SPHE Teacher's Interview - What Happens in the Classroom... - Mod Note Added to OP PLEASE READ

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122828691#Comment_122828691

I do think they should leave out the ideological stuff and concentrate on the biological, scientific, sexual (age appropriate) and reality based educational aspect…

One of the reasons for the revised curriculum being introduced was based upon feedback from students themselves who felt the current course content was actually too focused on biology and so on, rather than imparting knowledge about a much broader range of topics which could be covered under SPHE:

The move to revamp the SPHE curriculum follows a Government-commissioned review of sex education at primary and second level which found that the 20-year-old syllabus was out of date, too focused on biology and did not reflect the reality of young people’s lives or LGBTQ issues.

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2023/05/16/minister-expects-all-schools-will-deliver-sex-education-curriculum-with-focus-on-gender-identity/

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122828691#Comment_122828691

So people should leave school not having learnt a jot about transgender people, other than what they learnt from giggling behind the bike shed?

_Kaiser_

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122827824#Comment_122827824

Still doesn't refute the line quoted though.

In the absence of scientific evidence, Trans is based on personal belief/feelings about ones identity. By definition that identity contradicts the biological and historical facts about the person.

Again, that's absolutely fine for the individual involved. However, it does NOT come with the right to expect that others will agree with this idea or ignore those facts or their own beliefs on the topic. Again, all that should be expected and required is tolerance or apathy.

If someone is wholly supportive of the individual and their new identity then great, but it doesn't alter facts nor the equal rights of others to consider those to be paramount in the debate, nor does it make such a person "wrong" or "bad" in doing so.

But to bring it back on topic…

I have no issue per-se with the idea of teaching children and teenagers about the concepts of things like differing sexual orientations and preferences or differing relationship types, nor do I have an issue with educating that some feel they were born in the wrong body or feel themselves to be the opposite of what they are.

That's all fine. What's not fine is elevating some or all of these concepts over others, or suggesting that what someone sees and knows to be factually true or correct should be disregard in favour of the concept of identity. That identity is an individual and personal thing to that person. That's it.

I DO have a problem with the idea (as mooted in the various articles and coverage of this topic) of further sexualising children and normalising what would be considered as fetishes. These things have zero place in a classroom, beyond maybe a generic piece about how individuals and couples like differing things, and experimentation and open-mindedness is a good thing so long as those involved are informed, agreed and comfortable with what is happening, and that such activities do not violate anyone's rights or laws.

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122825281#Comment_122825281

The LGBTQIA++ conglomerate isn’t really a helpful term for any realistic discussion.

Especially as so many gay people (I.e. born with same-sex attraction, not an “identity”) I’ve spoken with, privately of course, are more concerned with gay young people who trying understand their identity and the trans option being promoted as the new thing, the new way to get “progressive” kudos. And a means of explaining why they don’t think they fit in with gender stereotypes.

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122826261#Comment_122826261

careful now! There are many progressives now who will now who will say biological sex doesn’t even exist.

E.g.

https://growinguptransgender.com/2018/11/01/biological-sex-is-a-social-construct/

Also worth noting that “gender” as being different from “sex” is a relatively recent idea.
most languages don’t have two words, and both words were used interchangeably in English. “Gender” was often more polite than the more blunt and potentially suggestive word: “sex”.
There are earlier precedents, but the first big use of the distinction was by 1970s feminists. The idea really seemed to go mainstream, i.e. leave the social sciences/humanities universities in the 1990s.

donaghs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122828811#Comment_122828811

Does everything discussed in the bike shed need to be part of the curriculum?

Especially such a niche issue like transgenderism.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122829042#Comment_122829042

What are you afraid of? What's the problem with a bit of education?

Irish Aris

Mod Warning:

OK, this thread is getting very close to a train wreck. I had to go back and check the OP to see what it is about, because reading through it it's impossible to figure out the topic.

PLEASE stick to the topic, which is the SPHE curriculum. Bringing up the transgender topic for the umpteenth time is off topic and derails the discussion. We have more than one threads in CA that discuss the transgender topic. Any more of this and warnings/bans will follow.

Thank you all in advance for getting the discussion back on topic.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122828890#Comment_122828890

careful now! There are many progressives now who will now who will say biological sex doesn’t even exist.

The article you provided isn’t suggesting that biological sex doesn’t exist. It’s making the point that the concept of biological sex is socially constructed, by which they mean that sex characteristics are divided into the categories of male and female and observed accordingly, meaning that an individual is either male or female according to biology. Biology in and of itself is merely the study of life, as one of the life sciences. It doesn’t mean anyone is required to treat biology as though it’s a belief system that mandates any particular belief one way or another. It certainly doesn’t mean that anyone can be treated unfairly on the basis of particular characteristics.

Also worth noting that “gender” as being different from “sex” is a relatively recent idea. 
most languages don’t have two words, and both words were used interchangeably in English. “Gender” was often more polite than the more blunt and potentially suggestive word: “sex”.

I’ve heard that explanation before and I’ve no idea how it got legs, but plenty of languages have different words for gender and sex because they refer to different concepts in language, which is itself socially constructed:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_type_of_grammatical_genders

There are earlier precedents, but the first big use of the distinction was by 1970s feminists. The idea really seemed to go mainstream, i.e. leave the social sciences/humanities universities in the 1990s.

That’s not entirely true either, in that the first big use of the distinction was among a small group of psychologists around the turn of the 20th century, which got legs when the idea of gender as a biological construct was seized upon by John Money (a scientist, sexologist and generally all-round weirdo) to promote his ideas, and Feminists of the time adopted the concept because it meant that they had a way of arguing against the discrimination they faced as a consequence of what was then known as ‘biological determinism’:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

ie: the concept of gender was useful in arguing against the idea that women were inherently inferior to men, that women’s sole purpose in life was to bear and rear children and so on, that they should be confined to the domestic domain as they were not fit for employment and weren’t worth educating and so on, all sorts of beliefs about women’s inferiority that were obviously based upon ideology as opposed to being a reflection of reality.

Similar arguments are being attempted In modern contexts to try and justify unfair treatment of individuals or groups of people based upon beliefs about people who share those characteristics in common, and that’s where the argument that biological sex is a concept that is socially constructed comes in, because it’s being used to promote beliefs that are not a reflection of reality. It’s also why it’s important that children are taught about the world around them and how to interact with and socialise with other people in the hope that when they become adults they will have a greater understanding of the world around them and be equipped with the knowledge and skills to be able to make a positive contribution to society.

Hamsterchops

Thanks Mod, unfortunately the word you mention (beginning with T) is now an integral part of the SPHE programme, hence my contributions to this thread to highlight my annoyance at it being in SPHE.

Its actually in the SPHE books, so its hard to avoid the elephant in the room when discussing SPHE.

Going forward I will try to use other other terms & words to describe the teaching . . . .

Irish Aris

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122829284#Comment_122829284

@Hamsterchops just in the last couple of pages we had posts about people identifying as cats, the Cass report (which happened in a different country), general waffle around trans ideology and the likes.

If indeed there are aspects related to the curriculum, fair enough. But if people can't debate the topic in a civil manner and keep on topic, I won't hesitate to issue warnings or even close the thread.

Thank you again for the discussion

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122829212#Comment_122829212

So there is no difference between a man and a woman expect for whether you belive you are a man or a woman. So gender is what, (since it doens't mean your sex), it's just the part of you that thinks you are a man or a woman and that's it, nothing else. All this fuss over something so trivial, gawd.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122828790#Comment_122828790

Unfortunatly I was unable to verifty that any of this is actually ture. The feedback from students was from an online survey and unfortunatly there's no eveidnce that this was conducted in a secure way, i.e. anyone could have filled out the online survey. Could have been filled out by adults that were invoved in the survey consulations, like erm TENI for example.

https://ncca.ie/media/4462/report-on-the-review-of-relationships-and-sexuality-education-rse-in-primary-and-post-primary-school.pdf

See there TENI and other LGBT NGOs were 'consulted', see Appendix A. So nah, young people are not curious about gender identtiy no more than they were 20 years ago. They don't see it in their modern up to date lives no more than anyone else does as it hardly exists so there's no reason to belive they desire to know anything about it. All lies basially as usual from NGO's. Nice story though.

Mod Edit: Warned for ignoring mod instruction

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122829506#Comment_122829506

Unfortunatly I was unable to verifty that any of this is actually ture.

Sure all you’d to do to verify whether it was true or not is read the report which you provided in your own post? I’m obviously not going to include the whole thing, but the section on Students Perspectives (starts around pg. 15) includes the following information:

The findings presented below are based on focus group interviews with students in a selection of schools, meetings with youth representative groups (Foróige, Youthwork Ireland, the Irish Second Level Students Union, and Comhairle na nÓg), and 650 online responses from 12-18-year-olds to a survey received via the NCCA website. It also includes the views of 77 young people who attended a Comhairle na nÓg consultation event organised in collaboration with DCYA. For the most part, the findings in this chapter relate to upper primary and post-primary.

…

The findings from the review echo previous studies which demonstrated that, by and large, young people view the RSE they are receiving as inadequate or at best partially meeting their needs. Overall, students expressed frustration about disparities in the content and quality of provision and the absence of a consistent and comprehensive approach to teaching RSE in schools. There is no contestation about the importance of RSE amongst students as they time and again affirmed the critical nature of this learning to their development. However, in many cases students showed little awareness of the range of topics that are included in the RSE curriculum.
…

When asked about other topics they learned about, friendship, bullying and personal safely, referred to typically as the Stay Safe programme, were most frequently mentioned. A small number of students felt they had covered a comprehensive range of topics, such as how to manage and express emotions and how to cope with pressures. However, for most students, their recall of primary RSE was almost exclusively related to learning about the biological changes that happen during puberty. A small number of first-year students said they didn't receive any lessons in RSE. Almost all students said they would like to have learned more about feelings and relationships, including romantic relationships and the associated pressures of such relationships, which were not generally discussed. They also felt RSE should be taught from an early age. Many first-year students also commented on the absence of any reference to different kinds of families and different sexual orientations.

…

The topics identified through the focus group meetings correlate closely with the online survey responses from 12-18-year-olds. The most important topics identified by students who responded online included: LGBTQ+ and sexual orientation (61), healthy relationships (58), consent (40) followed by frequent mention of contraception, STls, safe sex and protection.

By way of using examples to demonstrate how those ideas play out in reality, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Clongowes Wood boys school in Kildare which produced many men who were influential in Irish society (and… Michael O’ Leary, can’t win ‘em all I guess 😒), and Laurel Hill FCJ in Limerick, a girls school which was ranked top secondary school in Ireland six years in a row, and their SPHE / RSE course content / policies are reproduced below, which serves to demonstrate that the nonsense claims in the opening post of what is being suggested for inclusion on the curriculum is not even remotely based upon reality:

https://www.clongowes.net/teaching-learning/junior-cycle/

https://www.clongowes.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/RSE-Policy-2024.pdf

https://www.laurelhillsecondary.com/wp-content/uploads/sphe-policy.pdf

https://www.laurelhillsecondary.com/wp-content/uploads/Relationship-Sexuality-Policy.pdf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122828816#Comment_122828816

"…However, it does NOT come with the right to expect that others will agree with this idea or ignore those facts or their own beliefs on the topic. Again, all that should be expected and required is tolerance or apathy…."

As someone who has LGBTQ and gender-diverse friends, (and friends with gender-diverse children), in my experience, literally all they expect (and all they ask for) is tolerance so they can live their lives how they choose along with some basic respect (e.g. referred to by their preferred names and pronouns).

Of all those I have discussed it with, they all had one thing in common - they experienced a very long and difficult journey to get to the point where they understood and accepted themselves, usually very little support or information along the way. So no - they don't expect everyone else to just "get it" or ignore their own feelings - but it costs nothing to be civil and respectful, even when those opinions differ.

This is why I firmly believe and support that information on gender diversity is included in the SPHE Programme and available to any young adults who may have questions (Q is for Questioning). They should be able to ask those questions in a safe and neutral place (which may not be their homes) of an adult trained to inform and support them in an unbiased fashion. Which (as this thread has shown) some parents may not be able to do.

There is provision that any parent who feels strongly enough about it, and does not want their young adults included in the SPHE programme as it is now, has the right to opt them out. However, the only reason I can think of for any parent to want this information withheld from their young adults, is fear that they may develop an opposite opinion to the one they hold themselves.

Yellow_Fern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122823346#Comment_122823346

Well academics in DCU are trying to encourage teachers to teach this.

Rote learning has a place. It is essential in computer science, engneering, maths and languages. It enables critical thinking and does so much better than project work which can be gamed with ChatGPT or parents help. The idea that regurgitating facts is harmful isnt true.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122830636#Comment_122830636

As someone who has LGBTQ and gender-diverse friends, (and friends with gender-diverse children), in my experience, literally all they expect (and all they ask for) is tolerance so they can live their lives how they choose along with some basic respect (e.g. referred to by their preferred names and pronouns).

Tbh I dunno what Kaiser is aiming for with their ideas about what other people are entitled to expect, particularly when it’s not remotely consistent with international human rights law or Irish law for that matter, but nobody has to expect or tolerate that sort of behaviour from anyone. Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

On this particular point though:

This is why I firmly believe and support that information on gender diversity is included in the SPHE Programme and available to any young adults who may have questions (Q is for Questioning). They should be able to ask those questions in a safe and neutral place (which may not be their homes) of an adult trained to inform and support them in an unbiased fashion. Which (as this thread has shown) some parents may not be able to do. 

There is provision that any parent who feels strongly enough about it, and does not want their young adults included in the SPHE programme as it is now, has the right to opt them out. However, the only reason I can think of for any parent to want this information withheld from their young adults, is fear that they may develop an opposite opinion to the one they hold themselves.

Because the SPHE / RSE curriculum is not neutral, and because it is up to the Board of Management of the school to determine how the SPHE / RSE curriculum is to be implemented and delivered in the school, the course content and how it is delivered can vary greatly from one school to another, primarily depending upon the ethos of the school, which is a stumbling block for the form of SPHE which some people (be they parents, teachers, Principals, external service providers, politicians, etc), would wish to see delivered in Irish schools. While there is considerable agreement and support for the idea of a comprehensive and holistic approach to SPHE / RSE, the form that education should take, tends to vary considerably:

In discussing the conditions needed to enable effective RSE we must acknowledge the role that school ethos plays. In 2007, Maynock et al., concluded that

the issue of school ethos, and its impacts on RSE, remains shrouded in ambiguity, leading to personal interpretations of 'ethos' on the part of teachers and differences in how they approach the content of RSE. (p. 30)

Likewise, this review found a degree of ambiguity in regard to how people perceive school ethos and how it affects a school's approach to RSE. A spectrum of views was expressed, from those who contend that school ethos is a barrier to effective RSE to those who express school ethos as an enabling framework for effective RSE; although it is interesting to note that across all school types, advocates for a comprehensive and holistic approach to RSE were in evidence and vocal.

https://ncca.ie/media/4462/report-on-the-review-of-relationships-and-sexuality-education-rse-in-primary-and-post-primary-school.pdf


to the point where it’s understandable that some people assume that parents who do not wish for their children to participate in SPHE / RSE are afraid of their children developing a particular view which differs from their own (and that doesn’t just apply in the context of SPHE / RSE), but that view overlooks or ignores the fact that for many parents, they simply don’t share those values or beliefs and don’t wish to share in them or promote them or have their children participate in their application to Irish society.

It’s really not all that difficult to understand if it’s framed in terms of something which everyone is familiar with already, and for that there’s the example of Richard Dawkins claiming there’s no such thing as a Christian child, or a Muslim child, etc, as if that’s a neutral position:

https://richarddawkins.net/2018/08/jewish-child-muslim-child-christian-child/

That idea clearly didn’t take off as Richard hoped it would, not because anyone was afraid that their children would develop an opposite opinion to the one they hold themselves, but simply because people did not share Dawkins views.

to the point where it’s understandable that some people assume that parents who do not wish for their children to participate in SPHE / RSE are afraid of their children developing a particular view which differs from their own (and that doesn’t just apply in the context of SPHE / RSE), but that view overlooks or ignores the fact that for many parents, they simply don’t share those values or beliefs and don’t wish share in them or promote them or have their children participate in their application to Irish society.

No it doesn't. Then their option is to opt their children out.

Not have the whole content they "don't wish to share in or promote" removed entirely, and therefore made inaccessible or unavailable to anyone else's children, simply because they don't want their children to participate.

It happens all the time in catholic primary schools, where children are opted out of religion and do not participate in communion or confirmation.

The same principal should apply here.

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122833769#Comment_122833769

Of course it also pays to be sure what "opting out" actually looks like in practice.

If they are just being left down the back of the class and ignored, then A) they are still in the class where the material you are opting out of is being taught and so they are still essentially being taught it and B) You are essentially being shunned/othered by being left there ignored while everyone else gets on with it and participates.

Or if the parent is expected to take time out of their work day and come to extract and then return that child during those periods, this might not be workable for many. But schools can often say they do not have the staff/facilities/resources to cater for kids to leave any particular classroom at a given time and go elsewhere.

With religion for example - also a big problem Atheist Ireland used to complain about is that there was an "integrated curriculum". Which meant that while you might think you are opting your child specifically out of religion - religious ideas, iconography, practices, concepts and so forth were integrated in various ways throughout the rest of the curriculum.

The concept of "opt out" is great in theory - but it is worth looking at the actual practice your own child's school actually implement when you avail. Just to ensure their implementation actually matches what you think you are requesting.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122833769#Comment_122833769

Why should a majority of parents have to remove their children from an important subject because some want to push their ideology ??

Beliefs should be addressed but questioned - ALL beliefs, if it's not proved it is fair game for questioning and I speak as a Mass going Catholic. Bring on the questions and criticism!

It's why we don't teach intelligent design or creationism in science classes - and if you want to "educate" your child on beliefs rather than facts then you can teach them separately.

SPHE education should cover healthy relationships, that porn is not real (and if a boy tells you that he'd love you if you let him choke you, introduce his special little place to a boot!), it should warn how coercive control can start with a simple step - and how to extricate oneself from a bad relationship.

And more importantly whether you are gay, straight, bisexual or just not sure - you have the right to say no and you have the right to be happy in whatever relationship fits your sexual orientation, or - and this is key for kids these days - you have the right to NOT be in a relationship, it's not compulsory. Sadly I heard a young girl not long back saying "I know he stops me seeing mammy and daddy but it's better than being alone".

Teach kids that is not the case.

SPHE is meant to protect kids and introduce them to world they might not yet be ready for - it's not to further an agenda and NGOs and pressure groups should not be given a foot in the door when planning classes.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122833827#Comment_122833827

I've seen no indication that a majority of parents want to pull their kids out of sphe. It seems to be a minority of people who also seem to think gript is a credible news source.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122833827#Comment_122833827

What majority?

Hotblack Desiato

A majority of parents? Are you kidding or just live in an echo chamber?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122833824#Comment_122833824

Quite frankly, I think that is up to the parents to consider and resolve, if they wish to opt their children out.

The answer to their problem with the content of the curriculum, should not be the blanket removal of the parts they don't approve of, or they don't want taught to their children, at the expense of someone else's children missing out on that information.

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122834101#Comment_122834101

Quite frankly, that was my point :-) :-P Because if you read my post, that is all I said. That if a parent is considering availing of any option to "opt out" in school (Religion, SPHE, anything else) they should A) Look what that physically and logistically actually means in practice in their particular school and B) Inquire if the material they believe they are opting out of is integrated into any part of the school day which they are not opting out of.

That said though - I would still say caution is warranted around any "at the expense of someone else's children" narrative. Take creationism for example. You might want this taught to your kids and think not having it is at the "expense of your children" just because some other parent does not want it taught to theirs. And if so where does it stop? What ideology, nonsense, woo, agenda or worse can not fall under the purview of the "at the expense of someone else's children" narrative?

What's wrong with the opposite narrative too? That teaching someone elses nonsense is at the expense of all the other children who have to go through it too? That narrative can work both ways. Again, where does that stop?

Worse if a parent wants to "opt out" of just one or two particular pieces of material that is weaved throughout an otherwise beneficial and desirable course subject - that is as Vote4Squirrels said above rather unfortunate. Opting out becomes unworkable if it means opting out 100% just to effectively opt out of 3%

So it is still incumbent, parents or not, to question in an ongoing basis what is being taught to our children. "Our" in this case being the children of society as a whole. And it goes a little further therefore than merely whether I want my children taught X or not. We can all invest some time in policing the curriculum and see if any additions to it are actually warranted or beneficial. Or if blanket removal or just a better approach is warranted, such as the difference between teaching creationism or teaching ABOUT creationism as part of a comprehensive "world religions" course. And so on.

In other words I would not just want to have my children opted out of something - or hell to even HAVE children at all - to have an opinion on whether something would be better removed from a curriculum. I should have the same level of say as a person with no children at all. Having children does not give one any particular level of expertise on either being a parent or being an educator.

All better than a simple (simplistic?) "Opt out or get over it" style of approach I would say.

In the end it comes down to exactly what is being taught and why. At which point I am out of the conversation because I have no notion of what's to be included in any new material / curriculum at this time. I'll leave that part of the conversation to others for now until such time as I ever get around to learning more :) Of my own 4 kids only the youngest is at an age to potentially be affected by any change upcoming to the primary curriculum. But by the time they fully implement and roll it out I reckon even he will barely brush off it, if at all.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122834375#Comment_122834375

All better than a simple (simplistic?) "Opt out or get over it" style of approach I would say.

I'm trying to keep it succinct. ;)

The bottom line is there has always been and always will be parents who want an "a la carte" menu when it comes to what their children are taught.

If asked, most schools will do their best to facilitate parents' wishes - my own daughter's secondary time-tabled religion / SPHE as either the first/last class of the day or before/after lunch, so pupils who didn't participate, could simply arrive later or leave earlier.

If they have a problem with a particular module, then parents can speak to the teacher, find out when it's being taught and excuse their kids for that day. There is nothing preventing their kids from participating in the rest of the course, but even at that, there will be some who will simply never be happy. They are the ones who need to get over it. :)

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122834451#Comment_122834451

Hehehe "succinct" is a life skill that I am perpetually in awe of and merely observe in others with a level of confusion mixed with jealousy. :-)

I agree that parents will always have individual hopes for what children will be taught. Therefore no curriculum will ever be perfect. For example of all the things my children have learned that have benefitted them in ways you might not even guess at - Jujitsu has been the top 1. I lament the fact that every child in Ireland doesn't get it in school. But I do not campaign for that either. Instead I teach it to my kids myself as I happen to be a teacher of it.

So if we can not offer "al a carte" as you put it (at least not until we replace all teachers with AI like Vulcan School youtube.com/watch?v=KvMxLpce3Xw which is scarily plausible) the best we as a society can do is chip away a curriculum that maximises the relevance and benefit of it's content to the most amount of kids, the most amount of the time. And including any old nonsense under the rubric like "Don't like it, then opt out and jog on" is not really conducive to that ideal.

I agree with you that most school tend to "Do their best". But what their "best" is can be very limited due to resources. So it just pays to be 100% sure what "opt out" actually means rather than simply informing the school you "opt out" and moving on.

It reminds me of the time I told my kids I saw a poster that was "as big as the wall!" and my child astutely asked "Well how big was the wall?". The relevance of "doing your best" sounds great and all - until you realize it is entirely dependent on what that "best" actually entails :)

The Teach Dont Preach website in Ireland for example often talk about how the "best" a school could offer was to move the kid down to the back of the class and ignore them. I'd love to know how this is "opting out" in any meaningful way.

https://teachdontpreach.ie/2022/04/stop-saying-opt-out-the-right-is-to-not-attend/

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122834529#Comment_122834529

Like I said, schools can't please everyone, and there will always be someone who will not be happy.

taxAHcruel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122834706#Comment_122834706

True. But that's a problem. Not just an "Awwww shucks" moment. If you look at the link I closed my last post with it points out that you do not actually have a right to "opt out". You have a constitutionally given right to specifically NOT ATTEND.

If true then a school not facilitating that is related to your constitutional rights. A little more serious than just trying to "please everyone" wouldn't you say? Of course the school can just say "Well come take your child out of that class and look after them then!" I guess to get out of it. But as you say a school can offer to do their "best". But "Best" is relative. So it pays to ask questions and just be aware if the school's "best" is sticking them down the back of the self same class room.

Edit: To be honest though since I have never availed of it, I actually do not know how comprehensive your ability to "opt out" of anything actually is? The constitution refers to "not attending" in relation to religious instruction. While some people might describe modern gender ideology as a religion - I think most people do not. So someone more informed on such things than me would have to explain how "opting out" of non religious stuff goes. Do people with a weird impression of Al-Ghazali have the right to opt their children out of mathematics for example? I surely hope not.

TaurenDruid

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122831489#Comment_122831489

I never said rote learning doesn't have a place in education? That's how you learn all the capitals of European countries, or a vocabulary of 3,000 or so Irish or French or German words.

But if you're studying history I'd like you to be able to understand the different views of the proximate causes of the famine, why it was as bad as it was, and so on, rather than you just knowing 'the Great Famine started in 1847 and resulted in a halving of Ireland's population,' or whatever particular facts and opinions the author of the particular history book you're using deems relevant.

taxAHcruel

^ An example Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave on the subject of "rote learning" was from a time he was invited to a school or something. And he was talking to the kids. He asked how many of the kids could name the planets. Pretty much all of them could. Most of them using a pneumonic like "My Very Extravagant Mother Just Sat Under North Pole" (if they were still on the 9 planet system of course hehehe).

He then asked which one of them could say what a planet actually is. Not a single one of them could.

There is definitely a place for rote learning I wholly agree. But it's a shame a lot more of what we teach in schools is less about learning off the low level data (like the name of a planet, which anyone can google anyway these days) and not more about learning slightly higher level stuff (like what a planet even is).

In a world where the most basic data is electronically available in a way it was not 20 years ago - perhaps moving more towards teaching the meta, the higher level unifying concepts in which such data fits, and so on is actually a better approach.

In the terms of teaching children about stuff like the things mentioned on this thread though - I know how I teach my children that stuff. I do it in a way that probably has the exact same effect that people want the mentioned course material to have - but perhaps in an even better and more effective way for a few reasons. And I do not think many on any side of the related debates would find themselves triggered if they were a fly on the wall listening to me do it either :)