How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

RainyDay

Mary63 wrote: »

We most certainly are not a secular country zaph,if we were atheist children wouldn't have a problem getting into Catholic schools.

We are as far from secular as we can get,we still hold all our important ceremonies in church,baptisms,communions,confirmations,weddings and funerals.Most of us are buried in consecrated church grounds.We are born in hospitals run along religious ethos grounds and we die in the same hospitals and most of us and our relatives want the last rites performed on us before we die.Traditions die hard and parents even though they mightn't go to church regularly still want traditions handed on to their children and the school is where they expect these traditions to be taught.

Who is this 'we' that you speak of, Mary? Because you're certainly not speaking for me.

Mary63 wrote: »

The Equality campaign was run as a social media campaign rainy day and it was quite astonishing that forty per cent of the electorate voted no not that sixty per cent voted yes.The YES side had the Government behind them,the entire media outlets,the unions,even the ex President of Ireland and still almost half the electorate said no.

That's a blatant lie Mary. 1/3 of those who turned out said no, which is a long way off 'half the electorate'.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't be silly. Of course it's correct. There are a million kids in Irish schools, and something like 2% of those are in fee schools. Forcing parents who don't have the money to pay for Christian ethos schools when there are already Christian ethos schools in the country simply isn't an option.

Great, so now we've moved on to discussing the merits of the option. Simply because you don't like it does not mean that it is not an option. It is interesting to see your absolute abhorrence of this option being discussed - which makes it all the more important that it should be discussed.

Huntergonzo

"We are a Catholic Country"

I always prefer to say "we are a country invested with catholics".

Anyway a piece of land can't have a religion, anymore than a tree can, or cat or stapler for that matter. As far as I'm concerned physical countries tend to be indifferent to human superstitions.

recedite

Mary63 wrote: »

..Athiests,people associate that ideology with backwardness and veganism and they don't want their children exposed to what they perceive as cults...

Interesting, I didn't know that backward vegans had infiltrated the atheist cult. This is alarming news.

Mary63 wrote: »

..we are a catholic country,we need to look to Spain and portugal and see how their education system works,they are catholic countries too.

Well, they used to be considered that anyway. Back in General Franco's day. But nowadays..

According to a study by the Spanish Centre for Sociological Research in 2015 about 68% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholic Christians, 3.8% as followers of other faiths (including Islam, Protestant Christianity and Buddhism etc.), and about 25% identify as atheists or non-believers. Most Spaniards do not participate regularly in religious worship. This same study shows that of the Spaniards who identify themselves as religious, 61% barely ever goes to mass, 14% go to mass few times a year, 10% few times per month and 14% every Sunday or multiple times per week. Although a majority of Spaniards are Catholics, most, especially those of the young generation, ignore the Church's conservative moral doctrines.

CelticRambler

RainyDay wrote: »

International comparisons are difficult, but I'm a bit bemused as to why you reject Irish experiences in a debate on Irish education.

Because the question posed in the OP was can we discuss how equality in education (ie secular schooling) can be achieved, without going off on the side track of whether it should happen?

I think it's safe to assume that Looksee intends this secular schooling to be of equal quality and desireablility for parents and their children. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the "need" to have secular schooling arises from a percieved problem with the current system.

This means that whatever is proposed must be different to what's currently available - a range of options that have evolved over many decades, or indeed many centuries if you include the determination of the native Irish Catholic population to educate their children in Hedge Schools despite it being illegal.

So regardless of how secular or catholic you might describe Ireland in 2016, you cannot forecast how non-denominational schools by citing examples from the society you're trying to change. The best you can do is look at other countries with a broadly similar heritage who have already implemented something close to what you hope to achieve.

RainyDay wrote: »

Please do share details of the UK rankings and ratings that show the religious schools as being streets ahead. It would be interesting to see more detail on these.

No can do! That's the kind of information gathered and interpreted during twenty years of parenthood in an effort to get the best education for my children. FWIW, that also included taking my children out of school entirely for about six months (better no school than the wrong one!)

I could be the "poster parent" for one of these new schools - I'm a practising Catholic, but that's irrelevant when it comes to the choice of school. I had/have one child in a secular school, two in RC, one in CoI.

As a parent, the one word I most definitely do not want to hear is equality - you've got to persuade me that a secular school will give my children an exceptional advantage over everyone else.

Samaris

CelticRambler wrote: »

As a parent, the one word I most definitely do not want to hear is equality - you've got to persuade me that a secular school will give my children an exceptional advantage over everyone else.

There will always be better and worse schools. Barring that the vast majority of schools are Catholic ethos, the only real advantage of a specifically Catholic-ethos school is that a parent doesn't need to indoctrinate their child into the Catholic religion; the school will take care of it.

Although they might occasionally have to explain to their sprog that their teacher is a) correct and Catholic in that their parents are going to hell for not going to Mass or b) that it's rubbish.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

There will always be better and worse schools. Barring that the vast majority of schools are Catholic ethos, the only real advantage of a specifically Catholic-ethos school is that a parent doesn't need to indoctrinate their child into the Catholic religion; the school will take care of it.

And that's quite a considerable advantage in it's own right that if we're ever to see mainstream secular education in this country, is an advantage which must be overcome by offering an alternative advantage to people in order to get them to support non-denominational education.

Although they might occasionally have to explain to their sprog that their teacher is a) correct and Catholic in that their parents are going to hell for not going to Mass or b) that it's rubbish.

Is that on the religious curriculum? I don't think it is, that sounds more like an individual teacher's perspective tbh, and that could happen in any school, religious ethos or otherwise -


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/school-apologises-to-muslim-pupil-over-charlie-hebdo-in-class-30968831.html


If you're calling for support for secular education because you feel that children ought to be protected from stuff that's made up, wouldn't it be a good idea to present adults with the facts and let them make those decisions for themselves, and avoid making stuff up to support your position?

The facts should be able to stand on their own merit if you truly believe in the benefits of your cause you're trying to promote. The benefits should be obvious, rather than going through the religious curriculum with a fine tooth comb to pick out bits and engage in PR spin.

CelticRambler

Samaris wrote: »

There will always be better and worse schools. Barring that the vast majority of schools are Catholic ethos, the only real advantage of a specifically Catholic-ethos school is that a parent doesn't need to indoctrinate their child into the Catholic religion; the school will take care of it.

Although they might occasionally have to explain to their sprog that their teacher is a) correct and Catholic in that their parents are going to hell for not going to Mass or b) that it's rubbish.

Once again referring to the OP and the question of how can/could more secular education be made available, there is nothing in your post that would convince me to support it. As long as anyone promoting secular education uses an argument against religion as their justification, they immediately undermine the proposition.

Schools are places of education: if you keep banging on about religion, I'll think you're just another holy-joe-atheist and couldn't give a damn about making sure my child gets an exceptional education. That's not going to advance the development of non-denominational schools, because parents on the whole are not willing to sacrifice their children's opportunities for the sake of quasi-religious nutters.

As a parent, I want to hear about education, not religion. I had a quick look at the websites for the Catholic schools (primary and secondary) that I'm familiar with in Ireland, England and France. None of them make "a thing" about being Catholic/religious schools (not without digging down
into the information) - they only claim to be ambitious.

silverharp

I could see one option as being to expand schools in areas where there is high demand, they can keep their ethos but agree to split their RE classes so that someone can pass though the school without being indoctrinated. Another thing should be the setting up of some European model schools that teach French, German and Spanish in a semi immersive fashion, there are plenty of second generation European kids in Dublin now and the only schools that provide this are fee paying.
I'd imagine most parents these days dont see schools as catholic "safe spaces" however if there is a subtext that catholic school means no Muslims or African then its going to be a tougher sell.

RainyDay

silverharp wrote: »

I'd imagine most parents these days dont see schools as catholic "safe spaces" however if there is a subtext that catholic school means no Muslims or African then its going to be a tougher sell.

On the rare occasions that I'm at a catholic mass, there are always a few Africans, Filipinos and Poles around, so presumably those communities would be interested in catholic schools.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because the question posed in the OP was can we discuss how equality in education (ie secular schooling) can be achieved, without going off on the side track of whether it should happen?

I think it's safe to assume that Looksee intends this secular schooling to be of equal quality and desireablility for parents and their children. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the "need" to have secular schooling arises from a percieved problem with the current system.

This means that whatever is proposed must be different to what's currently available - a range of options that have evolved over many decades, or indeed many centuries if you include the determination of the native Irish Catholic population to educate their children in Hedge Schools despite it being illegal.

So regardless of how secular or catholic you might describe Ireland in 2016, you cannot forecast how non-denominational schools by citing examples from the society you're trying to change. The best you can do is look at other countries with a broadly similar heritage who have already implemented something close to what you hope to achieve.

Yes, we obviously have to look outside of Ireland for useful models, but we can't ignore the current position or our history within Ireland either.

CelticRambler wrote: »

No can do! That's the kind of information gathered and interpreted during twenty years of parenthood in an effort to get the best education for my children. FWIW, that also included taking my children out of school entirely for about six months (better no school than the wrong one!)

I could be the "poster parent" for one of these new schools - I'm a practising Catholic, but that's irrelevant when it comes to the choice of school. I had/have one child in a secular school, two in RC, one in CoI.

If the information isn't generally available, it has no part in being the basis of a future model here. It may reflect your personal experience, but that doesn't mean it is relevant for a national policy discussion.

CelticRambler wrote: »

As a parent, the one word I most definitely do not want to hear is equality - you've got to persuade me that a secular school will give my children an exceptional advantage over everyone else.

That's up to you, but honestly, anyone who claims to be offering 'exceptional advantage' is spoofing. We need to provide exceptional schooling to ALL students, not build a system where some get advantages over others.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you're calling for support for secular education because you feel that children ought to be protected from stuff that's made up, wouldn't it be a good idea to present adults with the facts and let them make those decisions for themselves, and avoid making stuff up to support your position?

The facts should be able to stand on their own merit if you truly believe in the benefits of your cause you're trying to promote. The benefits should be obvious, rather than going through the religious curriculum with a fine tooth comb to pick out bits and engage in PR spin.

My previous posts have given a much wider explanation of what I'm referring to, but that was a throwaway comment in one specific thread. I didn't "make it up" either, I spoke from my own experience; I have no idea what the official position is on not traumatising children these days. The structure of the sentence I thought made it clear enough that it was a possible, not a definate.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Schools are places of education: if you keep banging on about religion, I'll think you're just another holy-joe-atheist and couldn't give a damn about making sure my child gets an exceptional education. That's not going to advance the development of non-denominational schools, because parents on the whole are not willing to sacrifice their children's opportunities for the sake of quasi-religious nutters.

Yes, they are, which is something I've banged on about before. Now, firstly, I don't think that articles of faith should be taught as a level of fact onside with history, maths and the rest of it. Faith is not fact; in fact, the very basis of faith is a lack of knowledge about the reality of the situation. History, maths, geography, even World Cultures and CSPE are factual.

Secondly, in the 2012 OECD report, Ireland spent 10% of teaching time on religious education, and a further survey by the Irish National Teacher’s Organisation in 2013 found that 70 per cent of schools were spending more than that allocated time per week on religion. Besides that, it goes up again in Communion year, which I think is Second Class now (it was First Class when I was in school). We spend 12% of teaching time on maths, much lower than OECD average, and only 4% of time on science, which is also quite a bit lower than average (6%). I have no idea what the exceptional educational advantage of that is.

And thirdly, there is just no necessity to consider it part of mainstream education. Secular education would be a baseline that everyone, Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could get together on. Faith formation is and should be separate to that, in my view. It should be a personal journey for a person, facilitated by family and the local church. Or colander, if one prefers.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

My previous posts have given a much wider explanation of what I'm referring to, but that was a throwaway comment in one specific thread. I didn't "make it up" either, I spoke from my own experience; I have no idea what the official position is on not traumatising children these days. The structure of the sentence I thought made it clear enough that it was a possible, not a definate.

Ahh no, I didn't mean you were specifically making that up at all, I'm well aware that it was a regular thing decades ago with all the fire and brimstoney stuff, but nowadays it's a bit more fluffy clouds and positivity, etc. Of course it's still possible, but in selling the idea of secular education, I'd be with Celtic Rambler on this one in that I don't want to hear about how things used to be or any negativity about religion, I want to hear about the positives of secular education.

Yes, they are, which is something I've banged on about before. Now, firstly, I don't think that articles of faith should be taught as a level of fact onside with history, maths and the rest of it. Faith is not fact; in fact, the very basis of faith is a lack of knowledge about the reality of the situation. History, maths, geography, even World Cultures and CSPE are factual.

I'd actually agree with you on this, because I understand where you're coming from - in a non-denominational school environment, I would prefer there were no references to religion at all tbh outside of just imparting their historical and cultural contexts.

Secondly, in the 2012 OECD report, Ireland spent 10% of teaching time on religious education, and a further survey by the Irish National Teacher’s Organisation in 2013 found that 70 per cent of schools were spending more than that allocated time per week on religion. Besides that, it goes up again in Communion year, which I think is Second Class now (it was First Class when I was in school). We spend 12% of teaching time on religion, much lower than OECD average, and only 4% of time on science, which is also quite a bit lower than average (6%). I have no idea what the exceptional educational advantage of that is.

This I could listen to all day. Now you're talking facts, and emphasising that there are other subjects could be focused on in place of religion - science, art, drama, music, languages, PE, etc.

And thirdly, there is just no necessity to consider it part of mainstream education. Secular education would be a baseline that everyone, Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could get together on. Faith formation is and should be separate to that, in my view. It should be a personal journey for a person, facilitated by family and the local church. Or colander, if one prefers.

I could get behind this 100% tbh. This is what we should be selling to people, the real meaning of education without indoctrination. I don't like the informal nature of the ET model, but academic, social and personal development is something I'm very much an advocate of. I'd leave any references to faith and identity politics outside the school.

silverharp

^^

my kids primary school has 45 min per week and some of his friends in the local school said the same. they might do more in the communion and confirmation year though however primary school rules say they shouldnt do this

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This I could listen to all day. Now you're talking facts, and emphasising that there are other subjects could be focused on in place of religion - science, art, drama, music, languages, PE, etc.

Drat, I meant to say 12% of teaching time on maths, the OECD average is 18%. I wrote above 12% on religion again!

I also think that a bit more emphasis could be put on PE. It was a two-period thing once a week when I was in school, so 80 minutes. From personal experience, I bloody hated PE, but that aside. Kids are more sedentary these days (says she from the old fogey position of late 20s!), between computers and what seems to be a big increase in stranger-danger paranoia. It'd probably do sprogs no harm to have another bout of it.

Technology is another big one that other countries, such as Mexico, put a lot more emphasis on. We live in a technology-based world now, and Ireland has a strong technical sector. That is something else that needs more work. 4% of time on science is a bit dismal, although I grant that primary school is different.

Another point which is getting less relevance nowadays, but single-sex schooling. We have a higher proportion of single-sex schools than any European country and it's increasingly thought that single-sex schooling benefits are a bit of a canard. It is becoming less relevant as boys and girls schools merge, albeit reluctantly. If nothing else, it ensures that boys and girls get to learn each other's subjects. In my own experience in a single-sex girls' secondary school, the genderisation of subjects was ridiculous. The most glorious difference being girls learned French, boys learned German.

silverharp

Samaris wrote: »

Another point which is getting less relevance nowadays, but single-sex schooling. We have a higher proportion of single-sex schools than any European country and it's increasingly thought that single-sex schooling benefits are a bit of a canard. It is becoming less relevant as boys and girls schools merge, albeit reluctantly. If nothing else, it ensures that boys and girls get to learn each other's subjects. In my own experience in a single-sex girls' secondary school, the genderisation of subjects was ridiculous. The most glorious difference being girls learned French, boys learned German.

its an interesting one, while there ought to be a choice (and my kids will spend their school time in a mixed school) the counter case is that boys and girls develop at different speeds so intellectually girls speed ahead from 11 to 16ish and boys catch up after so the boys could feel out performed in certain subjects and lose interest. Also in a very feminised education system boys can be marked down subconsciously by teachers or the teachers expect the boys to behave like girls when they do tend to express themselves differently. Also in subjects like English its going to be easier to tailor the material to appeal to boys,whether this happens in practice or not I dont know.

Mary63

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teacher-to-be-compensated-over-comments-on-gay-son-1.2484823

And you think the COI brethren are going to hand over any of their schools to the State.

No real progress can be made until the whole national school system in its entirety can be dismantled so there is no point in having Catholics schools only in your sights.

lazygal

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teacher-to-be-compensated-over-comments-on-gay-son-1.2484823

And you think the COI brethren are going to hand over any of their schools to the State.

No real progress can be made until the whole national school system in its entirety can be dismantled so there is no point in having Catholics schools only in your sights.

Who said only Catholic schools were part of the equation?

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Who said only Catholic schools were part of the equation?

There has been quite a number of posts in these discussions solely focused on removing the RCC from Irish education.

The last few posts in this thread have also demonstrated why I said this earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd leave any references to faith and identity politics outside the school.

The whole "equality" politics shouldn't be getting mixed up in an argument for secular schools IMO. I'd rather see children receiving a proper education without all the social politics involved.

Mary63

Every single thing I have read on this topic seems to be exclusively about targeting Catholic schools,were the COI schools asked for their opinions on divestment as a matter of interest.

I am very surprised that the woman who took the case got the job in the first place in the COI school,there mustn't have been anyone from the"right"religion interested.The COI people look after their own.

lazygal

Mary63 wrote: »

Every single thing I have read on this topic seems to be exclusively about targeting Catholic schools,were the COI schools asked for their opinions on divestment as a matter of interest.

I am very surprised that the woman who took the case got the job in the first place in the COI school,there mustn't have been anyone from the"right"religion interested.The COI people look after their own.

More of the 'values' taught in faith schools?

Mary63

The Muslims will employ only muslim teachers probably,the catholics will employ Catholics,the protestant their own too,its human nature to surround ourselves with people like ourselves,its called survival of the species.

If you can't find a club of your own lazy gal you can't expect to barge into our clubs when you haven't attended or paid any joining up fee,you should have to bide your time and set up your own little club and draw up your own rules.

You won't be able to stand on church grounds collecting for atheist Ireland so I don't know how the fundraising will go.

robindch

Mary63 wrote: »

If you can't find a club of your own lazy gal you can't expect to barge into our clubs when you haven't attended or paid any joining up fee,you should have to bide your time and set up your own little club and draw up your own rules.

Mary63 is taking a two-day break to fulminate, wheeze and fist-wave in the privacy of his/her own home.

During that time, your friendly mods will clean up this thread by putting the unhelpful nonsense into the other school thread, and leave this one to the more important discussion about what can be done to persuade the Irish government and Irish schools not to use religion to discriminate against Irish children.

Bristolscale7

I'm unsure how to achieve the desired goal but based on the last twelve months it seems that an Irish solution is emerging.
Developments (laziness precludes links or chronological order):
1. Rule from 1800s, I mean 1960s rescinded.
2. Education minister says that legal device is up to 49% of a school can be outside the religious ethos.
3. Reform of national religious curriculum occurs.
4. Much national shaming as Ireland's ultramontanist, anachronistic system is laughed at in the world media.

So my prediction is that new schools will come under the 49% rule in the next decade or so and everyone will pat themselves on the back. At the same time, the department of ed. will continue to push a national curriculum that teaches ethics and comparative religion.

However, with a FF or FG education minister you can forget all of the above.

xband

silverharp wrote: »

its an interesting one, while there ought to be a choice (and my kids will spend their school time in a mixed school) the counter case is that boys and girls develop at different speeds so intellectually girls speed ahead from 11 to 16ish and boys catch up after so the boys could feel out performed in certain subjects and lose interest. Also in a very feminised education system boys can be marked down subconsciously by teachers or the teachers expect the boys to behave like girls when they do tend to express themselves differently. Also in subjects like English its going to be easier to tailor the material to appeal to boys,whether this happens in practice or not I dont know.

To be honest, that's really not a very realistic way of approaching life.
In the workplace, in university and in all other aspects of life, both genders work together. It's absolutely insane that we have arguments for separating boys and girls in school

Similar arguments were used in the 19th century and early 20th century as reasons why women shouldn't be admitted to university, shouldn't be allowed to hold professorships, shouldn't be doctors, etc etc.

You can find studies to prove pretty much anything, if you're looking for a gender-biased result. That's the unfortunate reality of it.

Of course boys and girls will learn differently if the school system is largely a victorian construct that treats them differently and where primary and secondary teachers have some kind of cultural notions about differences between the sexes.

Boys and girls work together in schools all over the world, they're the absolute norm in most developed countries and most non-theocracies and the academic performance of both genders seems to be rather good.

Also, when you think about it, the other biasing factor in Ireland and Britain in research is that single sex schools tend to be somewhat more academically focused 'traditional grammar schools' where as mixed schools tended to be more modern comprehensive / community schools. The performance of the overall school will be slightly lower because there's a broader intake, that doesn't mean that the people who are capable of performing well aren't. It's just that you've a more diverse range of abilities than you might have in a more selective school. So, you're really looking at dilution of statistics rather than poor performance.

Also, what is the purpose of education? To measure a narrow range of skills obsessively or to provide students with a grounding in life and ability to move on to third level or other routes to work?

The biggest issue in Ireland is that you *still* have plenty of incidences where girls schools are missing science subjects due to historical cultural bias.

I know girls who have had to go down the road to the boys' school to do physics and that has put plenty off.

RainyDay

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

However, with a FF or FG education minister you can forget all of the above.

You're right, but this is only part of the picture. It's not so much about the Minister as about the Govt. If the Govt is led by FG as pretty much every possible prediction predicts, you can forget almost all of the above. There won't be any fundamental change as long as FG lead the Govt.

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teacher-to-be-compensated-over-comments-on-gay-son-1.2484823

And you think the COI brethren are going to hand over any of their schools to the State.

Do you think the atheist brethren around to 'ask nicely' until others come to their senses? No, they're just going to stop paying the teachers, and let the religious brethren sort out paying for their own teachers.

Mary63 wrote: »

No real progress can be made until the whole national school system in its entirety can be dismantled so there is no point in having Catholics schools only in your sights.

Fully agree with you, surprisingly enough.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

To be honest, that's really not a very realistic way of approaching life.
In the workplace, in university and in all other aspects of life, both genders work together. It's absolutely insane that we have arguments for separating boys and girls in school

Similar arguments were used in the 19th century and early 20th century as reasons why women shouldn't be admitted to university, shouldn't be allowed to hold professorships, shouldn't be doctors, etc etc.

You can find studies to prove pretty much anything, if you're looking for a gender-biased result. That's the unfortunate reality of it.

Of course boys and girls will learn differently if the school system is largely a victorian construct that treats them differently and where primary and secondary teachers have some kind of cultural notions about differences between the sexes.

Boys and girls work together in schools all over the world, they're the absolute norm in most developed countries and most non-theocracies and the academic performance of both genders seems to be rather good.

Also, when you think about it, the other biasing factor in Ireland and Britain in research is that single sex schools tend to be somewhat more academically focused 'traditional grammar schools' where as mixed schools tended to be more modern comprehensive / community schools. The performance of the overall school will be slightly lower because there's a broader intake, that doesn't mean that the people who are capable of performing well aren't. It's just that you've a more diverse range of abilities than you might have in a more selective school. So, you're really looking at dilution of statistics rather than poor performance.

Also, what is the purpose of education? To measure a narrow range of skills obsessively or to provide students with a grounding in life and ability to move on to third level or other routes to work?

The biggest issue in Ireland is that you *still* have plenty of incidences where girls schools are missing science subjects due to historical cultural bias.

I know girls who have had to go down the road to the boys' school to do physics and that has put plenty off.

kids arent adults, you lost me

xband

silverharp wrote: »

kids arent adults, you lost me

I addressed a lot more than adults' situation in the post.

If I lost you, not much I can do about it.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

Too many big words?

I'm triggered.

xband

I just don't know why I bothered posting.
Anyway, best of luck. Not really interested anymore. Too many entrenched views on religious and single sex. It's like arguing with brick walls.

Emigration to a modern country (not living in 1816) seems like best option if you've kids and don't want them in sexist, religious, sectarian schools.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

I just don't know why I bothered posting.
Anyway, best of luck. Not really interested anymore. Too many entrenched views on religious and single sex. It's like arguing with brick walls.

Emigration to a modern country (not living in 1816) seems like best option if you've kids and don't want them in sexist, religious, sectarian schools.

I'm an atheist so i don't know why you directed that at me?

xband

It's just the general tone of discussion in here on this topic. It's not particularly targeted at anyone.

You can't make any comment or someone attempts to just shoot it down or do that paragraph by paragraph multi quite ripping apart thing.

Just saying, I find the "discussion" a bit of a waste of my day.

My experience is that Ireland has incredibly entrenched and really backwards views of how education should be and there's often zero willingness to discuss change.

Everything reverts to snobbery, sectarianism, sexism or other reasons why they feel the need to see schools as state funded private clubs where "the other" is excluded.

Children here are defined by type : religion, social class (use of token/barrier fees at "private" schools), gender, language and slotted into small, private yet state funded schools where they're safely kept away from the rest of society.

Give it 20 years and it'll be a major problem as you'll have a far more diverse Ireland and a lot of young adults who've been treated as second class citizens or "outsiders" by their country. It's a recipe for lack of social cohesion and ghetto thinking as schools are really out first and probably most impactful experience of interacting with state services.