a religious ethos, while completely ignoring the fact that it isn't just religious education is taught in a religious ethos school, but it is in fact the whole ethos of the school that is religious, and parents choose to support that by sending their children to that school.

Gerry T wrote: »

You have any proof that its a minority that want a non-secular education system for their children ? you may be surprised how many people want this.
Also I'm in no way suggesting that parents should be stopped from having their children thought in a religious belief system, if that's what the parents want.
Your example of water charges does that not reinforce my argument, In water charge example it is only the people that use water pay for the water, the more you use the more you pay. I would have though the hospital scenario would better describe what your saying...everyone pays irrespective if you use the service or not. In either case everyone has a human right to water and hospital care in a modern society. So I don't see the relavence, unless your suggesting that its practically everyone wants a catholic ethos school ? if so where's your proof ?

Every child has a constitutional right to an education. Every child does not have a right to a place in a primary school of their parents choosing. I wouldn't at all be surprised by how many parents want a secular education for their children, but the point is - how many of these parents are actually doing something about that?

The proof is simply in the fact that 92% of primary schools are religious ethos schools, and parents are choosing to support that by sending their children to be educated in religious ethos schools.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack...

Do you believe in seperation of Church and state or do you support theocracies and and the schools right to practise discrimination in hiring practises, endorsed by the state?

inocybe

How am I choosing to send my child to a catholic school - he has to go to school. This is the whole point of the debate, there is no choice in many places. I have absolutely no choice.

One eyed Jack

inocybe wrote: »

How am I choosing to send my child to a catholic school - he has to go to school. This is the whole point of the debate, there is no choice in many places. I have absolutely no choice.

Your child doesn't have to go to school to get an education. You may not like the choices you're left with if you choose not to send your child to a religious ethos school, but that's a matter of priorities for you - do you prioritise your child's education and move to a location where your child will not be educated in a religious ethos school, or do you choose to homeschool your child, or do you simply stay where you are and send your child to a religious ethos school because it's more convenient for you to do so.

Neyite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your child doesn't have to go to school to get an education. You may not like the choices you're left with if you choose not to send your child to a religious ethos school, but that's a matter of priorities for you - do you prioritise your child's education and move to a location where your child will not be educated in a religious ethos school, or do you choose to homeschool your child, or do you simply stay where you are and send your child to a religious ethos school because it's more convenient for you to do so.

I cannot think of a single person who homeschool. In fact, it's pretty rare that I know even families that have by choice, a stay at home parent. Most families I know with two parents, both parents are working and have no choice in the matter, and they have modest homes and cars so not doing it for a high-flying life either.

And as for the single parents, they cant homeschool and bring in a wage thats needed to survive simultaneously.

Not everybody is good at teaching to successfully homeschool their kids either. So its even less of an option than an ET school with a 2 hr round trip for school drop offs.

So its really only an option for families with two parents, one in a job that pays well enough to support the whole family financially, and the other having a natural aptitude and inclination to teach. What do the poorer families and lone parents do?

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

I cannot think of a single person who homeschool. In fact, it's pretty rare that I know even families that have by choice, a stay at home parent. Most families I know with two parents, both parents are working and have no choice in the matter, and they have modest homes and cars so not doing it for a high-flying life either.

And as for the single parents, they cant homeschool and bring in a wage thats needed to survive simultaneously.

Not everybody is good at teaching to successfully homeschool their kids either. So its even less of an option than an ET school with a 2 hr round trip for school drop offs.

So its really only an option for families with two parents, one in a job that pays well enough to support the whole family financially, and the other having a natural aptitude and inclination to teach. What do the poorer families and lone parents do?

They do the same as anyone else - prioritise what matters most to them over other things they want.

There's plenty I'd like to do but I prioritise other things over those because there are things that matter more to me than the things I have to do without in order to have the things I prioritise.

This is why the "I have no choice" argument makes no sense to me personally, because people do have a choice. If they choose to send their children to a catholic ethos school, then for me personally, that does raise an eyebrow when they complain that they didn't have any choice in having their children baptised in order to get them into a catholic ethos school, and then complain that they have no choice in sending their children to a catholic ethos school.

A typical example is my brother and his wife, both declared themselves atheist, that's grand. Next thing they're having the big wedding day ceremony in a church and asking me to be Godfather for their child they're having christened. It's the same thing when they argue that they don't want their children excluded from FHC and so on, like they don't have a choice in that either. It's not for me to tell anyone else how to parent their children, but they shouldn't expect me to take their concerns seriously when they are choosing to put themselves and their children in that position.

I often meet parents who say to me that they aren't religious, but they still want their child to make their FHC or their Confirmation, and they like the ethos of a catholic school and so on, so clearly they don't have an issue with their children in a catholic ethos school. They're more concerned about their children's academic, social and personal development, and their focus on religious instruction in the school only seems to kick in at FHC and Confirmation time. There was war last year in my child's school because many of the parents felt that their children were unprepared for Confirmation!

I mean, I'd like to say a lot more here, but obviously I can't, but I wonder how many parents here have approached the National Parents Council about the issue? The one thing I can say is that it's very, very frustrating for me personally when I hear people say they have no choice in these matters, when they absolutely do!

inocybe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your child doesn't have to go to school to get an education. You may not like the choices you're left with if you choose not to send your child to a religious ethos school, but that's a matter of priorities for you - do you prioritise your child's education and move to a location where your child will not be educated in a religious ethos school, or do you choose to homeschool your child, or do you simply stay where you are and send your child to a religious ethos school because it's more convenient for you to do so.

Do you live in the real world? Convenient for me my arse...
Unless you're rich you can't simply up and move - where to anyway, there is not a single ET secondary in my county. Do I have a choice to homeschool? As a working single parent how do you think the dole office would respond to me giving up work to homeschool, would not be job seeking so no income. You think living on fresh air is a choice then?

Gerry T

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They do the same as anyone else - prioritise what matters most to them over other things they want.

There's plenty I'd like to do but I prioritise other things over those because there are things that matter more to me than the things I have to do without in order to have the things I prioritise.

This is why the "I have no choice" argument makes no sense to me personally, because people do have a choice. If they choose to send their children to a catholic ethos school, then for me personally, that does raise an eyebrow when they complain that they didn't have any choice in having their children baptised in order to get them into a catholic ethos school, and then complain that they have no choice in sending their children to a catholic ethos school.

A typical example is my brother and his wife, both declared themselves atheist, that's grand. Next thing they're having the big wedding day ceremony in a church and asking me to be Godfather for their child they're having christened. It's the same thing when they argue that they don't want their children excluded from FHC and so on, like they don't have a choice in that either. It's not for me to tell anyone else how to parent their children, but they shouldn't expect me to take their concerns seriously when they are choosing to put themselves and their children in that position.

I often meet parents who say to me that they aren't religious, but they still want their child to make their FHC or their Confirmation, and they like the ethos of a catholic school and so on, so clearly they don't have an issue with their children in a catholic ethos school. They're more concerned about their children's academic, social and personal development, and their focus on religious instruction in the school only seems to kick in at FHC and Confirmation time. There was war last year in my child's school because many of the parents felt that their children were unprepared for Confirmation!

I mean, I'd like to say a lot more here, but obviously I can't, but I wonder how many parents here have approached the National Parents Council about the issue? The one thing I can say is that it's very, very frustrating for me personally when I hear people say they have no choice in these matters, when they absolutely do!

I think you miss the point deliberately or avoid debating the point. It's not about people getting married or being pseudo Christian's, its simple maths. 90% of available places are for religious education schools. If 40% don't want that then 30% have to lump it. They have no choice, how can they move to another area, you can't fit 40% or 30% of children into 10% of available places, not possible.
The change is people over the past 40 yr's have decided that a single religious education school is not something that they want to force into their children, they may be happy with a general religious education showing the merits of all.
It's impossible to move people about from one area to another trying to fit them into 10% of available places. I haven't even mentioned that most ET places are probably only available in large town areas which adds a complication.
The solution is to change the current system, move catholic controlled schools over to ET schools. This is happening. It is a govt programme, the church backs this move. SO with time this will be what we have. You may not like it but that's what's happening.

zeffabelli

The only homeschoolers I know are extremely conservative pre Catholics who don'tike the way religion is taught.

Both families are on social welfare and gave about 9 kids.

One eyed Jack

Gerry T wrote: »

I think you miss the point deliberately or avoid debating the point. It's not about people getting married or being pseudo Christian's, its simple maths. 90% of available places are for religious education schools. If 40% don't want that then 30% have to lump it. They have no choice, how can they move to another area, you can't fit 40% or 30% of children into 10% of available places, not possible.
The change is people over the past 40 yr's have decided that a single religious education school is not something that they want to force into their children, they may be happy with a general religious education showing the merits of all.
It's impossible to move people about from one area to another trying to fit them into 10% of available places. I haven't even mentioned that most ET places are probably only available in large town areas which adds a complication.
The solution is to change the current system, move catholic controlled schools over to ET schools. This is happening. It is a govt programme, the church backs this move. SO with time this will be what we have. You may not like it but that's what's happening.

I'm not missing the point at all. I get that people want a secular education for their children. I would prefer too if education were secular and if people then choose to send their children to religious ethos schools they may do so.

My point is that the current system will not change unless more people actually want it to, and if you look at the 2012 report from The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector, it's not like anyone can accuse them of not having done their homework.

No, they didn't traipse around the country with a clipboard in hand asking every individual parent what they would like, but they identified areas in the population where schools could be divested. They can't afford to look at individual parents preferences dotted all around the country simply because they're supposed to be putting infrastructure in place for a lot longer than just those parents children will be attending the school.

mordeith

zeffabelli wrote: »

The only homeschoolers I know are extremely conservative pre Catholics who don'tike the way religion is taught.

Both families are on social welfare and gave about 9 kids.

I think I know one of those families :-) Needless to say they were voting no in the marriage referendum

sm213

pwurple wrote: »

The only "snobbery" I've heard is from teachers who encounter students who have been transferred out of ET schools and have to start over again with some kids who were illiterate at 10 years of age. I'm sure it's not all ET schools, or all teachers, but they have a poor reputation around here.

To be fair what kind of parent let it get that far?

frostyjacks

People have the choice, it's just the ET school is a bit out of the way, so they would rather take over the local Catholic school and dress it up as 'education equality' or something similar. If in doubt always play the equality card. It drags everyone down to the same level.

inocybe

zeffabelli wrote: »

The only homeschoolers I know are extremely conservative pre Catholics who don'tike the way religion is taught.

Both families are on social welfare and gave about 9 kids.

As the mum of an only child I would consider the isolation of home schooling to be child abuse.

mordeith

frostyjacks wrote: »

People have the choice, it's just the ET school is a bit out of the way, so they would rather take over the local Catholic school and dress it up as 'education equality' or something similar. If in doubt always play the equality card. It drags everyone down to the same level.

or up, depending on your current level

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

People have the choice, it's just the ET school is a bit out of the way, so they would rather take over the local Catholic school and dress it up as 'education equality' or something similar. If in doubt always play the equality card. It drags everyone down to the same level.

How do you define "a bit out of the way"?

byhookorbycrook

So if you are anti-Irish does that mean you reject out of hand the Gaelscoil multi-denom schools?

lazygal

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

So if you are anti-Irish does that mean you reject out of hand the Gaelscoil multi-denom schools?

Who's anti Irish? Do you mean those who wouldn't view Irish as a subject that all children should be compelled to learn? Or do you mean anti Irish people? Or Irishness?

Gaelscoils are just another way of segregating children based on their parents choices. I'd rather a child based system than one which just proposes setting up large numbers of small segregationist schools, meaning resources are diluted and education is based on adult centred desires.

Byhookorbycrook, is the school you teach in multi denominational? Or does it do faith formation?