Religion in junior infants

purplecow1977 wrote:

I agree but in 10 years I've never been aware of any bullying through isolation because of non-religious participation. Ever. Your experience probably says more about the children's parents because children are very accepting. It's when parents try to inflict and force their strong opinions on them that affects children and their behaviour.

It's the fact that religion is taught during school hours. It should be an after school class. There is no way 50% of people are practicing RC.

Dob74 wrote: »

It's the fact that religion is taught during school hours. It should be an after school class. There is no way 50% of people are practicing RC.

That percentage doesn't make a difference. People like rituals and traditions. A lot get married in church for other than religious reasons, they baptize children because it's a family get together and a celebration of child. The same goes for communion and confirmation. I think some here have very unrealistic expectations regarding the demand for religious education. If you go down the popular route, I can guarantee you religious schools will stay. And in smaller towns it will hard to get enough demand for one different school (as it turned out in 2013).

On another issue I find the idea of home schooling ridiculous. People spend years in education to become teachers and the taxpayer pays for it. Now the same parents who pay taxes for state services are told, no sorry you should home school your kids because we farmed out education to non state bodies to do it according to their ethos.

Home schooling is not a solution unless you wear sandals and live in a commune but in that case kids are f*cked anyway.

And yes the last comment is a joke.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I haven't read all 22 pages but this is a great topic TBH.

My own little fella will be starting school soon and the lack of choice in this country in 2015 is appalling. We're all for SSM and transgender rights (and why not), but when it comes to our children's education we apparently see nothing wrong with our schools still being controlled by an ethos that I'd say 90%+ of people have no belief in (regardless of what they put down on the census forms), and feel like we have no choice but to "go along with it" for fear of making the situation worse for the child themselves.

My mother had a very modern outlook on this at the time (early 80s). Her attitude was that myself and my sister would not be indoctrinated by the local Catholic school but would be allowed to make our own minds up on the subject when we were old enough - she got away with it too (very stubborn was my mam) and as it turned out I have a "each to their own" attitude in adulthood. While religion has no relevance or interest to me, I fully support the rights of others to believe what they will - AS LONG AS that belief does not affect or unduly influence others or society.

However while I was resistant to the idea of him even being baptised, I reluctantly bowed to the wisdom that not doing so would limit his choice of schools as a result While my initial impression of ET schools was pretty positive, having then spoken to some people about it - including teachers - I learned that because of the multicultural and diverse backgrounds of these schools, a lot of time is spent on basic English skills as a result of many of the pupils not coming from native English backgrounds. Now no doubt some here will cry "racist" but the idea of my little fella losing out because the teacher has to spend so much time on this doesn't sit well... so as a result the only options are the "default local catholic school".

Not quite sure how I'll handle the religion classes themselves yet, but I certainly don't want him being told he's a "sinner" and has to earn his way to "heaven" for the rest of his life at the age of 3/4, to say nothing of the whole Creationism angle, and the time spent on all this (and Irish!) at the expense of more useful things. Again if it were up to me I'd just let him sit out the classes (as I did in my day) but I'm also aware that this may lead to other issues.

As I say it's a ridiculous state of affairs really and not an easy one for parents either way!

I think your reason for not choosing ET is misguided. You may find that your default school is just as slow and frustrating if your child is smart, as the teacher spends a lot of time bringing up the slower learners. My son was bored to tears, and 6th class was just torture because of the slow pace. I also think having kids from different backgrounds is a huge positive and opens up more scope for friends, my son didn't fit in at all in a rural school.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Creationism is not taught here, it's not the first time that lie has been peddled on this thread.

Hang on, my kids are just out of primary and while creationism was not forced over evolutionary theories it was implied that god made everything in 7 days, that Adam and Eve were the start of mankind, that there is a hell and heaven. So to say that it's a "lie" wouldn't be accurate.

frostyjacks wrote: »

To say creationism is being taught in schools is a straight-up lie. Pupils may read Bible stories but that's a far cry from rejecting evolution.

I have yet to hear a teacher say that the universe was created 10,000 yr's ago and science is a lie, the teaching of "creationism" is much more subtle, but its there, because of religious indoctrination. Told through stories.

Kids see stories as facts. The are impressionable and believe what they are told, until they come home and there was some balance put on the subject.

My kids were told that God created the earth, they were taught the 10 commandments which I think in general are good as they align with basic morals. They were also taught that cooling water will create ice. These were all taught through stories.

They asked me about the commandment, that it was a mortal sin to worship other gods, they asked were all other religious people that worship other Gods going to hell. As in her hindu friend ?? yep shes going to hell. Beacuse god created the earth, hell and he makes the rules and is never forgiving.

meeeeh wrote: »

It's easy to dismiss something you don't understand. As long as you have patrons you have segregation. Taking education away from religious institutions and replace it with Gaelic schools will only increase it. and if you think there is no segregation then you should better read this:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/census-figures-raise-concerns-of-ethnic-segregation-in-schools-1.2114559
80% of immigrants are in 23% of schools. As it happens share of immigrant children in my local ET is over 50%, in my son's school couple minutes away is 2%.

Think that just taking schools away from church is enough is naive and frankly stupid. What they are doing is a half baked solution so they won't need to reform the system properly. Is it any wonder that so few schools were defeated. If you are a parent of a kid who is in a school designated to become ET would you be happy with a prospect of 50% of kids in his class being immigrants?

.

I think we may actually finally agree on something :P

Interesting article here on the patronage system and the way Educate Together are as weasel worded about their ethos as any other organisation involved in the patronage system in Irish schools -

Educate Together multi-denominational schools don’t relieve Irish State of UN Human Rights Committee duty to secular education

7. The duty of the Irish State to provide secular education

Two of the UN Human Rights Committee’s questions about education, when taken together, go to the heart of the problem and its best solution.

How does the Delegation explain the compatibility with the Covenant of a state of affairs that allows private schools, which have a near monopoly in Ireland on a vital public service, to openly discriminate in admission policies between children on the basis of their parents’ religious convictions?


Is [the Irish State] considering a significant rise in the number of schools transferred to public hands?

Ultimately, the core problem with the Irish education system is that the State provides ‘for’ education, instead of simply providing education. Ultimately, the patronage system itself must be changed, and the State must provide education directly.

As well as respecting human rights, this would also be good for society. As the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education recently concluded:

Multiple patronage and ethos as a basis for policy can lead to segregation and inequality in the education system. The objectives of admission policy should be equality and integration.

Until we have this in place, the minimum requirements are that we comply with our human rights obligations. The UN Human Rights Committee has just encapsulated some of these:

“The Human Rights Committee is concerned about the slow progress in increasing access to secular education through the establishment of non-denominational schools, divestment of the patronage of schools and the phasing out of integrated religious curricula in schools accommodating minority faith or non-faith children.

Ireland should introduce legislation to prohibit discrimination in access to schools on the grounds of religion, belief or other status, and ensure that there are diverse school types and curriculum options available throughout the State party to meet the needs of minority faith or non-faith children.”

The Irish State should immediately implement these requirements, recognising that they are minimum standards to be built on, and not maximum suggestions to be revised downwards.

This is why they are keen to drop the words "multi-denominational education" from their ethos, in favour of the phrase "equality based education". Some Principals in ET schools have their own ideas some students being more equal than others, and seem to value "freedom of speech" over equality and respect for all religions and none -

Limerick school apologises for Charlie Hebdo in classroom

The management of a Limerick school has apologised to a Muslim pupil, who took offence when a copy of the controversial French magazine Charlie Hebdo was produced in his classroom.

...

However chairman of the multi-denominational Limerick School Project Richard Allen, said it was an “unfortunate incident” and said apologies for any offence caused were made to the boy and his mother.

He said it was another pupil in the class who brought the copy of Charlie Hebdo in while they were having a discussion about the French Revolution and freedom of speech.

Mr Allen said they “respect all religions and none” in the school would ever “set out to cause offence to anybody”.

Nonetheless, he said the school believes in the right to freedom of speech, though at the same time it recognises that responsibilities come with this freedom.

So he apologises for the incident, then shifts responsibility for the incident onto one of the children, then mentions some nonsense about the school believing in the right to freedom of speech. Desperate attempt to cover his own arse, and simply proves that even if they change the wording of their ethos from "multi-denominational" to "equality based", they're still going to come up short and still do not meet the requirements of a non-denominational, secular ethos.

Gerry T wrote: »

Its about putting schools under the full control of the state. I don't think allowing the church refuse children admission because they are immigrants is a good thing--do you ? because you seem to suggest thats whats happening ? and also that immigrants are some sort of lesser person ? what is it about immigrants ? you must be a practising catholic ?

I do agree once there are patrons there will be segregation, the church at the moment has a patronage and a monopoly. You seem to suggest that all schools will be given to Irish speaking schools, eh what ? maybe the Govt. will look at the demand for Gaelic schools and supply the demand, rather than keeping 90% of schools in a rigid catholic ethos.

Gerry I don't think that's what meeeeh was suggesting at all. I think the point they were making is that for many immigrants, english is not their first language, and this presents an issue not just for these children themselves, but also for the other students in the class and for their teachers who have to spend more class time with these students where learning support classes mean that these students are taken out of the class and provided with english language classes. I don't see what that has to do with being a practicing catholic tbh. It's a valid observation and a worry for many parents who are worried that their own children are not getting the education they feel their children need.

I don't think meeeeh was suggesting either that all schools would be divested to Gaelscoileanna but they are just as much involved in the provision of education in return for State funding as Educate Together or the RC. The reason why 90% of the schools are still under the patronage of the RC, and why the majority of schools will remain under the patronage of the RC, is because the Govt. is indeed looking at the demand before they supply, and finding that there isn't sufficient demand to divest many of the religious ethos schools in Ireland because that is not what many of the parents want.

Meanwhile as robindch observed earlier, both the Govt, and the RC can continue to blame each other for the current situation because they both know that neither is under all that much pressure from people who ultimately hold the power to effect change. People here have claimed that the current situation is a reflection of the fact that we do not live in a modern republican democracy, but that is the essence of a modern liberal republican democracy - ultimately the power is with the people to change the situation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Gerry I don't think that's what meeeeh was suggesting at all. I think the point they were making is that for many immigrants, english is not their first language, and this presents an issue not just for these children themselves, but also for the other students in the class and for their teachers who have to spend more class time with these students where learning support classes mean that these students are taken out of the class and provided with english language classes. I don't see what that has to do with being a practicing catholic tbh. It's a valid observation and a worry for many parents who are worried that their own children are not getting the education they feel their children need.

Fair point, and honestly I wouldn't send my kids to a school with that issue. But if there are more schools an immigrant can send their kids to then this problem will be less of an issue. Removing a restriction that you have to be catholic will help. But it's never going to be resolved. This is probably a different thread in the making.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think meeeeh was suggesting either that all schools would be divested to Gaelscoileanna but they are just as much involved in the provision of education in return for State funding as Educate Together or the RC. The reason why 90% of the schools are still under the patronage of the RC, and why the majority of schools will remain under the patronage of the RC, is because the Govt. is indeed looking at the demand before they supply, and finding that there isn't sufficient demand to divest many of the religious ethos schools in Ireland because that is not what many of the parents want.

That's the debate, there doesn't seem to be the demand because people do raise their kids as "catholics" but the key reason for some is getting into a school. Like in the UK people move postal districts to get into a school, that doesn't mean they love a particular area, does it ? In fairness the carry on of the church over the decades and with each decade more revelations. They don't come across to me as guardians of moral and educational ideals.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Meanwhile as robindch observed earlier, both the Govt, and the RC can continue to blame each other for the current situation because they both know that neither is under all that much pressure from people who ultimately hold the power to effect change. People here have claimed that the current situation is a reflection of the fact that we do not live in a modern republican democracy, but that is the essence of a modern liberal republican democracy - ultimately the power is with the people to change the situation.

The power is with the people and it is changing, but change is slow, with time the church will be removed from management of schools. The church itself has admitted this is the right direction to move toward, but I don't believe a word of what they say. Once there is money involved the church will never give it up - I can't see the church handing BACK buildings and land. I say BACK because it was you and me and our parents that paid for all the land and buildings the church has.

Gerry T wrote: »

Fair point, and honestly I wouldn't send my kids to a school with that issue. But if there are more schools an immigrant can send their kids to then this problem will be less of an issue. Removing a restriction that you have to be catholic will help. But it's never going to be resolved. This is probably a different thread in the making.

For many immigrants the restriction that they have to be catholic isn't an issue, simply because many of them are catholic, and for those that aren't, well, I know it's only anecdotal but the Catholic ethos school my child attends doesn't use the religious criteria as an entry requirement. The school Principal is actually very progressive in that regard, which was one of the criteria which I used to determine whether I would place my child in that particular school or not. For other schools, one of the determining criteria considered, and far more of an issue when schools are over-subscribed, is that they have a brother or sister already attending the school (this criteria is being done away with though in upcoming legislation). Another more contentious criterion that has been done away with is consideration whether the child has special educational needs, and like I mentioned earlier in the thread, the jury is still out on whether it is beneficial to those children to be integrated in mainstream schools.

My point is, that for far more people than not, religious instruction just isn't that much of a deterrent for them in relation to their child's overall education.

Gerry T wrote: »

That's the debate, there doesn't seem to be the demand because people do raise their kids as "catholics" but the key reason for some is getting into a school. Like in the UK people move postal districts to get into a school, that doesn't mean they love a particular area, does it ? In fairness the carry on of the church over the decades and with each decade more revelations. They don't come across to me as guardians of moral and educational ideals.

I would suggest that the demand simply isn't there because more people care about traditional education than they do indoctrination, and like it or not, by default, religious ethos schools overall provide a better academic education than non-traditional or multi-denominational ethos schools. Now I know you mentioned that Creationism is taught as fact in religious ethos schools, but there's "creationism", and then there's Creationism -

Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism

Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism.

Gerry T wrote: »

The power is with the people and it is changing, but change is slow, with time the church will be removed from management of schools. The church itself has admitted this is the right direction to move toward, but I don't believe a word of what they say. Once there is money involved the church will never give it up - I can't see the church handing BACK buildings and land. I say BACK because it was you and me and our parents that paid for all the land and buildings the church has.

And if there is no money involved? Because there isn't, not any more anyway, nor is there the power involved any more that they once had. Some bishops are even making statements that, dare I say it, may even be considered... progressive -

Raise Confirmation age to 16, says Bishop of Limerick

Children are currently confirmed at 12 years old while in sixth class in primary school.

But Bishop Brendan Leahy has suggested it could take place while children are in Transition Year and be more parish-based with a project element carried out in schools.

The bishop's idea would entail a massive shake-up of religious education at both primary and second level.

In a major address to launch Catholic Schools Week in the diocese of Limerick last night, Bishop Leahy asked if 12-year-olds are really aware of what is going on when they are confirmed. He suggested they might be "floating" into Confirmation rather than "opting" to be confirmed.

Speaking at the Woodlands Hotel in Adare, Dr Leahy said it is important in Ireland that "we re-awaken students to the fact that being a Catholic is an option".

I can't see them handing back buildings either tbh, certainly not unless the price is right, and that's a problem for Government because the Government can't keep up the cost of repairs and building new schools, while at the same time trying to find the money to fund the purchase of properties off the Church. FWIW though, I don't particularly care whether the Church holds on to what properties it has as they are old and decrepit at this stage and are in no way fit for purpose.

The other option is to raise the money for the provision of new schools through increased taxes. The other countries mentioned in this thread already have no problem with this, they see it as an investment in the next generation, but that wouldn't work here in Ireland where we're very much a country of "every man for himself and fcuk everyone else - if it doesn't affect me, I don't care". That's not a move towards liberalism, that's just selfish laziness. If it costs us nothing, we don't care, but if you expect people to be ok with being asked to pay more tax to educate someone else's children, you'll very quickly find out just how many people in this country care about "our children".

About 33% seems about right, and that's even being generous, because only 58% of those actually voted in favour of the proposal in the Children's referendum -

The Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution of Ireland, relating to children's rights and the right and duty of the state to take child protection measures. It was effected by the Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Act 2012 (previously Bill No.78 of 2012). The bill was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas (parliament) on 10 October 2012, and approved at a referendum on 10 November 2012, by 58% of voters on a turnout of 33.5%. Its enactment was then delayed by a High Court case challenging the conduct of the referendum. The High Court's rejection of the challenge was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 24 April 2015. It was signed into law by the President on 28 April 2015.

The problem here isn't the Government, it's not even the Church. The problem here is that the vast majority of people don't care enough to actually want to make an effort to change the situation as it's too inconvenient for them even to try, and they have every excuse not to try when you ask them. That's what frustrates me personally more than anything the Church or the State has done in this country. Both the State and the Church were allowed get away with what they did because people had every excuse rather than try and stop them.