Religion and Engaging with the Teacher
Comments
-
We probably spends double that on an unspoken language, that is not used anywhere else in the world. I be seriously more worried about that.
At the same time we are ahead of world norms by the time we get to the end of 2nd level. Our biggest problem with education is at 2nd level we have no skills/ education balance. We have too many going to third level.
Religion at primary transfers to a total religion/ civics education at 2nd level.
Slava Ukrainii
0 -
Novel, I know, but this shouldn't be up to individuals or families to resolve. The schools that exist at present are not universally as a result of concerted campaigns by parents with religious conviction, the vast majority are a hangover from colonial ineptitude and disinterest when educating the colonised turned out to cost money, which the religious orders had in spades. The COI and RC establishments effectively bought the education system to indoctrinate the masses and perpetuate their control over the 'faithful', in part to avoid proselytising.
Education today is an urban and rural planning issue that is compounded by gross inaction by the powers that be, as the status quo supports their personal preferences and beliefs. This is a disservice to citizens despite the fundamental provision for education in the constitution. Additionally, this constitutional provision has been criticised by the ECHR for not meeting minimum standards in ensuring equal access to education.
By the way, the "religion" provision in the curriculum isn't actually a religion provision per se, its a patron's programme provision. It's about as likely to happen as gravity disappearing tonight while we sleep, but the patron's programme could be changed at any time by the patron. A change in patronage changes the patron's programme. That's why CNS schools have GMGY and ET have Learn Together, not 'religion'.
2 -
The fact you continue your idiotic sock puppet accusation, use hyperbolic language like stuff down people's throat and assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you must be one and the same person because there couldn't possibly be more than one poster who doesn't share your outrage and desire to rail against the education system speaks volumes.
0 -
Indoctrinated 🤣
What are your legally protected beliefs that you are so adamant society should provide you a solution for seeing as you don't have the inclination to do so yourself ?
I don't subscribe to catholic faith any more I must have said it half a dozen times, but I also don't see it harming my kids to involve themselves in the nativity play or some basic religious teachings I'll let them make their own minds up. That's what I did and compared to the rail against everything brigade I think I turned out pretty well all told 😉
0 -
"Our biggest problem with education is at 2nd level we have no skills/ education balance. We have too many going to third level."
Great point and one that I fully agree with although it maybe needs it's own thread.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Without wanting to spoil a good argument, I'd just like to refer to the original post if I may.
What did the OP state on the school enrolment forms?
I work in a National School and it's one of my tasks to handle new enrolments. All enrolment forms clearly ask for the pupils religious background and yes, atheism is one of the options. There is also a section whereby a child can be opted out of religious studies i.e. all the Communion business. A general education in all religions is still on the curriculum, just an overview of the belief systems, which gives kids a greater understanding of their peers and hopefully a less blinkered view on our multi-cultured society.
We are a small school, way out West. There is a small group of pupils who, during confirmation season, will read, catch up on their homework or, when the weather permits, go for (accompanied) walks on the shoreline.
I'm just wondering if the OP originally put RC on their enrolment forms to get into a heavily subscribed, well rated school?
No trees were harmed in the posting of this message, however a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
0 -
But either way, we end up back in the same place. If the State takes money off the citizenry to fund government activities, and doesn't carry out those activities in a way that citizens can generally endorse, people will lack confidence - either in specific activities, the government generally, or in a worst-case scenario in the system in which governments are selected. And unfortunately Ireland does exactly what it shouldn't do, because we tax people on the same basis regardless of their beliefs but we still provide some services on a discriminatory basis. We know that's wrong, and we've even gone to the effort of making laws to say that government services shouldn't behave like that, but we still do it in some areas, especially schools. And as the numbers of non-Catholics grow - not just atheists, but others - the public confidence gap in the school system is likely to grow.
Whatever money the State takes from it’s citizens in the form of taxes is simply consolidated into a general fund to provide for things that are required for the State to function, such as the provision for free education to all of the nation’s children, regardless of how much is or isn’t taken in taxes, from anyone.
The obligation on the State to provide for education is neither predicated upon the religious status, nor on the employment status of it’s citizens. I would also recognise the fact that the State has an obligation to provide for the education of children in this country whose parents are not citizens -
There may well be people who are unsatisfied with how public money is being spent on the basis of how much they contribute in the form of taxes, but the point is that it is not their money that is being spent - the consolidated funds belong to the public.
The State does not discriminate in how it provides for education. One of the qualifying criteria for patron bodies who wish to be considered eligible for public funding for the provision of education services is that they must teach the national curriculum, and their own curriculum which is based upon their ethos is separate from that. All the patron bodies are funded in exactly the same way without discrimination, none are given greater or less favour than any of the others.
They are funded in proportion to their numbers - the RC of course receives the largest share of funding because they are the largest provider of services to the State. Effectively what the State is doing is outsourcing the provision of education to the organisations which provide education. In doing so the State is saving itself a fortune in administration and pensions and so on, which is better for you, the taxpayer who is losing confidence in the States ability to provide value for your money. I’d suggest that for the public services you can avail of funded by public funds, you’re getting a bargain for what you’re expected to pay in taxes.
I'm not sure what this means. We opted for an ET school to avoid exposure to proselytising, but we never wanted (nor did we get) to avoid our child being exposed to religion. Why would anyone want that? Organised religion is a fact of the human condition. In a different way, so is faith. If you're not exposed to those and aware of what they are, your education is limited.
People want it precisely for the reason that they do not see organised religion as part of the human condition, if you want to put it in those terms. For them, organised religion offers no educational value. I can understand where they’re coming from, I feel the same way about mindfulness tbh -
For anyone who does not see the educational value in an idea, they see the promotion of that idea as limiting resources which could be better used to provide the form of education they prefer their children to receive in an institutional setting such as the school.
It’s not discrimination if the form of education which they prefer is not provided by any of the existing education providers whose services are funded by public money. It might constitute discrimination if they were prevented in some way from being able to avail of education which is provided by existing providers and there were no legitimate reason for doing so forthcoming from the education provider.
0 -
It does appear from their opening post that the OP engaged in a bit of mental reservation -
background: it’s a religious primary school, normal enough stuff. She’s in senior infants now. Our family is atheist. Last year we didn’t bring this up for obvious reasons. But we don’t want her praying, being taught anything religious, or anything like that. Neither do we want her singled out and ostracised in the class.
1 -
Nail on the head. More time is spent 'teaching' religious, dogmatic nonsense than science ffs.
The sooner religious groups are eliminated from schools and teaching colleges the better. Communion, confirmation, pocket lining and invisible sky fairy nonsense has no place in a proper society.
3 -
WADR, given my practical and academic background I don't need an introduction to the concepts involved in taxation, appropriation, Votes and Estimates, nor indeed the provisions of the law insofar as they relate to education and schools. In fact, given that a lot of readers and contributors to the T&L forum are public servants and educators, the chances are that many of them know their stuff in this regard. Unfortunately, the primer contained in your post is just that - an introduction to the technicalities, but without consideration of the political and social environment in which those technicalities operate.
In any major area of public policy and services, the public does get a real sense of whether government policy is in tune with their aspirations for society way beyond the limited taxpayer and service user relationship you described. In taking the transactional line that your post does, it doesn't take into account the way in which evolution or disruption to that public sense can change public confidence in a service, a government, or indeed a system, and it doesn't acknowledge the way in which this can in turn strongly influence the "authorising environment" for a service or a government Department or agency.
It's also perhaps worth reminding you that no matter how firmly you or I make declarations about discrimination as though they were fact, they are of course nothing more than our definition. You may have one definition of discrimination and I may have another. They may differ, but neither can be called right in and of itself. The call as to what is and isn't discrimination is made by society at large, and the societal definition of discrimination changes over time. You don't need me to tell you that, but just in case you might have some doubt in your mind, you'll recall that as recently as 7 years ago Irish society collectively made a decision that marriages could be contracted by two persons without distinction as to their sex. Until then, it was assumed that the Constitution barred same-sex marriage, and according to the law that position was not discriminatory. That legal change reflected changes to societal attitudes, but until those changes in attitude took place a majority of people in Ireland would not have regarded a bar on same-sex marriage as discriminatory. That's only one example, but modern Irish history is littered with more.
No doubt there are a few different opinions as to where Ireland is currently as regards societal attitudes to religious patronage of schools, and where the trend in opinion is going. Suffice it to say that the number of people of non-Catholic faiths and of no religion at all is growing, while an increasing number of Catholics are becoming "social" rather than "theological" Catholics. The latter group is important for two reasons. First, because if more and more Catholics see their religion as "social" rather than "personal", they're probably not going to feel all that strongly in favour of Catholic school patronage. Secondly, the same phenomenon of "social" rather than "personal" religion has been seen elsewhere, and Ireland seems to be on the same curve as other countries. Now that only about a third of Irish adults attend church services with any regularity, is there any genuine reason to think Ireland isn't heading in the same direction as (say) Germany or England, where the decline in attendance as been followed by a decline in religious identification? This softening of the status of religion doesn't create an incentive for politicians to make changes, but what it does do is remove a political negative factor for politicians who want to see change. In the 1980s, anyone who wanted to make changes that would limit the reach of Catholicism had to tread carefully, and in some cases it could be political suicide to even articulate such ideas. That's not the case today.
So Ireland is increasingly fertile ground for those who argue that it is time to limit or remove the role of religious patronage in schools - my preference is to limit, but others have a more sweeping vision of reform. More and more people are looking to have changes made, more and more politicians are willing to put their names behind those efforts, and more and more of the public are either supportive of change or are prepared not to offer resistance.
That doesn't mean that Irish society is about to change its definition of discrimination when it comes to schools. But it does mean that it is open to persuasion.
1 -
Advertisement
-
In catholic schools, religion isn't limited to religion class. It is deeply embedded in all aspects of the school, frequent prayers, iconography, time spent preparing for communions and confirmation, school nativity play, school choir singing hymns and more. Opting out of religion class isn't a solution for parents who want their kids to be full members of the school community, rather than some kind of 2nd-class outsiders.
All schools aren't over-subscribed. Some schools, particularly in rural areas, are crying out for more students. One church school near me had an unofficial policy of not turning anyone away. Some schools are oversubscribed. People choose to travel distances to schools for all kinds of reasons, because mummy and daddy want them to go to mummy and daddy's school, because the school is close to their workplace (how's that WFH working out), because of snobbery and more. All ET schools are heavily over subscribed. My local one had 400 applications for the new junior infants class of 25 places, and similar stories are heard around the country. And Donald wants parents to move house to be number 401 on that list as his solution!
Why do you have to exaggerate about what I said. I never said that I didn't want children to be given any education pertaining to religion. I've no difficulty at all with children being given education pertaining to religion. I have a big problem with children being indoctrinated in one particular religion. It is of course, truly Trumpian to claim 'intolerance and bigotry' in those who don't want to be indoctrinated, those who suffer from the intolerance of church schools to students of other religions and no religions. As explained repeatedly above, taking kids out of religion class isn't a solution.
You're probably right about the 99.99% of schools, but the 0.01% are the new schools, the ET schools. They're the ones that you can't be sure exactly where they're going to be or when they're going to be open. Here's a very specific example. During the planning stages, Stepaside ET Secondary was named as 'Ballinteer Stepaside ET school'. So if I had upped sticks and moved house to Ballinteer, only to find the school has actually opened in Ballyogan, a long way from Ballinteer. That's the kind of gambles you're asking parents to make, on the largest purchase of their life, all because you want desperately to cling onto control of catholic schools.
1 -
What you're doing is the EXACT opposite of letting them make their own minds up, but you knew that all along, didn't you.
1 -
ill let my kids goto school happy and you rail against the system. And i will let them make their own minds up, thats EXACTLY what i am doing.
1 -
All good schools in populous urban areas are oversubscribed, to go further Blackrock college is so oversubscribed that parents are moving their kids from free national schools to fee paying willow at 7 and 8 to get a place, whats your point?
1 -
They're not making up their own minds though. They've been indoctrinated from age five. If you had enough respect for and trust in your children to actually let them make their own minds up, you would give them information, not indoctrination. But we all know how that's going to work out,
0 -
My point is that Donald's solution of moving house to get into your chosen school is a huge gamble.
0 -
Ya I get that it was an amalgamation, but it was a purpose built new school under CEIST religious patronage.
1 -
Is that really ""Our biggest problem" ?.
Yes there is a high failure rate in 1st year of 3rd Level and students choosing inappropriate courses. But lets do some proper questioning rather than blindly following the old "they should be doing a trade" line.
What happens these students? Does anyone follow them ... do they all migrate out of the 3rd level or further education system into the world of work or trades????
Who knows?
I don't, but if you don't measure it then you can't throw out these old tropes of 'not enough life skills being taught in second level' etc.
A bit of historical perspective needed, "skills" I presume to mean in the Vocational sense of practical work skills.
That was primarily the remit of VECs (or "The Tech" as they were affectionally known as ), but these school gradually got into the points race and became more diverse with students migrating to 3rd level as opposed to the world of trades etc.
0 -
With equally due respect, I’m not aware of your practical and academic background, I was only going on your earlier comments in this thread where you appeared to be peculiarly focused on the idea that your tax money was being taken to fund an education system which in your view, is discriminatory and biased towards religious groups, and one dominant religious group in particular -
If Catholics want Catholic schools, let them pay for them instead of taking my tax money. Same goes for Protestants or Muslims. While we're at it, let the atheists do the same and compete in the market. But you and I both know that a free market model of primary and secondary education will not work. So the only alternative is for the State to fund it - and the only logical basis for that is to accept the principle of no taxation without representation and fund a system that is not dominated by religious groups, and one religious group in particular.
That’s why I was making the point that whatever anyone pays in taxes is irrelevant in terms of how public funds are used to provide for education in Ireland. It wasn’t I who introduced the argument of a transactional relationship between taxation and representation in education.
You may well have your own idea of what constitutes discrimination, but I don’t. I’ll stick with what does or doesn’t constitute lawful or unlawful discrimination as recognised in Irish and international law. To do otherwise is to lend legitimacy to the idea that anyones subjective definition of discrimination has the same weight in Irish law as that which is recognised by Irish law. Anti-vax types claiming discrimination against them would be only too happy were your definition to carry the same weight as that which is recognised in Irish law. As it happens Pope Frank cut the legs out from under their ideas of a religious exemption last week by reminding them they had a moral obligation to be vaccinated -
I don’t know where you get your ideas that it would have been political suicide to articulate the idea of limiting the reach of the Catholic Church in Ireland when it had already been limited by the 5th amendment to the Constitution, removing recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church, passed by an 84% majority -
I have to give you credit for the way you chose to articulate other peoples anti-theist rhetoric as “a more sweeping vision of reform”, Patrick Pearse would be proud 😂 I do agree that reform is necessary so that parents, and children in particular, are not disadvantaged by socioeconomic circumstances and have the same opportunities for education as everyone in Irish society.
Unfortunately, because children aren’t eligible to vote (this does not constitute discrimination either), they do not have the opportunity to advocate for their own interests, and they are dependent most immediately upon their own families for their education, which is a good thing for them as wider society doesn’t appear to care all that much about children’s welfare given the low turnout in what was called the “Children’s Referendum” in 2012 (although for those who DID bother to vote, the vote was an almost 50/50 split) -
In short, while individuals are entitled to regard circumstances as discrimination however they wish, Irish law prevents them from riding roughshod over other peoples legal rights as recognised in Irish law. A good recent example of same was this decision in the High Court -
It doesn’t matter how much anyone pays in tax, or how open they are to being persuaded of a more sweeping vision of reform.
1 -
Given the reputation the Tech had, and had for decades, I am absolutely unsurprised by that though.
1 -
Advertisement
-
I was talking about VECs being called "the tech" in many places around the country, not to cast aspersions on any particular one.
In fairness though I know many a student who went on from "the tech" started a trade or their own business and had their houses built and paid for while I was still pissing around finding myself after doing my 4 year arts degree. Then by the time I got permanency in teaching (after another 2 years back at college) I was into my 40s... so ya , who's better off, me with my mortgage till I'm 70 or those guys who are in the trade and don't owe the banks nuthin (although I appreciate there's pro's and con's).
Unfortunately I recall a lot of very intelligent students in my Primary who just went to the Tech by default because their parents didn't see the value of education or their child's potential.
0 -
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. You're just going to have to get used to it.
Anyone who suggests that it wouldn't have been political suicide in the 1980s to take on the dominant position of the Catholic church in Ireland wasn't there. If they were there then they're either trolling or impossibly naive. And anyone who was there at the time knows that the 5th Amendment was by no means intended to take on the dominant position of Catholicism.
I'm not sure what relevance the opinions of an Argentinian priest living in Italy have (or more importantly, should have) to a discussion about patronage in the Irish school system.
Anyway, for the benefit of those actually reading what's being said rather than starting to type before they've made it to the end of the post: Ireland is in a long process of change. Earlier in that process the vast majority of people were willing to accept the dominant position in the school system of religion in general and one flavour of religion in particular. Now that the process has moved on, more and more people are unwilling to accept that dominance. We can't say for certain that Ireland will follow the same well-trodden path taken by most other countries, but there's every likelihood that Ireland will do precisely that. If so, public pressure for change is going to grow. As that pressure grows there are people like me who would like that change to accommodate all parents and children of all beliefs and none, and who believe that the sheer number of schools we have in Ireland makes that feasible. There are also those who would rather see religion and personal faith swept out of schools altogether (see elsewhere in this thread). Then there are those whose position seems to be one of resisting change (see the post above). Sorry lads, but the harsh reality is that both seeping religion out of schools and resisting change are extreme positions. My own preference is to shrug my shoulders at the views of those on either extreme. Those people are the noisiest, especially on social media, but in real life there are far more people who have moderate views in relation to the change that's needed - and that's where politics and politicians will look to find solutions.
But each to their own; life would be very dull if we all agreed with one another.
0 -
Well they do not do trades anyways most go the unskilled route. While a few opt for the trade route it is very few. Some will return to Education. But most end up in unskilled jobs. There is still fallout after second and third year. Many complete courses but because the courses are only basic foundation courses with little opportunity they too end up as unskilled workers
The amount doing Arts is crazy. It seems a very easy route for the third level funding. You can have a large amount in a Lecture hall listening to a generic lecture on business or English etc
I do not accept that techs as you put it were the foundation of trades. It was more acceptable accross society. However since the advent of affordable third level, many are choosing that route that are not suited to it.
The sheer percentage we are sending to third level is astounding on a European basis. Do you need a sales degree to sell cars in a dealership or to be assistant manager in a Centra.
We have totally given up on vocational training not just for trades (we have too few designated trades anyway) but for a load of other skillsets. Traditionally certain areas trained there own workers, Telecoms, skilled factory workers, ordance Survey, the ESB. The ESB is the only one doing it now. Trades in general are no longer completed by large companies.
It amazing but most lads that are barbers just seem to take up scissors or hair trimmers and start off. While Hairdressers and beautician are definitely skillset a barber seems not to be.
Tilers seems to be an offshoot of plasters but again most lads seems to just fall into it. Painters seems the same. Then if you do it as a trade it's a four year stint. Cabling, wiring, fibre jointers ect are again just falling into the skillset.
It that there is no encouragement at second level to encourage students to consider trades. It amazing but at present we are probably sending 10 times as many doing the agricultural green cert as go to do a trade.
Because most building labour is now subcontractored, few of them can afford to carry a trainee for 12-18 months before he is of value at which stage he can be poached for 30-50 euro/ week by another employer. Large companies now have a demand for electricians but most only hire a qualified electrician and do not train them.
Slava Ukrainii
1 -
You are being treated equally, you’re certainly not oppressed. That’s exactly the point I’ve been making for the last few posts where you tried to make out you’re somehow being treated unfairly because you’re expected to pay taxes like everyone else, and like everyone else - you have no say in how Government spends public funds in order to provide for public services such as education, healthcare, housing, etc.
I was there, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise that we wouldn’t share the same perspective as to whether or not it was political suicide for anyone who challenged the authority of the Catholic Hierarchy. The few that did, it didn’t do their political careers any harm. At least two of them went on to become President of Ireland, and a third would have done had he not come undone through nobody else’s fault but his own.
Religion is staying in religious ethos schools, in part simply because the divestment process has been a dismal failure, in part because the parents with children in the existing school community prefer it that way, and in part because the idea of depriving religious schools of funding for education when they meet the criteria would constitute discrimination. It’s when a school doesn’t meet the criteria, that they are unlikely to be recognised by the State, like the school in Cork -
Still not discrimination.
The principle behind to each their own also seems to be lost on you. Each patron provides education for their own already in proportion to the numbers of parents and guardians who wish for that particular type of education for their children. The idea of 400 new schools (and not just divested or amalgamated schools) by 2030 is pie in the sky stuff, when the education system in Ireland is already as underfunded as it is. I for one anyway wouldn’t encourage anyone to wait for politicians to find solutions. It might well take the 40 years it took for the Dalkey School Project to become the Educate Together charity organisation it is now, but in the 70s they weren’t waiting around for politicians to find solutions. That’s why while I don’t share other patrons educational philosophy, I would always give something financially, because the funding provided by the State for education, regardless of any schools ethos, is woefully inadequate.
Complaining about paying tax because you think you’re being discriminated against is just tone deaf tbh, and demonstrates none of that practical or academic knowledge you appear to be determined to keep to yourself.
0 -
Would you like to share the details behind your 'in proportion' claim?
1 -
It goes back to Ulysses point about the dominance of the religious patrons in Irish education - each patron, regardless of their ethos, provides education for their own in proportion to the numbers of parents and guardians who wish for that type of education for their children.
If there are less parents who want that type of education for their children, then the schools will close. Completely unrelated to bums on seats in church on a Sunday or the numbers of people who are choosing to be married in non-religious ceremonies and so on. As long as there remains a demand in Irish education, for that type of education, and as long as that demand remains as strong as it is, religious ethos schools will continue to dominate the Irish education system.
0 -
You haven't made any point. You've simply decided that you like the current situation and are resisting change. The rest is just confirmation bias and repeats, rehashes and reheats of the same resistance to change. The degree to which you are entrenched is borne out by the degree of effort you're putting into arguing against (not with) me rather than those on this thread with more extreme views. You know they are no real challenge to the status quo, whereas those of a more centrist view are very much a challenge. It is to the centre that the political and administrative system will look when it is resolving this problem - and that problem is one of political and administrative failure to move schools out of religious patronage, specifically Catholic patronage.
The government has already made the decision that the right thing needs to be done. What it hasn't done (and this is a regular feature of the Irish political landscape) is to follow through its decision and insist on the delivery of timely results. The people of Ireland no longer want a system in which those of minority faiths and non-believers do not have enough schools to suit their wishes and ethical standpoints, including the wish not to have their children exposed to religious faith formation teaching and practices. That means that time is running out for the status quo. The people of Ireland do not want that replaced by a system in which people of faith cannot have that faith reflected in schools. That means the political system does not have the appetite for removing religion from schools. Therefore the best option (possibly the only option) left to the politicians and administrators is to find a way to get significant numbers of existing schools out of religious (particularly Catholic) patronage and into the management of either State agencies or non-religious patrons. That will not be easy and it will require creative thinking on the part of "the system". So what? Government is rarely easy. The school system, conservative and cautious as it may be, has repeatedly shown its capacity for the kind of creative thinking needed, and it can do so again. If the demand for change is sufficient it will find ways to change; until the demand for change is sufficient it probably will not.
0 -
It's quite bizarre, but if someone is that resistant to change they'll convince themselves they're telling the truth.
Every consultation run by DE on patronage of new schools shows a massive demand for non-religious patronage, with only 1 school out of the last 20-plus being recognised by the Minister as having CEIST patronage. In many cases at primary, Catholic dioceses aren't at the races at all or in some cases even in the running. ET schools are more likely to have queues and waiting lists for entry than schools with religious patrons. Demographic trends clearly show that the number of people of no religion or minority non-Catholic religions is growing, while the proportion of Catholics in the population is falling. Catholic church attendance has fallen dramatically, and international data over a long time show that once church attendance declines, a decrease in numbers identifying as belonging to that church inevitably follows.
So what the data shows us is that that Ireland's school system is not providing ethos-based schooling "in proportion to the numbers of parents and guardians who wish for that particular type of education for their children." Instead, it is configured for Ireland as it was in the mid-1990s, not as it is today, and certainly not as it will be in 10, 20 and 30 years time.
As I've said more than once, I don't see the answer to that as "taking religion out of schools". I see the answer as decreasing significantly the number of existing schools with religious patronage, with a consequential increase in the number of schools in the patronage of bodies like ET or State agencies (the ETBs would seem an obvious candidate). To do that, and do it in a timely manner, the government will have to start by getting serious about implementing the decisions it has already made. But in my view that's merely a start. By 2030, Ireland is going to need a lot more than 400 "non-religious" schools.
2 -
You've simply decided that you like the current situation and are resisting change. The rest is just confirmation bias and repeats, rehashes and reheats of the same resistance to change. The degree to which you are entrenched is borne out by the degree of effort you're putting into arguing against (not with) me rather than those on this thread with more extreme views. You know they are no real challenge to the status quo, whereas those of a more centrist view are very much a challenge.
I really think you need to read over my posts again, because I have been quite clear in stating that the education system in Ireland is in need of reform. I’ve also been clear in making the point that parental choice in education needs to be an election issue, regardless of whether anyone is a taxpayer or not - that has no bearing on educational opportunities for their children from a public funds point of view. Parents who have the means may choose to fund their children’s education privately if they wish to, and that still has no bearing on the availability and accessibility of public education.
I don’t like the current situation because I used meet examples like the OP on a fairly regular basis who had gotten themselves in a bit of a predicament and weren’t sure about their options. It’s not good for them, it’s not good for their children, and it’s not fair on the other children and their parents who are sending their children to a particular school with a particular ethos and they are fully supportive of the ethos of the school. It’s why I didn’t send my own child to any other type of school - for the simple reason that because I don’t support the ethos of the school, I wouldn’t be able to fully commit to supporting the school community. I think every parent or guardian should have the same opportunity as I do to support and fully commit to their school communities - it’s good for them, it’s good for the children, and it’s good for the school community.
I have engaged with other posters on the thread previously, and in many other threads and I’m well aware of their views. They’re critical of people engaging in fantasy, while arguing that the State should engage in religious discrimination and amend the Irish Constitution in such a way as to deprive people of their human rights. Where do you go with that like?
A far more practical solution, and it doesn’t require particularly creative thinking, is for the State to fund the establishment of the 400 schools (granted it’s still nowhere near the 3,000 already owned, run and managed by religious patrons), and for the Minister for Education to assume patronage of those schools. It means that while the schools which are owned, run and managed by religious patrons will remain in their Trusteeship, the State will make more school choices available to parents and guardians who do not wish to have their children receive a religious education.
That’s likely to happen a lot sooner than expecting religious schools to be divested in any great numbers any time soon.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Interesting article here that debunks the myth that the wonderful benevolent catholic church provided us with education and health services that otherwise we would not have had.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/lessons-in-the-power-of-the-church-1.778683
3
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
