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
School patronage
Options
Comments
-
-
-
That's more like the cordial, robust responses I'm used to in our conversations (I did think earlier you'd gotten out the wrong side of the bed this morning
).Not really. A philosophy need not involve itself with probability from an objective perspective, it might be rule based or belief based and dismiss contradictory observation. Many philosophies also have a strong ethical element, e.g. secularism, Confucianism, Taoism or Christian philosophy, and as such tend deal with notions of 'good and bad' whereas critical thinking deals with 'likely or unlikely'. Many philosophies are compatible with critical thinking, e.g. secularism, others less so, e.g. dogmatic, religiously derived and belief based philosophies.
I agree with you in so far as a philosophy need not involve itself with probability from an objective perspective and so on, but regarding the idea of critical thinking being taught in schools, proponents of the idea aren't generally viewing it as an objective and methodology, but rather as a means to eliminate what they perceive to be BS which is already being taught in education. Their objective carries an underlying moral imperative not to evaluate ideas in terms of likely or unlikely, but rather to dismiss outright any notions of other philosophies which they regard as either good or bad - secularism good, religion bad. Their belief in the power of critical thinking is inherently dogmatic, because they view critical thinking as the solution to the problem, as opposed to using it in it's traditionally regarded understanding as a means and methodology to evaluate abstract ideas objectively, not unlike as it were - the scientific method, which has become tarnished IMO by science popularisers such as the main proponents behind the idea of evolutionary psychology, which in reality IMO is just pseudoscience. I'm using evolutionary psychology as an example here but it could probably be best developed in it's own thread.
The point I'm making I suppose is that modern understandings of critical thinking, appear to me at least to be no more than just a popular buzz-word for some people as a front to promote their own underlying beliefs without any real understanding of the actual principles of critical thinking as a methodology. I would view it's recent promotion in Western academia as no more than just cherry-picking, a criticism often made of religious philosophies, which to be fair has merit, but then it isn't any different from cherry-picking ideas we like from philosophies such as Buddishm, Taoism, Secularism and so on. We're not evaluating likely or unlikely there - we're determining what is good and bad based entirely upon what our prejudices bias us either towards or against. Essentially we're doing what we're supposed to be rallying against - cherry-picking based upon our own individual morals, and dressing it up as a valid philosophy. Turns out you actually can make a silk purse out of a pigs ear with the right tools and materials.False dichotomy. I'm for teaching children how to think as opposed to what to think. I'm critical or teaching supposed truths by rote and would rather children were taught to be inquisitive and critical.
I don't agree that it's a false dichotomy, you're still having to teach children a way to think, and hope that they utilise the way you've taught them to think in how they evaluate information. This goes back to what I meant earlier when I said alluded to the point that critical thinking is a natural process anyway. Humans are already inquisitive and critical and children even more so than adults because they lack both the information and the faculties to properly evaluate new information - effectively they have very little basis upon which to form a conclusion one way or the other about new information they are presented with. One of the most common refrains from children is often "Whyyyyyy?", repeatedly, and it appears tirelessly, much to the chagrin of their adult guardians
Left to their own devices however, they come up with all manner of fantastical and often quite elaborate explanations and conclusions for phenomena they observe, also often much to the chagrin of their adult guardians, which is why we have people in society who want to teach children to think like they do, rather than leaving children to their own devices in their natural inquisitive and critical state, because the idea of those children becoming adults who continue to think for themselves is an affront to some people's philosophy. Therefore I can completely understand why a child's guardian or guardians would not wish for them to be exposed to philosophies which contradict that guardians philosophy. I am at least willing to admit that I do not wish my child to be exposed to philosophies which contradict my philosophy. I don't seek to dress up my prejudice in buzz-words like "critical thinking". I have no issue with other people who wish to teach their own children their philosophy. My position is no different to your objection to a philosophy you don't wish to be pushed on your children. I would view such attempts to do so as disrespectful of other people, in either direction.Far from it. As with scientific method, critical thinking involves observation, testing, refinement and realising that you will be wrong more often than you're right. Critical thinking does not involve acting primarily on your beliefs or opinions, it involves analysing the available information with all the biases that it includes, and taking a position on that basis. That our understanding of critical thinking is changing and growing is entirely positive and to be expected. Our understanding of everything changes and grows, however much it distresses the Luddites and Flat earthers.
And just as the scientific method is misused to further people's beliefs about other people, so too is critical thinking misused to further people's beliefs about other people, because the method which is used to arrive at any conclusion is predicated upon assumed hypotheses which are based upon prior knowledge. Children generally don't have a lot of prior knowledge so will only ever be able to form limited conclusions from the limited information they have. It's an issue that already plagues the social sciences -
WEIRD subjects (perhaps you were one?) are still human, of course, so you might think that what’s generalizable to them must be generalizable to the rest of humanity. But in fact, that’s not the case. WEIRD subjects, from countries that represent only about 12 percent of the world’s population, differ from other populations in moral decision making, reasoning style, fairness, even things like visual perception. This is because a lot of these behaviors and perceptions are based on the environments and contexts in which we grew up. There’s a big dose of sociology in our psychology. For example, WEIRD people are better at optical illusions involving line length, possibly because our environments contain a lot of straight lines in things like buildings.
Goodness knows what Western students would make of hijira people for example, as their understanding of gender and sexuality doesn't map very well to Western understanding of gender, sex and sexuality. It's difficult for adults in Western society to get their heads around these concepts which contradict their understanding, let alone point out that they're often wrong more than they're right, because it's distressing for them to have to process this new and contradictory information - they will inevitably try and parse it through their own perspective which is based upon their own understanding of their own previous experiences and their own biases, more often coming to the conclusion that it's other people are weird, not them.Better a benign methodology than a clearly malignant theology, methinks.
Now that's a false dichotomy! But I don't believe you intend it that way. However if you are going to present an argument for evaluation, surely it would be incumbent upon you to present it in the form of one or the other -
A comparison between a benign methodology and a benign theology, or a comparison between a malignant methodology and a malignant theology. Otherwise you're demonstrating my point exactly - you're saying you want to teach children how to think rather than what to think, yet how you teach them will be influenced by your own prejudices, which it has to be pointed out, aren't objective when you have already drawn your own conclusions and are using those as the basis for how you want to teach children how to think.
Of course anything which is benign would be better to teach children than something which is malignant, but wouldn't that equally apply to any idea, and on what basis are you making your evaluation if not your own prejudices and biases which are formed not by any objective evaluation, but by your own perceptions and experiences? I don't share either your perceptions or experiences so I even if I were to use the same methodology as you do, it's unlikely we would form the same objective conclusions about a given methodology or theology, and entirely likely we would still both think we had come to a conclusion we perceive to be a logical one.It would be a very weak argument. Once we gained the ability to write and archive information, humanity began to accumulate knowledge. Some doubtless gets lost over time but at nowhere near the rate of discovery. That there are many ignorant individuals, and that some knowledge may only exist in archive rather than in the mind of any given person, doesn't mean that knowledge doesn't exist.
Undoubtedly the knowledge still exists, but my point was in relation to the sum of human knowledge, and I don't agree that the rate of discovery actually has changed over time, I would suggest that the rate of dissemination of what knowledge we have has increased over time, largely due to the means we have to communicate that knowledge. That accumulated knowledge isn't going to be disseminated if people see no value in it, and that's why so much of the knowledge that we had accumulated is lost, because it isn't passed on, and given that there are moves to remove history as a compulsory subject in the school curriculum, it would be logical to conclude that the people arguing for history to be removed as a compulsory subject see no value in retaining that knowledge. Santayana would be doing about 9,000RPM in his grave about now :pac:Which evidence precisely?
Well the Age of Enlightenment started off with some great ideas, and it looked for a time like humanity was headed towards a royal flush with the expedient dissemination of knowledge thanks in no small part to as you alluded earlier the invention of the printing press, but in the Age of Social Media, that knowledge appears to be of very little value to people who appear to be more concerned with keeping up with the Kardashians and celebrity culture.You couldn't be more wrong on this one. AI, notably deep learning in its current incarnation, is all about making informed decisions based on identifying patterns in data under analysis that are similar to patterns in a much large set of training data. MIT did a brief collation of studies on jobs that will be lost or created due to AI last year here. I've recently finished a part time course myself on convolutional neural nets, which while done initially out of interest in learning the subject matter, has already had a positive impact on how I work. What I think you'll see in ERP in the coming years will be existing decision support systems replaced with what amount to decision making systems, with far few actual planners required.
Yes, that's what AI is about, I'm not disputing that. What I was alluding to is the fact that those decisions will ultimately be made by whoever sits between the computer and the chair - input bad data, and inevitably you get back what you put in. However what I was specifically referring to is that it is humans who will decide what information is relevant, and when it is relevant to use that information. As I said - rather than the questions of how and why, what's more important is deciding how we use the data we collect, and when to use it, and that's where the power comes from. We have seen numerous examples of it with the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and people are sitting very uncomfortably in their seats with recent proposals from coming from the EU to amalgamate the knowledge they have into one "monster" database -
EU pushes to link tracking databases
Decision making systems do already exist in ERP, but ultimately decisions are still made by humans, fallible and all as we are, which is what I was alluding to with Spike Jonze's vision of the future - I don't envision it will happen any time soon that AI will decide for itself that humanity just isn't worth the trouble and decides to trot off into the virtual sunset leaving us in the lurch MIT by their own admission, from your link, don't know what are the likely outcomes of AI either -
In short, although these predictions are made by dozens of global experts in economics and technology, no one seems to be on the same page. There is really only one meaningful conclusion: we have no idea how many jobs will actually be lost to the march of technological progress.
If only all these global experts in economics and technology had been taught to think critically in school, they might then be on the same page
It's unlikely though
I do enjoy a bit of sci-fi and was amazed as a kid that Kirk had a little communicator he could talk into, and Picard had a super-computer he could ask questions of and actually get a response from. Alexa! Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!
I was always more intrigued by Rodenberry's vision of the future of humanity and the interaction with alien worlds. I will admit though that some people are fascinated that I can command the Google Mini to play the latest episode of Star Trek Discovery on Netflix, and my tv turns on and up it comes. Kinda spoils the mystery when I explain them how it's done, and many of them still can't wrap their heads around it - it's not like I'm programming a VCR here, that would require I RTFM 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
One eyed Jack wrote: »That's more like the cordial, robust responses I'm used to in our conversations (I did think earlier you'd gotten out the wrong side of the bed this morning).
Could be, but I'll maintain the position that referring to critical thinking as ideological bull suggests you swallowed a wrong pill somewhere.I agree with you in so far as a philosophy need not involve itself with probability from an objective perspective and so on, but regarding the idea of critical thinking being taught in schools, proponents of the idea aren't generally viewing it as an objective and methodology, but rather as a means to eliminate what they perceive to be BS which is already being taught in education. Their objective carries an underlying moral imperative not to evaluate ideas in terms of likely or unlikely, but rather to dismiss outright any notions of other philosophies which they regard as either good or bad - secularism good, religion bad. Their belief in the power of critical thinking is inherently dogmatic, because they view critical thinking as the solution to the problem, as opposed to using it in it's traditionally regarded understanding as a means and methodology to evaluate abstract ideas objectively, not unlike as it were - the scientific method, which has become tarnished IMO by science popularisers such as the main proponents behind the idea of evolutionary psychology, which in reality IMO is just pseudoscience. I'm using evolutionary psychology as an example here but it could probably be best developed in it's own thread.
You're quite right in stating that critical thinking can be an effective BS filter, and very many people consider religious instruction falls into the category of BS when taught to someone who is not a member of that religious tradition.The point I'm making I suppose is that modern understandings of critical thinking, appear to me at least to be no more than just a popular buzz-word for some people as a front to promote their own underlying beliefs without any real understanding of the actual principles of critical thinking as a methodology. I would view it's recent promotion in Western academia as no more than just cherry-picking, a criticism often made of religious philosophies, which to be fair has merit, but then it isn't any different from cherry-picking ideas we like from philosophies such as Buddishm, Taoism, Secularism and so on. We're not evaluating likely or unlikely there - we're determining what is good and bad based entirely upon what our prejudices bias us either towards or against. Essentially we're doing what we're supposed to be rallying against - cherry-picking based upon our own individual morals, and dressing it up as a valid philosophy. Turns out you actually can make a silk purse out of a pigs ear with the right tools and materials.
That could well be true, but then people bandy around all sorts of buzz words they don't understand. This is not a problem with critical thinking, it is one of people not understanding critical thinking which could be remedied by teaching them critical thinking. If you're cherry picking to suit your prejudices that is the polar opposite of critical thinking. And no, you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear, a silk purse requires silk, in much the same way as turning water into wine requires addition of grapes and yeast, so I reckon you've been sold a dud there.I don't agree that it's a false dichotomy, you're still having to teach children a way to think, and hope that they utilise the way you've taught them to think in how they evaluate information. This goes back to what I meant earlier when I said alluded to the point that critical thinking is a natural process anyway. Humans are already inquisitive and critical and children even more so than adults because they lack both the information and the faculties to properly evaluate new information - effectively they have very little basis upon which to form a conclusion one way or the other about new information they are presented with. One of the most common refrains from children is often "Whyyyyyy?", repeatedly, and it appears tirelessly, much to the chagrin of their adult guardians
Been through that with two very inquisitive kids. When they ask 'why?' the stock response that worked for me was 'what do you think?'. That's changed in recent years with my eldest studying physics and maths in college. These days I ask her 'how?' as often as she does of me, though old age and treachery still overcomes youth and skill
Left to their own devices however, they come up with all manner of fantastical and often quite elaborate explanations and conclusions for phenomena they observe, also often much to the chagrin of their adult guardians
Wonderful, isn't it? One of the things I love as a parent., which is why we have people in society who want to teach children to think like they do, rather than leaving children to their own devices in their natural inquisitive and critical state, because the idea of those children becoming adults who continue to think for themselves is an affront to some people's philosophy. Therefore I can completely understand why a child's guardian or guardians would not wish for them to be exposed to philosophies which contradict that guardians philosophy. I am at least willing to admit that I do not wish my child to be exposed to philosophies which contradict my philosophy. I don't seek to dress up my prejudice in buzz-words like "critical thinking". I have no issue with other people who wish to teach their own children their philosophy. My position is no different to your objection to a philosophy you don't wish to be pushed on your children. I would view such attempts to do so as disrespectful of other people, in either direction.
I agree critical thinking can undermine religious belief. The same could be said of teaching evolution in science to a creationist or that the earth is an oblate spheroid to a flat earther in geography. All of which seem rather mild when compared say to teaching that an unrepentant atheist will suffer in hell for all eternity, which is what is taught in many Irish schools. Freedom of belief does not mean that the belief system is placed beyond reasonable criticism. Religion aside, we live in a world of anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, crystal rubbers, reiki practitioners and various other weird and wonderful notional beliefs. I have no problem in allowing each and every one of them celebrate their belief, but nor is this a reason to allow a school not to teach science.And just as the scientific method is misused to further people's beliefs about other people, so too is critical thinking misused to further people's beliefs about other people, because the method which is used to arrive at any conclusion is predicated upon assumed hypotheses which are based upon prior knowledge.
You seem to misunderstand both critical thinking and scientific method here. Both seek to revise our current best understanding of what we're investigating through analysis of observation. Religious and philosophical dogma is the opposite of this, in that they deal with articles of faith that they deem to be true and are beyond question.Undoubtedly the knowledge still exists, but my point was in relation to the sum of human knowledge, and I don't agree that the rate of discovery actually has changed over time, I would suggest that the rate of dissemination of what knowledge we have has increased over time, largely due to the means we have to communicate that knowledge.
Well, unless the rate of discovery has fallen below the rate at which existing knowledge has been either lost or refuted, the sum total of human knowledge is increasing. I would also argue that the rate of discovery has increased as new discoveries will be made in proportion to the overall population's size, their level of education and the time they can commit to the task. All three of these things are far greater now than at any time in the past.Well the Age of Enlightenment started off with some great ideas, and it looked for a time like humanity was headed towards a royal flush with the expedient dissemination of knowledge thanks in no small part to as you alluded earlier the invention of the printing press, but in the Age of Social Media, that knowledge appears to be of very little value to people who appear to be more concerned with keeping up with the Kardashians and celebrity culture.
You do you realise you just wrote that comment on a somewhat archaic form of social media?Yes, that's what AI is about, I'm not disputing that. What I was alluding to is the fact that those decisions will ultimately be made by whoever sits between the computer and the chair - input bad data, and inevitably you get back what you put in.
To an extent, but there will be far fewer chairs.However what I was specifically referring to is that it is humans who will decide what information is relevant, and when it is relevant to use that information. As I said - rather than the questions of how and why, what's more important is deciding how we use the data we collect, and when to use it, and that's where the power comes from.
Which nicely illustrates the value of critical thinkingIn short, although these predictions are made by dozens of global experts in economics and technology, no one seems to be on the same page. There is really only one meaningful conclusion: we have no idea how many jobs will actually be lost to the march of technological progress.
If only all these global experts in economics and technology had been taught to think critically in school, they might then be on the same page
It's unlikely though
They have applied critical thinking and the MIT have applied it to their results. What they're saying is that while we qualitatively understand that many current jobs will become obsolete as a result of AI, we have yet to reach consensus on what that will mean quantitatively. With critical thinking, as with science, it is perfectly reasonable and very common not reach the definitive results you were hoping for.I was always more intrigued by Rodenberry's vision of the future of humanity and the interaction with alien worlds. I will admit though that some people are fascinated that I can command the Google Mini to play the latest episode of Star Trek Discovery on Netflix, and my tv turns on and up it comes. Kinda spoils the mystery when I explain them how it's done, and many of them still can't wrap their heads around it - it's not like I'm programming a VCR here, that would require I RTFM
I liked space opera sci-fi as a kid and to some extent as an adult, but Star Trek and Star Wars leave me cold at this point in time. Got back into Doctor Who when the kids were a bit younger, but these days we're more a Rick and Morty and Love, Death and Robots kind of household. Oh, and my youngest is Tank Girl.0 -
Could be, but I'll maintain the position that referring to critical thinking as ideological bull suggests you swallowed a wrong pill somewhere.
I should clarify that when I sugested critical thinking was bull, it wasn't at all the methodology I was being critical of, but rather how the term itself - "critical thinking", has become something of a buzz-word to disguise it's proponents underlying prejudices against religion.
I don't object whatsoever to what I understand is both our understanding of critical thinking as a methodology, what I object to is critical thinking as it is regarded almost as a replacement philosophy for religion. In effect what you're saying below nails it (no pun intended) - that proponents of the buzz-word "critical thinking" think that it will undermine religion because they are of the belief that people who are religious do not use the methodology in respect of their religious beliefs.
I can understand that may be how it appears to those people, but that assumption is based upon their perception and prejudice, assuming that because people who are religious do not share their beliefs, religious people can't have thought critically about their beliefs.
My comment with regard to the article and the MIT students and global experts was intended to be tongue-in-cheek rather than actually suggesting that they hadn't thought critically about their beliefs before giving their opinions, I have no basis upon which to argue that they didn't, I'll take it on good faith that they did, which is why I'm not surprised that there was no consensus in their opinions with regard to the impact of AI on the future of the nature of employment. Without ever having read the article I would have suggested that of course the nature of employment will change in the future given the influence of AI on employment. In just the same way as both the agricultural and industrial revolutions changed the nature of employment, so too will the technological revolution we are currently experiencing change the nature of employment. I imagine that the labour market will look just as different in 100 years time as the effect the agricultural and industrial revolutions had on society - positions will become redundant, and new positions will be created, and the people whose positions were previously made redundant will either have to upskill, retrain or simply exit the labour market.You're quite right in stating that critical thinking can be an effective BS filter, and very many people consider religious instruction falls into the category of BS when taught to someone who is not a member of that religious tradition.
Undoubtedly very many people consider religious instruction falls into the category of BS when they're being instructed in something that they simply cannot relate to on any level, one doesn't need to employ critical thinking methodology to evaluate something that is painfully obvious to them. It's very easy to simply not entertain the idea of religion, religious traditions and so on when one is not a member of that religious tradition. This is what I was referring to earlier when I said that this forum would not be as active as it is with Irish atheists who would have been taught religious instruction and are surrounded by religious tradition - I don't believe for a minute that they all employed the methodology of critical thinking to evaluate the truth claims of what they were learning. Many of them will simply have been unable to relate to it on any level, and categorised it as BS on that basis. And that's fine! It's not necessary to justify their position to anyone else, and if someone tries to impose their beliefs upon that person, I would hope that they have the capacity to inform the person that they do not welcome the imposition, and if the imposition were to continue, I would view it as entirely justifiable for the person to tell the person imposing their beliefs upon that person, to PFO! :pac:That could well be true, but then people bandy around all sorts of buzz words they don't understand. This is not a problem with critical thinking, it is one of people not understanding critical thinking which could be remedied by teaching them critical thinking. If you're cherry picking to suit your prejudices that is the polar opposite of critical thinking. And no, you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear, a silk purse requires silk, in much the same way as turning water into wine requires addition of grapes and yeast, so I reckon you've been sold a dud there.
I agree with your take on critical thinking and teaching people who imagine that they are thinking critically to actually use the principles and methodology of critical thinking, but again you would face the same issue of people being unable to relate to what they're learning, and on that basis regarding it as BS. Again, y'know, fair enough.
As for these lying bastards... :pac:
Report: "On the Making of Silk Purses from Sows' Ears," 1921I agree critical thinking can undermine religious belief. The same could be said of teaching evolution in science to a creationist or that the earth is an oblate spheroid to a flat earther in geography. All of which seem rather mild when compared say to teaching that an unrepentant atheist will suffer in hell for all eternity, which is what is taught in many Irish schools. Freedom of belief does not mean that the belief system is placed beyond reasonable criticism. Religion aside, we live in a world of anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, crystal rubbers, reiki practitioners and various other weird and wonderful notional beliefs. I have no problem in allowing each and every one of them celebrate their belief, but nor is this a reason to allow a school not to teach science.
I think we're pretty much agreed on the idea of "to each their own", but for what it's worth, if I was aware that someone were attempting to teach my child that unrepentant atheists will go to hell, I'd be having words with that particular individual, rather than being focussed on assuming it's a particularly common belief that is taught to children in modern Irish education. That would appear to me at least to be the individual allowing their own prejudices to influence how they are educating the children in their care.You seem to misunderstand both critical thinking and scientific method here. Both seek to revise our current best understanding of what we're investigating through analysis of observation. Religious and philosophical dogma is the opposite of this, in that they deal with articles of faith that they deem to be true and are beyond question.
In their benign form, absolutely critical thinking and the scientific method seek to revise our current understanding of what we're investigating through analysis and observation, and the same is true of theology and philosophy, but what I was referring to is the "buzz word" perspectives of critical thinking and the scientific method, or the misuse and misunderstanding of the scientific method and critical thinking to promote ideas like male and female brains, racism, ethnic genocide, etc. For many years, many of these ideas were beyond question. It would be untrue to suggest that Christianity now for example bears any resemblance to it's origins. Christian traditions and beliefs in the modern world even vary from country to country, never mind over the millennia since it's foundation. Even Roman Catholicism has it's factions in the Vatican where the concept of the devils advocate had it's origins as an official position within the Church, a position which was made redundant, but still Christopher Hitchens was asked to testify at the beatification hearings of Mother Teresa.
My point being that the Church is not only acutely aware of the fact that people question their faith and the articles of their faith, the Church actively encourages it, but it is also true to say that some people within the Church itself do not allow for people to question their faith, and do not wish for them to question their faith, and will do everything in their power to discourage people from questioning their faith or the articles of their faith. Those types of people exist in every system and organisation, much like the teacher we discussed previously.You do you realise you just wrote that comment on a somewhat archaic form of social media?
I do, but I was referring to far larger social media platforms than this one. I also understand that Boards participates in a national archiving project, so I can only imagine the expression on the poor slack-jawed unfortunate who is tasked with evaluating the contribution of Boards to Irish society at some point in the future. I haven't decided whether their expression would be a Picard "wtf is this?" moment, or a Picard facepalm, or indeed both :pac:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
-
-
-
-
byhookorbycrook wrote: »I wonder why a multi-d school would use a Catholic agency to deliver some RSE?Something seems off.
The CoI my kids go to does too.
Most teachers don't want to touch this with a bargepole and I'm not sure what other providers if any are out there.
I wouldn't trust Accord myself, and we considered withdrawing our child, but we'll find out soon enough whether they are putting a 'spin' on it in non-catholic schools, and we will probably prime our kid with a few awkward questions to ask Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement