Is there anything constructive I can do about this discrimination?

Crispycool

Choochtown wrote: »

Yeah he's timetabled for 2 periods a week with no alternative.

That's ridiculous to be spending 2 classes a week on a subject that won't come up on the leaving cert. They should ask the students if they would prefer to do religion or to to use the class time to study. I'm sure there would be a lot more students opting out of religion if they had that choice

Peregrinus

Crispycool wrote: »

That's ridiculous to be spending 2 classes a week on a subject that won't come up on the leaving cert. They should ask the students if they would prefer to do religion or to to use the class time to study. I'm sure there would be a lot more students opting out of religion if they had that choice

They do have that choice.

But I think you're wrong in assuming that it's not a leaving cert subject. It wasn't in my day, and perhaps in yours, but it is now.

Crispycool

Peregrinus wrote: »

They do have that choice.

But I think you're wrong in assuming that it's not a leaving cert subject. It wasn't in my day, and perhaps in yours, but it is now.

Oh so the students are choosing to do religion in their leaving cert, that's different then. Two classes a week is not nearly enough time spent on a leaving cert subject

Peregrinus

Crispycool wrote: »

Oh so the students are choosing to do religion in their leaving cert, that's different then. Two classes a week is not nearly enough time spent on a leaving cert subject

There is a Religion syllabus and exam in the Leaving Cert. Not everybody who studies religion at school necessarily sits the Leaving Cert exam in Religion, but the possibility is there.

Obviously, I don't know whether in this particular case the students in this school are intended to take Leaving Cert religion, or whether the school's religion classes are geared towards this. At two periods a week, perhaps not.

FWIW, when I was doing the Leaving Cert, back in the late middle ages, I was quite glad to be taking one subject that wasn't an exam subject. If it had been available as an exam subject, I don't know that I would have been pleased about that. So if people are taking it as a non-exam subject, I wouldn't assume that's burdensome to them. If it is, they do have a right to opt out.

peekachoo

Ahhh. Reminds me of my old school. I went to a CEIST school where students didn't take religion as a LC subject still had one period a week of "non-exam" religion class. I went to the first few, teacher was a nutjob who raved about the sins of stem cell research and abortions (this was only like 3 years ago as well mind you :pac:). So I stopped going.
Spent my free period in the assembly hall doing some work for my actual exam subjects. The religion teacher brought me to the principal one day. Turns out the principal thought it was as ridiculous as I do so he didn't mind me skipping out to do my own work.
The fact that your son is not being allowed to do work is ridiculous and forcing him to do some sort of "faith study" is discrimination in my eyes. He says he has no faith and then what do they expect him to read during the class??? If the principal does not help I would be inclined to give him notes for permission to leave school and even go to the public library or something. This sort of action would get the principal's attention, as would some sort of letter written to the board. What a waste of valuable school hours, especially in LC years!

daheff

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I don't understand why a fifth year student needs a parent to pick them up. Is there any way , written approval from the parent say, to get around this? It seems a bit nanny state.

Is a parent required to pick the student up after school? If not, why when he has a free period?



Seems a bit like the school is being difficult too because hes not doing religion.

Tenigate

smacl wrote: »

Because the child isn't taking the class, it is a de facto free period for him and he is only in that classroom at that time because he has to be under the supervision of a teacher while on school premises. Ideally, he should be able to go to the library to study or do homework.

Except it's not a de-facto period & the school is making sure it stays that way.

Not sure if it's the one used by the op's son's school, however, have a look at the curriculum from this site.
http://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/5e6062d7-111e-4105-b81a-089fc73be199/SCSEC30_Religion_nonexam_syllabus_eng.pdf

Summary of contents
Section A - The Search for meaning
Section B – Christianity
Section C – Religious faiths in Ireland today
Section D – Morality in action
Section E – God-talk
Section F – A living faith – doing justice
Section G – Celebrating faith
Section H – Story

By reading through it, you'll see it's not at all an indoctrination into Catholicism and there is plenty of opportunity to adopt critical views, debate, and learn about religion's impact on society and culture.

Frowzy

I see everyone's point here, and I'm not religious myself. Two things spring to mind here as a parent of a child in LC cycle also:

(1) We can't opt out of everything in life.
Education for our children is obviously to teach them about life; as well as academic work they have subjects like PE, Religion, Computing and LCVP. Only LCVP is an exam subject but each of the other options equally teach our children about being adults as well as a life skill.
If we allow our children to opt out of everything then are we as parents teaching them to be intolerant of everything outside of their personal beliefs or interests? Sometimes in life we have to do, or put up with, things that don't directly concern us. That's life. It's an hour a week that may just teach our children that there are other viewpoints or life experiences outside of their tunnel vision.

(2) Religion these days isn't just about Christianity
In religion class these days students don't just read the bible or learn about the life of Jesus of Nazereth as we did in my days at school. Currently they are taught about all the other religions, beliefs and options out there. My personal belief is that to be a well rounded member of society that it is important that our children understand the viewpoints and beliefs of other religions/beliefs, otherwise how can they respect others viewpoints? And if they can't respect other people's viewpoints then how can they respect theirs to be respected.
Now I can only speak for my own child's school and they have a very fair and open curriculum for Religion class, perhaps it would help you if you requested a copy if the curriculum being taught.

This is just my perspective, and I know that in my child's school they have a very understanding Principal and Religion Teacher. I hope that you can work this out and achieve the best outcome for your own child. Twiddling their thumbs for the year is not the answer.

Lucy8080

Peregrinus wrote: »

The teacher is not obliging the OP. The OP doesn't want their son to be in the class, and the student himself does not want to be there. It's the school that's insisting that he be there - presumably, so that they don't have to provide another staff member to supervise him.

The bottom line here is that the student has a legal right to opt out of religious instruction, and he has exercised that right. This presents the school with resourcing problem, but that is not the student's fault, or his parent's fault. The solution is to have the boy present in the classroom where religious instruction is provided so that he is not unsupervised, which I get may not be entirely satisfactory from the teacher's point of view, but it's not entirely satisfactory from the student's point of view either; it's certainly not being done as a favour to him or to his parents.

And I still do not see why the teacher's position is made any worse if the student spends his timing doing, say, Maths, rather than reading aimlessly or gazing out of the window.

Limited resources on all sides seems to be one thing we are all agreed on.

Maybe the answer is to ask that the kid sit in with a teacher whose subject he is taking.

If there is some legal waiver the o.p. can sign that allows the kid out of school on his own, would be another.

I think the teacher here is within their rights to be a bit miffed that a kid can opt out of his class and then stroll back in and demand their own terms.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Lucy8080

daheff wrote: »

Is a parent required to pick the student up after school? If not, why when he has a free period?



Seems a bit like the school is being difficult too because hes not doing religion.

yup, there must be a way , somehow, that the kid can leave the school during his free period and solve everyone's problem.

Tenigate

....... wrote: »

So if its optional - it should be possible to opt out and not be punished for it.

Plenty of optional standards are adopted by organisations who make them mandatory for members/employees/etc.. seriously, are you being like this on purpose?

mahamageehad

Absolutely ridiculous carry on tbh.
People wonder why there are so many complaints about Millennials being useless and helpless, but don't question a school that insists a parent is available to collect and return a 16/17 year old student for a 40 min class twice a week.

From the OP, I doubt that this is being taught as an exam subject, otherwise the uptake would be much less and there would be a diff option available for the kid. I did religion for JC (one of the first years they had that exam) and it was actually grand- very little focus on "Jesus religion" and more about understanding world religions. However, for 5th and 6th year religion was a required class with no exam and we had one of those hellfire teachers spouting hate against homosexuality, other religions, stem cells etc. I opted out of that class after a series of meetings with the principal and did study in the study hall alone. I was 17, I didn't need supervision. Hell, I walked to and from school, and down town on lunch break, so what difference would one class alone twice a week make??

I think OP has a case to take this up with the school, but ideally the kid themselves would go to the principal to argue it out again. Seems to me the school are being deliberately obtuse here.

Tenigate

mahamageehad wrote: »

Absolutely ridiculous carry on tbh.
People wonder why there are so many complaints about Millennials being useless and helpless, but don't question a school that insists a parent is available to collect and return a 16/17 year old student for a 40 min class twice a week.

Isn't the problem with millennials that they are all snowflakes who can't handle alternative views and require safe zones away from opinions they don't agree with?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The terms are the wish to use this teacher's class to work on any subject bar the one the rest of the class have to take. It's not a respectful position to place a teacher in.

The offer to study something relating to the class is reasonable. The request to not disturb the class/be quiet is reasonable.

mahamageehad

Tenigate wrote: »

Isn't the problem with millennials that they are all snowflakes who can't handle alternative views and require safe zones away from opinions they don't agree with?

I think technically, based on my online research, millennials are at fault for most things wrong with the world today. Millennials is everyone of a certain age therefore a neutral term, whereas people of all ages can be snowflakes, which is imo a derogatory term.

Anyways that's neither here nor there in relation to my point which was mandating a parent to collect and return a 16/17 year old student is absolutely insane. That person is practically an adult. I'd understand it if they were 6/7 but this is crazy. That kid can legally drop out of school now if they want like. It's nannying to the extreme.

kylith

Frowzy wrote: »

I see everyone's point here, and I'm not religious myself. Two things spring to mind here as a parent of a child in LC cycle also:

(1) We can't opt out of everything in life.
Education for our children is obviously to teach them about life; as well as academic work they have subjects like PE, Religion, Computing and LCVP. Only LCVP is an exam subject but each of the other options equally teach our children about being adults as well as a life skill.

How on earth does religion teach students about being an adult?

Even when I was in school I wanted the mandatory religion class (which was a doss) to be changed to something that would actually teach people to be an adult; like budgeting or nutrition.

.......

This post has been deleted.

smacl

Tenigate wrote: »

Except it's not a de-facto period & the school is making sure it stays that way.

If the OP has exercised their legal right to opt their child out of religion, which I believe is the case, and they don't have another class, of course it is a free period. What else would you suggest it is?

Lucy8080

Anyways that's neither here nor there in relation to my point which was mandating a parent to collect and return a 16/17 year old student is absolutely insane. That person is practically an adult. I'd understand it if they were 6/7 but this is crazy. That kid can legally drop out of school now if they want like. It's nannying to the extreme.[/QUOTE]

It's an odd rule the school seems to have here, considering the age of the student.

Is this a general requirement in all schools these days?

Frowzy

kylith wrote: »

How on earth does religion teach students about being an adult?

Even when I was in school I wanted the mandatory religion class (which was a doss) to be changed to something that would actually teach people to be an adult; like budgeting or nutrition.

I believe that what I said was that the subjects teach them about being adults as well as life skills.

If the Religion class is being taught right (i.e. Teaching about other religions and beliefs) students can learn understanding and tolerance as well as patience. Huge life skills which can be used in the simplest of situations such as staff canteens for example.

Of course as my post also said this will only work if the teaching is broader than learning about the life of Jesus of Nazereth.

mahamageehad

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Anyways that's neither here nor there in relation to my point which was mandating a parent to collect and return a 16/17 year old student is absolutely insane. That person is practically an adult. I'd understand it if they were 6/7 but this is crazy. That kid can legally drop out of school now if they want like. It's nannying to the extreme.

It's an odd rule the school seems to have here, considering the age of the student.

Is this a general requirement in all schools these days?[/quote]

The only reason I can think of could be insurance and I don't know how that works in a school scenario as I've nothing to do with the education sector. Could the OPs kid just head out to a local coffee shop for the half hour if there's one nearby? (That's assuming the school is near a town)

Mark Hamill

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The offer to study something relating to the class is reasonable. The request to not disturb the class/be quiet is reasonable.

How exactly does the kid doing homework or studying anything else disturb the class in any way?

Hotblack Desiato

Lucy8080 wrote: »

It's an odd rule the school seems to have here, considering the age of the student.

Is this a general requirement in all schools these days?

How could anyone possibly answer that question?

As for the professional integrity of the teacher, he could just stop behaving like an absolute dick here and salvage a little dignity here. School taught me about adults all right - it taught me that too many of them are incapable of behaving like mature adults.

Nothing is more damaging, imo, to the professional integrity of teachers than being forced to teach nonsense as fact - and possibly have their personal life open to scrutiny by a priest or bishop as well. How the teacher unions continue to tolerate this, I'll never know.

As for thinking that an RC school is going to give a balanced view of other religions, never mind non-belief, all I can say is :pac:

Typical of this country though. You have rights, in theory. In practice you have no mechanism to exercise them, and if you try you'll meet endless obstruction from jumped-up little hitlers.

Mark Hamill

Frowzy wrote: »

I believe that what I said was that the subjects teach them about being adults as well as life skills.

If the Religion class is being taught right (i.e. Teaching about other religions and beliefs) students can learn understanding and tolerance as well as patience. Huge life skills which can be used in the simplest of situations such as staff canteens for example.

Of course as my post also said this will only work if the teaching is broader than learning about the life of Jesus of Nazereth.

How does the religion class teach anything about tolerance and patience? Why should such things, as important as they are, be restricted to an (optional) religion class? Why not have a society and ethics class that teach these things? (And another class that teaches budgeting and nutrition, simple skills which many people seem to severely lack)

MickDoyle1979

How about he raise his arm every five minutes and ask questions to dumbfound the teacher?
That should work.

knipex

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The child can do his homework during the free period. If the o.p. makes the proper arrangements.

Every other kid in the classroom probably has the same homework. Why should this kid get to do homework and the rest have to take the class?

They dont have to take the call They can also opt out..

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The students right to opt-out has been facilitated. The parent has the right to take the student out of the school. It's all tickety-boo so far as rights are concerned.

Unfortunately, the religious studies classroom seems to be the only option if he stays in school for his free period.