Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A proper opt-out from Religion in ETB schools seems about to happen
Options
Comments
-
Interesting that the newspaper report differentiates between "State-run" secondary schools and state-funded ones. I wonder if the actual circular will make that distinction.0
-
Interesting, but not unexpected. Surely the whole point about the schools that are not classed as "state-run" is that the state doesn't run them? So the state doesn't get to prescribe things like subject choices and timetabling policies. That's the job of the people who run the school.Interesting that the newspaper report differentiates between "State-run" secondary schools and state-funded ones. I wonder if the actual circular will make that distinction.0 -
Well no, a Dept of Education circular would apply to all state funded schools. Its laying down the law. It seems they now want to "give effect to the pupil's constitutional right to opt out of religious instruction".
However I don't see how you can give effect to peoples constitutional rights in some schools, but not others.
The added complication here is that religious-run schools can point to the infamous Section 7 in equality legislation which gives them an opt-out from anti-discrimination laws. But IMO if that opt-out is incompatible with the constitution, then the constitution wins.
The fault line here is really between religious-run and secular-run schools. Not between state-run and privately-run. If the state would admit that, then they would see that the problem is with the opt-out provision in our equality legislation.0 -
You're reducing this to an oversimplistic binary. There may be more than one way of arranging matters so that people's constitutional rights are respected. So far as the state itself is concerned, it must decide, out of the constitutionally-permissible ways in which to give effect to this particular constitutional right, which one it will implement. However it doesn't have anyu right to tell non-state bodies, or private individuals, how they must give effect to this right. It can tell them that they must, but not how they must.Well no, a Dept of Education circular would apply to all state funded schools. Its laying down the law. It seems they now want to "give effect to the pupil's constitutional right to opt out of religious instruction".
However I don't see how you can give effect to peoples constitutional rights in some schools, but not others.
In pretty well everybody's opinion, if s. 7 is compatible with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. The difference of opinion is about whether s. 7 is incompatible with the Constitution.The added complication here is that religious-run schools can point to the infamous Section 7 in equality legislation which gives them an opt-out from anti-discrimination laws. But IMO if that opt-out is incompatible with the constitution, then the constitution wins.
[/QUOTE]The fault line here is really between religious-run and secular-run schools. Not between state-run and privately-run. If the state would admit that, then they would see that the problem is with the opt-out provision in our equality legislation.[/QUOTE]
The s. 7 exemptions are irrelevant here. Nothing in s.7 deals with subject choices in schools, and schools which make religion mandatory and/or provide no alternative to religion do not rely on s. 7 to justify this practice.0 -
Religious instruction and worship in certain second level schools in the context of Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution of Ireland and Section 30 of the Education Act 1998 http://ift.tt/2Fds3pX
http://ift.tt/2o9c8Se sor .mp3
Education Minister talks about the constitution re ETB schools (to avoid having to pay for extra classses) but when it come to religious run schools he refers to Admission bill which is being created for parents to sign away their rights0 -
Advertisement
-
I see from the actual circular (linked to by expectationlost) that they are trying to confine these new-found constitutional rights to just the ETB schools. And they are admitting that the former policy of these schools was a sneaky RC ethos, which they can no longer get away with.
Thanks to Atheist Ireland who have "done the state some service" by outing these sometimes hidden ETB policies through their recent FOI campaign, and then publicising the results.The NCCA developed curriculum for Religious Education currently also serves to meet the religious instruction requirements of the Catholic Church and schools can continue this arrangement for pupils whose parents elect for Catholic religious instruction or other parents who wish to follow the NCCA curriculum, and where that is the case it is important in the information provided to parents that they are made fully aware that the curriculum is not necessarily confined to learning about religions.
Interesting also that the ET schools are referred to as "non-denominational" in the circular, but AFAIK, ET normally refer to themselves as "multidenominational".
I think this reference is meant to give the illusion that pupils are only being denied their constitutional rights in one type of state-funded school, and that all others can carry on as before. The circular tries to divert attention away from state-funded religious schools, where by rights pupils should also be given a practical opt-out facility from religious instruction.
Lets not be over critical though, this is still a great step forward, for the ETB schools anyway.
The ET multi-denominational schools were in the clear already. So no problem there.
The religious multi-denominational schools are lying low, hoping the spotlight will not be turned on them next.0 -
Forgive my ignorance but what are "religious multi-denominational schools" as opposed to Educate Together multi-denominational schools?
Do some schools with church patronage refer to themselves as multi-denominational?0 -
-
ET schools now refer to themselves as equality based. They dropped the multi denom label.0
-
Well that is a relatively new idea, but for the purposes of getting state funding for their schools they were historically obliged to label themselves as "multi-denominational" because the Dept of Education felt that a "non-denominational" school would not be eligible for state funding. Due to religious instruction being considered an essential part of any education.ET schools now refer to themselves as equality based. They dropped the multi denom label.
However we <may> now have moved on from that situation. That's why I find it interesting that the latest Dept circular includes the words "non-denominational" in it. Its as if they are now recognising that label as a real possibility.
The most recently built secondary school I know of is in Bray and will be handed over to an ET/ETB collaborative patronage. It's just about finished, but final snagging has been stalled due to the collapse of the UK based builder.
You can see from the applications for management of the proposed school that both ET and ETB described themselves as "multi-denominational" at the time. So that's what it will be, when it opens.0 -
Advertisement
-
it doesn't impress when the prinicpal won't distinguish between religious instruction and religion education https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/minister-a-constitutional-right-for-students-to-have-alternative-to-religion-classes-in-secondary-school-828734.htmlWell that is a relatively new idea, but for the purposes of getting state funding for their schools they were historically obliged to label themselves as "multi-denominational" because the Dept of Education felt that a "non-denominational" school would not be eligible for state funding. Due to religious instruction being considered an essential part of any education.
However we <may> now have moved on from that situation. That's why I find it interesting that the latest Dept circular includes the words "non-denominational" in it. Its as if they are now recognising that label as a real possibility.
The most recently built secondary school I know of is in Bray and will be handed over to an ET/ETB collaborative patronage. It's just about finished, but final snagging has been stalled due to the collapse of the UK based builder.
You can see from the applications for management of the proposed school that both ET and ETB described themselves as "multi-denominational" at the time. So that's what it will be, when it opens.Religion in secondary schools 'not doctrinal anymore', says principal in response to opt-out for students
Gear O’Ciaran is the Principal of Colte Raitin in Bray, and he says no child should skip religion class, regardless of their faith.
Mr O'Ciaran said: "I don't think you can say you are being educated unless you know something of the nature of religion, what it is that some people believe in different religions around the world, so that at least you can join the debate.
"The religion that is done in most secondary schools is not of a doctrinal nature anymore, and it would seem a pity if young people are completely unaware of the concepts involved.
"A youngster in first year asked me the other day 'was an atheist the same as a Protestant?'"0 -
But the principal is right IMO.
As I mentioned before its important to distinguish between a subject called "Religion" and the religious instruction/indoctrination of students into one particular religion. Its the latter that most people are against.
"Religion" should be a mandatory part of secondary education, in the first few years before the LC cycle. But it should be part of a general social education or "civics" class which would provide a basic knowledge of the different religions and political systems around the world, as well as a grounding in other social concepts such as ethics and philosophy. They could throw in the old sex education there too, with with discussions around the notion as "consent" and gender equality. All of these would be best discussed in a general context of social education.
Every solution Bruton supports is a ham-fisted idea whose main purpose is to allow unfettered religious indoctrination and discrimination to continue in as many schools as possible. Probably coming direct from the RCC hierarchy. Its like fighting a retreating rearguard action, and if it means ditching a few schools at a time, he will allow that to happen.0 -
no the principal is suggesting that the circular gets rid of religion education, it doesn'tBut the principal is right IMO.
As I mentioned before its important to distinguish between a subject called "Religion" and the religious instruction/indoctrination of students into one particular religion. Its the latter that most people are against.
"Religion" should be a mandatory part of secondary education, in the first few years before the LC cycle. But it should be part of a general social education or "civics" class which would provide a basic knowledge of the different religions and political systems around the world, as well as a grounding in other social concepts such as ethics and philosophy. They could throw in the old sex education there too, with with discussions around the notion as "consent" and gender equality. All of these would be best discussed in a general context of social education.
Every solution Bruton supports is a ham-fisted idea whose main purpose is to allow unfettered religious indoctrination and discrimination to continue in as many schools as possible. Probably coming direct from the RCC hierarchy. Its like fighting a retreating rearguard action, and if it means ditching a few schools at a time, he will allow that to happen.0 -
He says he doesn't think it should be optional.expectationlost wrote: »no the principal is suggesting that the circular gets rid of religion education, it doesn't
I think very soon the option of "alternative tuition" will prove more attractive to most pupils (and their parents), leaving just the hard core who were always in favour of RC religious instruction. The religion class itself will then become more hard core, if it survives.
Its possibly better than the current situation, but far from ideal IMO. It would be somewhat divisive, and would leave everyone lacking in a balanced education in such matters.
It might be open to individual schools to put on some kind of ethics/philosophy/religion/politics/civics class as their "alternative tuition" which could eventually take over from the old religion class. Maybe AI will come up with a proposed curriculum.
On the other hand, the individual school might decide to put on a class in something totally unrelated.
It would have been better if a new standard curriculum had been devised to replace the old biased religion class, and then just have everyone attend the new class together.0 -
You're suggesting, I think, that schools could offer two different religion/philosophy/ethics courses, one of which involves faith formation and the advancement of a particular perspective, and the other of which does not.
There's only one actual Leaving Cert exam in the area, but I suppose both courses could prepare students for that exam. Or one course might , and the other might not be exam-oriented.
I think the main practical difficulty with the proposal is that it requires twice as many religion teachers. Or, at any rate, twice as much time devoted to teaching religion courses, which has implications for the number of teachers the school will require who are qualified to teach the course. Especially if, as is usual with alternative classes, they are taught at the same time.
And you're still left with the problem of parents, maybe from a minority religion, who object to their children being taught anything about religion, other than in accordance with the precepts of their own religion. And the problem of militantly atheistic of parents who object to any time spend studying religion. Whether or not you agree with their attitudes, both of these groups have a constitutional right to withdraw their children from both of the religion classes, so accommodation must be made for them. So you end up (from the principal's point of view) with the worst of both worlds; you have to find the resources to teach two religion courses simultaneously, and you still have to make provision, consistent with the circular, for those who opt out of both.
My guess is that what this circular will tend towards is having just one religion course offered as an optional subject, up against other non-religious options.0 -
My daughter's school here in Germany offers a Catholic Class and a general ethics class.
They do not teach them at the same time, nor even on the same day in fact, nor do they need extra teachers to deal with it.
Some kids do one or the other. Some kids do neither. A few kids I am aware of do both. Both classes are at the end of their respective day so any kids not attending either or both of them simply have a slightly earlier going home time than the kids who do. And catholic teaching is not integrated throughout the rest of the curriculum/day either so when you opt out of religion you actually are opting out.
The logistical problems you describe do not seem to manifest themselves at all. Of course getting from one scenario to the other is difficult, but with a small application of imagination and effort such a transition does not have to be a major chore.0 -
Oh, yes, it could certainly be done if the will were there. But I think the new circular doesn't encourage or facilitate this; it requires that there be a non-religious alternative to religion. So if you offer a religion class, whether at the end of the day or not, you also have to offer a non-religion class at the same time. The option of doing nothing at this time, or going home, is not supposed to be available to students.
(Presumably, because it is considered to be educationally disadvantageous. An idea that I think you could probably argue with. But, still, that's where we seem to be.)
The other problem with delivering classes at the end of the day is that, it seems to me, you need a awful lot of religion teachers, since the religion classes for every year in the school are offered at the same time. Is it possible, Nozz, that your daughter is in primary school, and that the religion classes are given by the classroom teachers? Obviously that requires all the classroom teachers to be willing/qualified to teach religion, which raises its own issues. Or are there specialist religion teachers and, if the latter, how does does timetabling all the religion classes at the same time of the day not cause a problem?0 -
My son attends a ETB school where Religion as a junior cert subject is a core subject and everyone does it. The school does not have religious instruction classes or worship. There are very occasional religious ceremonies which kids can opt out of with parental consent.
For my younger kids, I would love them to study another subject instead of JC Religion but it looks like the directive applies to religious instruction only and not exam subject religion. Is my thinking correct?0 -
The circular only applies to certain classes of school and, even then, there's a carve-out for schools "where there is an agreement between the Education and Training Board and Educate Together whereby the school operates as a non-denominational school that is not required to provide for religious instruction". From what you say your son's school may be one of these, so it won't be affected by the new circular. It will not be required to make religion an optional subject, or to timetable another subject against it.threetrees wrote: »My son attends a ETB school where Religion as a junior cert subject is a core subject and everyone does it. The school does not have religious instruction classes or worship. There are very occasional religious ceremonies which kids can opt out of with parental consent.
For my younger kids, I would love them to study another subject instead of JC Religion but it looks like the directive applies to religious instruction only and not exam subject religion. Is my thinking correct?
It is possible, though, to provide religions instruction within the context of the NCAA Religious Education course, and if a school is doing that (and is within the application of the circular) then the circular applies. The Religious Education course must be optional, one or more other courses have to offered as alternatives, and parents must be advised of the right to choose between the options offered. (And they have to be told that the Religious Education course includes Religious Instruction.)0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »So if you offer a religion class, whether at the end of the day or not, you also have to offer a non-religion class at the same time.
I genuinely did not know that. Where is this written that it has to be at the same time and not a similar system to the one I described? If that is written down somewhere it certainly should be contested. There is no good reason or basis I can think of to demand it be at the same time.
I remember the school I was in (or "college" as they insisted on calling themselves to make them sound better than everything else in the Raheny area) which was bad in most ways a school can be bad at least had some things right.
And one of those things was that school ended officially at 13:00 on a Wednesday. The other days were 16:00. Half the students went home. Many of the rest did a sport in the school. Some of us studied something (I took an applied maths class in this time for an extra subject in the leaving cert).
The idea that all students have to finish at the same time, and that some could or should not go home early while others partake in modules of their own choosing is a terrible idea.
In my daughters primary school which is somewhere between large and small.... above average size anyway..... there are a few teachers and only one of them is required to deal with the religion/ethics options. So each teacher has their own class....... then at the end of a Tuesday ONE of them teaches the kids that want the catholic class and the SAME one teaches the ethics option on a Wednesday. All in all my daugther has three teachers herself. Her own main teacher for German and Maths and Sport and other General learning.... another teacher who takes each class a couple of times a week for more arty and creative work (werken und gestallten or something this class is called) and a third one for her Ethics class of a Wednesday. The kids who are actually taught by the woman who also does ethics therefore only have 2 teachers of a week not three.
So it is neither that ALL the teachers have to be capable of teaching it OR a specialized teacher only for that is required. The duty is taken by a teacher who is already there anyway teaching a normal class during the day.
Certainly in the secondary school I was at I do not think it would have required multiple religion teachers either. There WAS multiple religion teachers anyway as RE was on the time table for all 1000 or so students every week. And in fact the two main religion teachers I recall clearly from that time.... one was also an Irish and History teacher (albeit a seriously bad one at both and his blatant repressed homosexuality coupled with his very white skin and very ginger hair obtained him the nick name "fag" because he actually looked like a walking cigarette.).... and the other was an ordained priest who also taught French (though his idea of teaching french consisted mainly of going out for a smoke while leaving us in the class watching "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" over and over) and spent most of his free time introducing students to tobacco.
In a situation where the class was simply moved to the end of the day and made optional I can not see why that would need anything but less, certainly not more, teachers. I would say it would have moved from a situation where enough teachers to teach RE to 1000 pupils would have moved to a situation where say 500 just went home, 350 just wanted RE and 150 wanted ethics for example. So you would need teachers only for half the required pupils.
And sure if that crap school could pull it off with constitutionally BAD teachers.... a decent system in a decent school with even semi competent teachers should be able to find a workable system I expect.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's a good point. Considering we are talking about secondary schools, and there are typically several different classes for each "year" group, then it should be possible to offer options without needing extra staff.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »My daughter's school here in Germany offers a Catholic Class and a general ethics class.
They do not teach them at the same time, nor even on the same day in fact, nor do they need extra teachers to deal with it.
Eg Monday morning group A does Religion with a RC instructive slant, Group B does maths and Group C does English.
Monday afternoon group A does maths and group B does Religion with a philosophical slant, etc....0 -
You might be surprised if you looked into it carefully. You'll find the teacher is qualified to get the job because they are approved by the RCC and they have been trained in giving RC religious instruction. You'll probably find that the religious instruction is built into the class in subtle ways. Not as overt as in a full RC denominational school. Having said that, there is considerable variation among different ETB schools. This new circular attempts to standardise the approach. As it says in the circular...threetrees wrote: »My son attends a ETB school where Religion as a junior cert subject is a core subject and everyone does it. The school does not have religious instruction classes or worship. There are very occasional religious ceremonies which kids can opt out of with parental consent.
For my younger kids, I would love them to study another subject instead of JC Religion but it looks like the directive applies to religious instruction only and not exam subject religion. Is my thinking correct?The NCCA developed curriculum for Religious Education currently also serves to meet the religious instruction requirements of the Catholic Church and schools can continue this arrangement for pupils whose parents elect for Catholic religious instruction or other parents who wish to follow the NCCA curriculum, and where that is the case it is important in the information provided to parents that they are made fully aware that the curriculum is not necessarily confined to learning about religions.0 -
the circular was about opting out of religious instruction not ending all religion education. the circular refers to another existing NCCA curriculum the big problem with this sets out to prevents its that it was all mixed together.He says he doesn't think it should be optional.
I think very soon the option of "alternative tuition" will prove more attractive to most pupils (and their parents), leaving just the hard core who were always in favour of RC religious instruction. The religion class itself will then become more hard core, if it survives.
Its possibly better than the current situation, but far from ideal IMO. It would be somewhat divisive, and would leave everyone lacking in a balanced education in such matters.
It might be open to individual schools to put on some kind of ethics/philosophy/religion/politics/civics class as their "alternative tuition" which could eventually take over from the old religion class. Maybe AI will come up with a proposed curriculum.
On the other hand, the individual school might decide to put on a class in something totally unrelated.
It would have been better if a new standard curriculum had been devised to replace the old biased religion class, and then just have everyone attend the new class together.0 -
Its about opting out of the whole class. I presume this is the curriculum referred to.expectationlost wrote: »the circular was about opting out of religious instruction not ending all religion education. the circular refers to naother existing NCCA curriculum the big problem with this sets out to prevents its that it was all mixed together.
You won't find anything too controversial in the text itself.
There is a big emphasis on Jesus and all things Christian in it, which narrows down the appropriateness of it for all the citizens of this state.
Then, the fact that the teachers must be trained and approved by the RCC narrows it down even further; to just one religion.
This is all very subtle though, and the actual delivery of the class can vary a lot, depending on the individual teacher and their principal.0 -
its about opting out of a class that included religious instructionIts about opting out of the whole class. I presume this is the curriculum referred to.
You won't find anything too controversial in the text itself.
There is a big emphasis on Jesus and all things Christian in it, which narrows down the appropriateness of it for all the citizens of this state.
Then, the fact that the teachers must be trained and approved by the RCC narrows it down even further; to just one religion.
This is all very subtle though, and the actual delivery of the class can vary a lot, depending on the individual teacher and their principal.0 -
As far as I can make out, this is what they are going for in the circular. If a course involving religious instruction is offered, it must be optional, and it must be optional in the same way that other courses are optional - i.e. here are two or three options [one of which involves religious instruction]; pick one.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I genuinely did not know that. Where is this written that it has to be at the same time and not a similar system to the one I described? If that is written down somewhere it certainly should be contested. There is no good reason or basis I can think of to demand it be at the same time.
I think what they are aiming for here is to avoid RI becoming an option, but a "privileged" option - it's RI or nothing; RI must not be exposed to the harsh winds of competition from other subjects; students who opt out of RI do not get comparable resources allocated to them but are left to their own devices; that kind of thing.
Thanks for this. Just to clarify, is their one religion/ethics teacher for each year group in the primary school, or is demand for religion/ethics so low that they amalgamate the year groups and one teacher teaches all the kids, from different years, in the same classroom?nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »In my daughters primary school . . . it is neither that ALL the teachers have to be capable of teaching it OR a specialized teacher only for that is required. The duty is taken by a teacher who is already there anyway teaching a normal class during the day.
Well, think of it this way; if somebody suggested that, say, all history classes throughout the school should be scheduled for the last period of the day, that would obviously cause timetabling problems, unless (a) the school had six history teachers, and (b) there was not more than 30 or 35 students in any year wishing to study history, so that one history class in each year would suffice.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: ». . . In a situation where the class was simply moved to the end of the day and made optional I can not see why that would need anything but less, certainly not more, teachers. I would say it would have moved from a situation where enough teachers to teach RE to 1000 pupils would have moved to a situation where say 500 just went home, 350 just wanted RE and 150 wanted ethics for example. So you would need teachers only for half the required pupils.
I don't see why it would be any different with religion. Even if religion is a less popular option, such that one class in each year would suffice, one class in each year does look like an irreducible minimum. If they are all to be scheduled simultaneously, that requires six religion teachers. Twelve teachers, if you're also pursuing rec's suggestion of offering a non-faith-formation religion/ethic course as an alternative, and applying the same scheduling rule to it.0 -
Yes. There are three possible types of religion class:expectationlost wrote: »its about opting out of a class that included religious instruction
1. Intentional faith formation that does not follow the NCAA curriculum for religious education, and that does not prepare students for the Leaving Certificate RE exam. Lets calls this "religious instruction" or RI.
2. The NCAA course, study of religion, with no faith formation involved. Leads to the Leaving Cert exam. Let's call this "religious education" or RE.
3. The NCAA course, leading to the exam, but with faith formation also included. Lets call this RE+RI.
In theory, a school could offer any two or all three of these. In practice I doubt that either the demand or the resources allow for more than one to be offered in most schools.
Constitutionally, you have a right to withdraw your child from an RI class, or from an RE+RI class, but probably not from an RE class. Thus a school can make an RE class mandatory. In practice, if you had somebody, say, from a minority religion who objected to the RE class I imagine the school would allow the child to be withdrawn, but it probably wouldn't offer an alternative.
What the new circular does, in relation to the schools to which it applies, is to say how those schools are to satisfy the constitutional right of withdrawal. Thus, if the school offers an RI course, or an RE+RI course, it must advise parents of their right to withdraw, it must offer alternative courses to those who withdraw, and this must be handled in the same way/as part of the same process by which other subject options are exercised.
If the school offers an RE course, that's unaffected by the circular. That can be mandatory. Or, it can be optional, but with no alternative offered. Or, it can be optional, with alternatives offered.0 -
It's wider than that. The Circular Letter is not introducing new rights. It is directing ETB schools to recognise existing rights.
Even without this Circular Letter, Section 30 of the Education Act says that the Minister shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student.
That makes no distinction between religious instruction or education. The Department and successive Ministers had already acknowledged that right, even before they have now admitted that the NCCA state curriculum incorporates Catholic Religious Instruction.
It is interesting to speculate about what would happen if there was an RE course that did not include RI. Maybe more parents would find such a course more consistent with their conscience, and maybe not. But they would still have the right to opt out if they did find it contrary to their conscience.
In any case, such a course does not exist in reality. The Circular Letter states that "the NCCA developed curriculum for Religious Education currently also serves to meet the religious instruction requirements of the Catholic Church." So there is no alternative "RE without RI" course for parents who might be happy with that. The NCCA tried to bring in one for primary schools with ERBE, but the Catholic Church has so far prevented that from happening.0 -
Thanks for this.Michael Nugent wrote: »It's wider than that. The Circular Letter is not introducing new rights. It is directing ETB schools to recognise existing rights.
Even without this Circular Letter, Section 30 of the Education Act says that the Minister shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student.
That makes no distinction between religious instruction or education. The Department and successive Ministers had already acknowledged that right, even before they have now admitted that the NCCA state curriculum incorporates Catholic Religious Instruction.
It is interesting to speculate about what would happen if there was an RE course that did not include RI. Maybe more parents would find such a course more consistent with their conscience, and maybe not. But they would still have the right to opt out if they did find it contrary to their conscience.
In any case, such a course does not exist in reality. The Circular Letter states that "the NCCA developed curriculum for Religious Education currently also serves to meet the religious instruction requirements of the Catholic Church." So there is no alternative "RE without RI" course for parents who might be happy with that. The NCCA tried to bring in one for primary schools with ERBE, but the Catholic Church has so far prevented that from happening.
You might be able to clarify one thing for me. The Circular refers to a group of ETB post-primary schools where "there is an agreement between the Education and Training Board and Educate Together whereby the school operates as a non-denominational school that is not required to provide for religious instruction". (It refers to these schools for the purpose of exempting them.)
I understood - maybe wrongly? - that all the Educate Together schools offered, at a minimum, education about religion, even if they didn't provide "religious instruction" in the faith-formation sense. And I also thought that they did this by offering the NCAA-approved course. I'm aware that that curriculum "serves to meet the religious instruction requirements of the Catholic Church", but I also though it could be delivered without that instruction - i.e. that you can use the NCAA curriculum as a basis for meeting church requirements, but that it's also possible to use the NCAA curriculum without meeting church requirements. And I assumed that ET schools which don't provide religious instruction did provide education about religion, and did so employing the NCAA curriculum.
Do I have that wrong?0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus, I will return to your questions, hopefully later today.
But I want to make a brief practical point about opting out from a theoretical religious education class that does not include faith formation.
In reality, people who want schools to teach about religions and beliefs in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner, are not the type of people who would want to make such a course compulsory even if they could.
The type of people who are motivated to make religion classes compulsory are those who want to promote faith formation, i.e. religious bodies or individual members of religions who are interested in evangelising pupils.
So in practical terms, the question of having difficulties in opting out really only arises in schools where the patron body wants to promote faith formation.
.0
Advertisement