School patronage

robindch

Mod:

Absolam wrote: »

That [...] though.

I have no idea what you mean by that block of dense prose. It seems that you might be reverting to your prior style which you said you would avoid.

Could you please try to write clear sentences, with easily identifiable meanings which converge to a single, useful point of view which you think other people might enjoy reading?

Cards and other moderator tools await you if you continue to persist in voluminous obfuscation.

Absolam

Thanks for the constructive criticism Robin. I've edited my post and hopefully made it more comprehensible to anyone who found it unclear.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the argument that all parents should be offered the same model of education for their children appears to me to be based upon the idea that all children think the same.

And yet given the things I have suggested, and have read other people here suggesting, are not seemingly based on that AT ALL........ it is a wonder how it ended up "seeming" that way to you.

But 2+2=4 remains true regardless of how a child thinks. And the machinations of Hitler and Napolean in Hitler remain the same regardless of how a child thinks. Facts remain facts either way.

So the ideas behind a model of education suggested by people like myself is not about a common way of thinking, but based and couched in a common reality we all share.

The fact people do NOT think the same is accounted for in the more modular way of allowing parents to implement their hobbies vicariously through their children in after school and extra-curricular activities. But every time I describe what I think the ideal system would be, you run away from the thread only to show up in another thread claiming no one has been showing your useful alternatives.

You have been asked multiple times for a good reason for implementing such hobbies at the level of the school system and school curriculum and have dodged it every time, or have merely hid behind the "it is the way it is now" or "it is what the parents want" cop outs instead.

But certainly nothing about the kinds of model described by me (and others) would preclude you from indoctrinating your child into learning the things you are so adamant you want them to learn. Much as you make that the central tenet of your argument against an entirely secular system. But pretending to be disenfranchised when you actually are not, does not really make playing the persecution card all that convincing to anyone but yourself and your sole cheer leader on the thread.

seamus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So the ideas behind a model of education suggested by people like myself is not about a common way of thinking, but based and couched in a common reality we all share.

Of course, when one comes from a prescriptive model of education ("This is how things are, don't ask questions, just learn it"), as practically everyone in Ireland has, then it can be very difficult to envision education as being anything else.

In fact, a lot of time in early semesters of college is functionally wasted on teaching students the ability to think critically about data rather than just learning data off by rote and accepting what they're told as being the truth. There's no reason why education couldn't be approached in this way from much earlier on.

People remember their own education and they feel "safe" knowing that's how their childrens' education is structured. The idea that children may be taught things in a different way actually scares the bejesus out of them. Good examples are phonetics and project maths. Two new ways of teaching really basic stuff that we take for granted (reading and maths), but have inspired kilometres of newspaper columns from concerned people worried about the effect of these new methods on children.

Really they're worried about their own inability to keep up.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

There is a plethora of expectations parents have of schools; subject preferences, accommodation of learning abilities, sporting excellence, extra curricular endeavours, existing friendships, commute times, even ethos. It's immediately obvious that any school simply cant fulfil every parents preferences in every regard, so aren't you just demanding your own philosophical preference be prioritised? You might as well say as such any school should be able to accommodate any student without trampling all over their dedication to rugby or lack thereof.

Economies of scale make it entirely unworkable to provide every parent with everything they want for their child in every school there is, sure. That's not an argument for less choice in schools though, it's an argument for more. The more patrons providing education there are, the more chance there is of a student finding a school that accommodates them without trampling on their whatever....

The thing about all of these other preferences is that when compared to religious ethos they do not serve to exclude students by trampling all over their own belief system. Freedom of religious expression is a human right, dedication to rugby is not. Rugby also tends to be an optional extra curricular activity rather than part of the core syllabus. By making subjects that many will not want to partake in optional and extra curricular, such as religious instruction or full contact sports, a school can still provide the choice without excluding those that don't want it. If all such choices that have the potential to exclude are optional, no one actually gets excluded.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Of course, when one comes from a prescriptive model of education ("This is how things are, don't ask questions, just learn it"), as practically everyone in Ireland has, then it can be very difficult to envision education as being anything else.

In fact, a lot of time in early semesters of college is functionally wasted on teaching students the ability to think critically about data rather than just learning data off by rote and accepting what they're told as being the truth. There's no reason why education couldn't be approached in this way from much earlier on.

People remember their own education and they feel "safe" knowing that's how their childrens' education is structured. The idea that children may be taught things in a different way actually scares the bejesus out of them. Good examples are phonetics and project maths. Two new ways of teaching really basic stuff that we take for granted (reading and maths), but have inspired kilometres of newspaper columns from concerned people worried about the effect of these new methods on children.

Really they're worried about their own inability to keep up.

Phonics works, not sure about project maths, overall the lc maths has been dumbed down compared to the 1980's.
The other one common core in tbe us looks a bit daft.
A subject like maths could be improved with something
like khan academy where the student learns at their own speed and includes a drills approach that a teacher couldn't hope to manage

smacl

silverharp wrote: »

Phonics works, not sure about project maths, overall the lc maths has been dumbed down compared to the 1980's.
The other one common core in tbe us looks a bit daft.
A subject like maths could be improved with something
like khan academy where the student learns at their own speed and includes a drills approach that a teacher couldn't hope to manage

The school my youngest attends is involved in Bridge21 which does seem to represent a significant change in how we educate. One year in, we're delighted with her progress, notably her skill set with respect to technology and presentation. With regards to maths, I got a Wolfram Alpha student account for my eldest for the senior cycle which is a great study aid. I hadn't come across Khan academy, thanks for the heads up.

silverharp

smacl wrote: »

The school my youngest attends is involved in Bridge21 which does seem to represent a significant change in how we educate. One year in, we're delighted with her progress, notably her skill set with respect to technology and presentation. With regards to maths, I got a Wolfram Alpha student account for my eldest for the senior cycle which is a great study aid. I hadn't come across Khan academy, thanks for the heads up.

Hadn't heard of the wolfram account I will have a look at that. Khan is a good parent kid setup,got junior on it when he was 6 or 7 , he has just finished primary but we are just finishing up US Algebra 1 would overlap with the JC here.

mikhail

I trust that the Catholics arguing for the continued preponderence of Catholic schools would have no problem whatsoever with the schools becoming entirely atheist - not secular, but atheist - should the current decline of religion continue. They don't seem to have any problem with the majority inflicting their worldview on others.

looksee

Mod: can we not get sidetracked into discussion of school syllabuses (syllabi) please, other than to the extent that it affects religion in schools.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

The thing about all of these other preferences is that when compared to religious ethos they do not serve to exclude students by trampling all over their own belief system. Freedom of religious expression is a human right, dedication to rugby is not. Rugby also tends to be an optional extra curricular activity rather than part of the core syllabus. By making subjects that many will not want to partake in optional and extra curricular, such as religious instruction or full contact sports, a school can still provide the choice without excluding those that don't want it. If all such choices that have the potential to exclude are optional, no one actually gets excluded.

I suppose that's pretty much a matter of opinion; I know people far more dedicated to their rugby than their religion on the one hand, and on the other you yourself are saying both should have equal status, being relegated to extra curricular activities. It's hard to see how you're not just saying your preference is important enough to impose on everyone with as much trampling as you like, but everybody else's preferences can be left until after hours.

Still, I have to say it takes moxie to argue we should ban religious expression in schools and tell us freedom of religious expression is a human right at the same time.....

amtc

I have a question...a friend of a friend has a child who has just turned 4 and another 3.

They are not married (well to accurate both are but not to each other and have not communicated with respective spouses for over ten years but are not divorced).

Anyway this experience appears to have turned them off all religion. I asked, more just to make conversation, where the children were going to school. I kind of assumed it would be the Educate Together school, but they are strongly of the opinion that they want their children to know nothing about religion at all. Is that possible? The 4 year old is not enrolled at any school at all.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Still, I have to say it takes moxie to argue we should ban religious expression in schools and tell us freedom of religious expression is a human right at the same time.....

Having a single dominant religion foisted upon you regardless of your own beliefs or lack thereof, as is the case in the vast majority of schools in this country, is the antithesis of freedom of religious expression. It is an oppressive abuse of a dominant position, plain and simple.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

I suppose that's pretty much a matter of opinion; I know people far more dedicated to their rugby than their religion on the one hand, and on the other you yourself are saying both should have equal status, being relegated to extra curricular activities. It's hard to see how you're not just saying your preference is important enough to impose on everyone with as much trampling as you like, but everybody else's preferences can be left until after hours.

Still, I have to say it takes moxie to argue we should ban religious expression in schools and tell us freedom of religious expression is a human right at the same time.....

Mod: This kind of emotive exaggeration (ie banning religious expression in schools) and twisting and rephrasing arguments without actually saying anything useful is not progressing discussion. What you are doing amounts to soapboxing and borderline trolling. This is your second warning, cards will follow.

smacl

amtc wrote: »

Anyway this experience appears to have turned them off all religion. I asked, more just to make conversation, where the children were going to school. I kind of assumed it would be the Educate Together school, but they are strongly of the opinion that they want their children to know nothing about religion at all. Is that possible? The 4 year old is not enrolled at any school at all.

Educate together will have ethics rather than religion, but will make children aware of the diversity of beliefs out there. Not aware of any option other than perhaps home schooling where the child will learn nothing about any religion. Could make it a bit awkward for the kids at Christmas and Easter.

recedite

amtc wrote: »

they are strongly of the opinion that they want their children to know nothing about religion at all. Is that possible?

Short answer; no. There are no non-denominational state funded primary schools yet.

AFAIK there may be one or two entirely privately funded schools in the country which avoid all mention of the Irish language and also religion, but these would be very expensive. As in, way more expensive than the so called "private" religious schools, which are only semi-private in reality because they receive state funding.

A non-denominational patron made a bid for the "patronage" (management) of a newly built state primary school down in Cork about a year ago. But they were disallowed in the end.

One eyed Jack

What do you think the options are if you want to teach but don't want to be forced to teach children what are as far as you're concerned, lies, and lies that you must teach on a par with science and maths? Well, there's always the Educate Together schools? Yeah, there are, but a much smaller proportion of them, and a smaller proportion than there are Catholic schools. Not to mention that Catholic children can go to ET schools, which can then block off non-religious children too.

You said it yourself that there are the Educate Together schools, and they’re just for starters. There are still any number of options open to someone who wishes to become a teacher, but doesn’t want to teach in a school with a religious ethos on the basis that it violates their principles. That’s of course notwithstanding the fact that while you may think they would make a great teacher, one of the requirements for a teaching post in a Catholic school is a religious certificate –

Recognition of Qualifications to Teach Catholic Religious Education in Catholic Primary Schools in the Island of Ireland

(I’ll accept your anecdote btw, it’s an issue for people that I have had quite a bit of experience in dealing with in the last number of years)

As for your point that Catholic children can go to Educate together schools, well yeah, they can, but the Educate Together model of education is different from the Catholic model of education, and parents maintain the right to prefer one model of education over another. I don’t know why you bring that up if your point is that parents should only be offered a particular model of education that you appear to be ok with? You can surely understand that parents are not legally obliged to enrol their children in an educational institution which is in violation of their conscience? The over-subscription issue in Educate Together schools is due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the popularity of their education model. The initial idea of the Educate Together model of education was that they would offer parents an alternative to the Roman Catholic model of education. However, the Department of Education mandated that any new schools built since 2011 must prioritise children in their catchment area. The Educate Together organisation have been fighting this on the basis that they claim there is nothing in law which requires them to do so –

Educate Together principals seek change to admissions policy

I do sympathise with those parents who are unable to secure a place for their children in Educate Together schools, but that isn’t the fault of Catholic parents, nor is it the fault of the Catholic schools. It’s a fault of the Educate Together admissions policy and the mandate by the DES that they must prioritise children in their catchment area. For more information on the failings of the DES in this regard, I would suggest you read this –

Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector - Progress to Date and Future Directions


One issue is that if non-religious children go to religious schools (likely because there's a lack of choice), the parents then have to deal with the fallout of "Mammy, why does my teacher say that I'm going to hell because I don't go to Mass?" or "The priest said..." etcetera. This is obviously an issue that religious parents don't mind about, but it would be nice if they'd give some consideration to other peoples lives being made harder for their choice to have religion mixed in with something that doesn't need it.

There’s so much wrong in just this one paragraph alone, but I’ll give it my best shot. I don’t know how you would come to the conclusion that you could make a sweeping generalisation like that about religious parents in the first place, but there are grievance procedures in place that if a teacher in a Catholic school did say something like that to a non-religious child, there are procedures in place to deal with complaints made against a teacher.
You still don’t appear to be understanding the fact that the purpose of a religious ethos school is first and foremost education is the religious curriculum, and then in order to receive funding from the DES, they must teach a separate National Primary Schools Curriculum developed by the NCCA.

I don’t know what consideration you expect for people who choose to make their own lives harder by choosing to enrol their children in schools which they’d rather not. They are not forced to enrol their children in religious ethos schools. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that if parents choose to enrol their children in a particular school, that they support the ethos of that school. Are you suggesting that parents who support the ethos of the school should show some consideration for parents who do not support the ethos of the school? This is one of the issues I have with parents who treat schools as though they are just glorified daycare centres for their offspring. Parental involvement in schools is necessary for their children’s education, and it is just as important for their children’s education that the parents support the ethos of the school.

I don’t think anyone is looking to make parents lives harder, but I also don’t agree that other parents who support the ethos of the school should owe any consideration to parents who do not wish to support the ethos of the school. Schools are supposed to be a community, not a glorified daycare centre for some parents who then kick off when they realise the school community which they have no wish to support, doesn’t revolve around their children alone.


Maybe "the State school system" (disregarding specialist private schools and the like) could focus on educating the children and not spending what is actually a ridiculous amount of time on religion (infant classes and primary school classes in general spend 2hrs 30mins/week* on religion which is actually rather a lot for those parents who consider it somewhat dangerous nonsense). Sounds about right for my school too, half an hour religion class per day (plus prayers first thing in the morning, before break, Angelus, before lunch, after lunch, home time) and have what is an -extra- that does not apply to all children and is not an educational subject as it is taught, taught at home by the parents who want to instil their beliefs into their own children.

I’m a bit unclear on what you mean by ‘the State school system’, but if you mean schools under the patronage of the Minister for Education and Skills, the model of education that you’re proposing exists already. If you’re referring to School Patron Bodies which provide their services in education to the State, well that’s obviously something else entirely. Parents who enrol their children in religious ethos schools are assumed to already be instilling their beliefs in their children, and the school provides a place for those parents who would wish to further their children’s religious education. That’s the difference between a religious ethos school, and any other type of school. The State doesn’t conduct examinations in religious instruction or faith formation because they aren’t part of the national curriculum. Parents who do not wish to have their children subjected to dangerous nonsense instruction are not obliged to do so. It’s also the reason why parents are required to give their consent to allow their children to participate in relationships and sexuality education programmes in the school, so that their children aren’t exposed to what their parents believe is dangerous nonsense.


It is just starting at a neutral level and letting all the children develop religion (or not) as they and their parents wish, rather than having a starting point of religion must be imposed upon all and parents have to jump through hoops to neutralise it, including by just pulling their children during the relevant classes (which is a daft waste of time). That would not have to happen the other way around. After-school classes, Sunday school, none of that is being argued against, but it is not fair either to waste the time of children who are not part of X religion to try and indoctrinate them. (I'd be fine with general religion classes; the development of religion and culture and how religion and culture affect each other, what the beliefs are of various different large religions, etcetera). But two and a half hours of being taught to recite the Catholic prayers is not educational to many children.

Parents jumping through hoops to neutralise the influence of religious education on their children after they chose to expose their children to religious education? That just sounds like they’ve chosen to make an awful lot of work for themselves, in a rather dramatic fashion, on the assumption that their children possess no innate critical faculties of their own. If anything, the influence of religious education on children has become less of an influence due to their exposure to other influences in modern times than say Ireland when those parents themselves were in primary school. Surely if they were able to resist being overcome by the religious education, they should be able to understand that as their children’s primary educators, their children will too? I guess not.

I do agree with you though that it is unfair on children whose parents do not wish for them to participate in religious instruction, that they be made to participate. As I mentioned already though, they aren’t forced to participate in religious instruction classes, and alternative arrangements are made for them according to their parents wishes. Most parents in my experience aren’t particularly bothered one way or the other, but I did experience one case where the parent themselves wasn’t religious, but they were complaining that their child was ill-prepared for Confirmation. In fact it was a small group of parents who complained that their children were ill-prepared for Confirmation. There were a number of contributory factors in that case though, not the least of which was parental indifference to religion and their failure to prepare their children for Confirmation, on the expectation that it was solely the school’s responsibility.

It is also unfair on all the children when some children are removed from the classroom at the behest of their parents who do not wish for their children to participate in religious education as it disrupts the class environment. If you think it’s only non-religious parents who jump through hoops in these circumstances, I would encourage you to visit any primary school with a multicultural demographic. Here’s one interesting case study that was conducted in a Catholic DEIS school in a disadvantaged area in Dublin for example –

Diversity and Inclusion – Challenges and Issues in an Irish Educational Setting

You may not consider one half hour per day of religious education educational to many children, but you must acknowledge surely that there are parents who disagree with you, as is their right as their children’s parents. I don’t expect you’ll show them any consideration though, so why you would expect any consideration in return is quite frankly beyond me. Christian kindness? We’ll come to that in a minute. Common courtesy? Well that implies that courtesy is common to both parties, so it is as much an obligation on parents who would want to exclude their children from religious education as it is an obligation on parents who would wish for their children to receive a religious education.


The arguments that secular parents are being selfish in preferring "Catholic" wasn't the default stance rather than "neutral" aren't being selfish. The Catholics happen to have a significant advantage in schooling and are demanding to keep it at the expense of those who are not Catholics. That advantage stretches to choice of school, range of schools and the level of Catholicism they will get exposed to as Fact. Which is surprisingly unfair on young children who are being taught that teacher is wrong on this point, but should be listened to on all other topics.

I would never say for that reason that a parent was selfish. They’re perfectly entitled to their point of view, but what they are not entitled to, is to demand that the ethos of the school they chose to enrol their child in, should change its ethos and it’s curriculum to suit their wishes for their child. That, is the definition and the epitome of selfish – thinking only of oneself. While Catholics may indeed have a significant advantage in that their chosen education model is more prevalent than other education models, again it goes back to the point I made earlier that there are more considerations to be taken account of in considering a school for their children, and the fact is that in many schools in Ireland, particularly in disadvantaged areas, the school may be Catholic, but the standard of education provided is poor. This would be an issue regardless of the ethos of the school, as the DES has consistently failed to provide adequately for education in Ireland. Parental choice is still the number one factor in their children’s education, and there are a number of other barriers to a high quality standard of education than solely the ethos of the school or schools. In most schools around the country, the religious criteria aren’t used in their admissions policies, particularly because they don’t need to be, and in some cases, those schools have closed down due to lack of student enrolment – parents want to get their children into what they believe are better schools, which provide better opportunities for the education of their children, regardless of the ethos of the school. You would have a point regarding starting from a neutral position if all schools were equal in all respects, but they aren’t, and the introduction of a model of education that you would find preferable, would simply do nothing to address this issue.

With regard to the ‘unfairness’ of parents choosing to undermine their childens teacher who is acting in loco parentis, that’s really their own business, to be fair. Of course, that’s notwithstanding the fact that children do have other influences in their lives, and they are incredibly resilient. All of these issues are all part of parenting generally, and there’s no great difference between non-religious parents and religious parents when it comes to these issues, just a matter of different perspectives influence and determine how they deal with these issues. There are many times when a child is growing up that their parents will feel they are being treated unfairly, and there are many times when the child themselves will feel they are being treated unfairly. How they react to that is completely within their control. Their children will learn from how their parents chose to deal with the issue.


I am amused by the "well, in an egalitarian society, everyone should have the option for whatever schools they like" argument that implies non-Catholics are being unreasonable about 96.8%** of schools in Ireland being religious ethos. That's 91.1% RC and 5.7% Anglican. Quite, I agree (to an extent). But the argument as being presented here is mostly just an argument of "so we should keep our schools and you non-Catholics should go build your own".

I didn’t see anyone making that argument? Looksee proposed that we live in an egalitarian society was the first mention of egalitarianism, and I simply disagreed that we do. We do not live in an egalitarian society and I would not want to live in an egalitarian society. I don’t think that non-Catholics are being unreasonable in pointing out that 96.8% of schools in Ireland are religious ethos. I don’t think they’re in any position to make demands is all. Well, they can make demands, but whether or not they are taken seriously by anyone is another matter entirely. Clearly they haven’t been taken seriously so far, and I would suggest that given Richard Brutons reply to Joan Burton on the question of divestment, that they aren’t likely to be taken seriously any time in the near future either -

Richard Bruton replies to Joan Bruton on the question of the location of schools which are to be divested in 2017/2018

I’m not at all suggesting anything like you’re making out btw. Non-Catholic parents are more than welcome as far as I’m concerned, to enrol their non-Catholic children in Catholic ethos schools, which have the capacity for them. I say ‘which have the capacity for them’ because some Catholic schools are over-subscribed, and some Educate Together schools are over-subscribed. There appears to me to be a question of parents who would rather their children’s education wasn’t compromised by childen from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds being enrolled in the school, and an attempt by some parents to avoid their children mixing with children from multi-ethnic backgrounds. Personally? I can’t say I blame them. They are doing what they believe is in their own children’s best interests, and other parents and their children will always be the lesser priority.

I don’t share such concerns though as I believe that exposure to other cultures and communities is a good thing, though I do understand other people’s difficulties with one of the main issues being the language barrier. I would never assume someone were an outright bigot though, often they’re just simply ignorant. They tend to out themselves fairly quickly anyway, and in those cases I would suggest they build their own schools where they can promote their own particular beliefs among their own communities in their own schools.


Actually, it's more "Yeah, you've been having to act against your own self-interest to make way for my self-interest for decades...tough, why should I give up my self-interest for equality for all citizens?" Also, Christian kindness? Courtesy to your fellow citizens? Social responsibility? Not screwing over non-Catholic children? Having the State education system that we all pay towards open on equal grounds to Catholics and non-Catholics without proceeding to muck around with the non-Catholic children's heads?

Actually it’s not like that at all. I notice you avoided answering the question though. If your concern is equality for all citizens, then that’s not self-interest. What is self-interest is equality for all citizens on your terms. I on the other hand have no interest in equality for all citizens, as I value diversity and facilitating citizens in forming their own communities within society. I don’t believe there is any benefit to be gained in a society that makes attempts to be egalitarian and is blind to diversity, where the ‘one size fits all’ model of education is the standard.

To address your points about Christian kindness – kindness is not solely a Christian virtue, nor is martyrdom (for what it’s worth, I’m not the martyr you’re looking for!). I’ve already addressed the issue of courtesy and social responsibility – goes both ways surely? Nobody is screwing over non-Catholic children either, they’re just not allowing themselves to be screwed over by a tiny minority of adults who think they should be entitled to call the shots for everyone else. That might be your idea of ‘equality’ from your self-interested perspective, it sure as hell ain’t mine. We already a State education system that meets your criteria – it’s called the Patronage system. The only people proceeding to muck around with non-Catholic children’s heads are the people who choose to make life harder on themselves and then try and hold everyone else responsible for the consequences of their decisions.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

goes both ways surely? Nobody is screwing over non-Catholic children either, they’re just not allowing themselves to be screwed over by a tiny minority of adults who think they should be entitled to call the shots for everyone else.

Gosh, there's that assumption that the majority of people are happy with the current system again...

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know what consideration you expect for people who choose to make their own lives harder by choosing to enrol their children in schools which they’d rather not. They are not forced to enrol their children in religious ethos schools.

They do it because they have no other workable option. As several posters have repeatedly pointed out to you.

smacl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We do not live in an egalitarian society and I would not want to live in an egalitarian society. I don’t think that non-Catholics are being unreasonable in pointing out that 96.8% of schools in Ireland are religious ethos. I don’t think they’re in any position to make demands is all. Well, they can make demands, but whether or not they are taken seriously by anyone is another matter entirely. Clearly they haven’t been taken seriously so far, and I would suggest that given Richard Brutons reply to Joan Burton on the question of divestment, that they aren’t likely to be taken seriously any time in the near future either

Wow! So you recognise that our society does not treat people equally, which is no doubt the case, but you actually applaud this? The above statement boils down to 'might is right and if you don't like it, tough luck'. From where I'm sitting you've just painted yourself as a rather unpleasant extremist and I would suggest that your view are very far from those held by most Irish people not to mention Christianity in general, after all "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Oh, and the politicians will only continue to ignore those in favour of a more egalitarian and secular society once they consider their voting power insignificant, which is rapidly ceasing to be the case. In case you missed it, we currently have a minority government who are fighting a losing battle on many fronts to maintain the status quo.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that if parents choose to enrol their children in a particular school, that they support the ethos of that school.

Just to point this quote out, because it's also the central problem you're having.

No. No it is not reasonable to assume this at all.

This is evidenced by the fact that despite this apparent "support" for the Catholic ethos, there doesn't seem to be that much support for Catholic ideals. (Like for instance, going to church.)
This is also evidenced by the numerous people who state that the only reason they baptise their children is that they wish to have a better chance of getting into a school that better suits them in terms of location etc.

This is also evidence by the fact that my mother sent me to a Catholic school, yet did not agree with it's ethos and specifically said so.

So, a rather ignorant and fatal assumption.

Samaris

You said it yourself that there are the Educate Together schools, and they’re just for starters. There are still any number of options open to someone who wishes to become a teacher, but doesn’t want to teach in a school with a religious ethos on the basis that it violates their principles. That’s of course notwithstanding the fact that while you may think they would make a great teacher, one of the requirements for a teaching post in a Catholic school is a religious certificate –

Plenty of opportunities...in the 3.2% of schools that are not religious ethos?

They are not forced to enrol their children in religious ethos schools. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that if parents choose to enrol their children in a particular school, that they support the ethos of that school.

See previous.

It is also unfair on all the children when some children are removed from the classroom at the behest of their parents who do not wish for their children to participate in religious education as it disrupts the class environment. If you think it’s only non-religious parents who jump through hoops in these circumstances, I would encourage you to visit any primary school with a multicultural demographic.

Sure, problematic, but not on-topic.

and the fact is that in many schools in Ireland, particularly in disadvantaged areas, the school may be Catholic, but the standard of education provided is poor. This would be an issue regardless of the ethos of the school, as the DES has consistently failed to provide adequately for education in Ireland. Parental choice is still the number one factor in their children’s education, and there are a number of other barriers to a high quality standard of education than solely the ethos of the school or schools. In most schools around the country, the religious criteria aren’t used in their admissions policies, particularly because they don’t need to be, and in some cases, those schools have closed down due to lack of student enrolment – parents want to get their children into what they believe are better schools, which provide better opportunities for the education of their children, regardless of the ethos of the school. You would have a point regarding starting from a neutral position if all schools were equal in all respects, but they aren’t, and the introduction of a model of education that you would find preferable, would simply do nothing to address this issue.

This comes down to little more than "I would agree with you if our schools were all excellent, but they're not so there's no point in solving one issue of inequality because sure we can't solve the rest of it so shush." So you would agree that it may be best for State education in this country to start children off from the same position vis a vis religious education IF schools were properly funded? Or, y'know, we could solve this really freaking obvious issue here and also work to solve the other issues? If that wasn't your point, then it would seem that your paragraph was a bit off-topic.

I didn’t see anyone making that argument? Looksee proposed that we live in an egalitarian society was the first mention of egalitarianism, and I simply disagreed that we do. We do not live in an egalitarian society and I would not want to live in an egalitarian society. I don’t think that non-Catholics are being unreasonable in pointing out that 96.8% of schools in Ireland are religious ethos. I don’t think they’re in any position to make demands is all. Well, they can make demands, but whether or not they are taken seriously by anyone is another matter entirely.

That is...breath-takingly selfish as an argument. Okay, so you don't want to live in an egalitarian society - I bet that position would change if you were being discriminated against in some way! But since in this case, you are on the "I'm alright, Jack" side, you don't want an egalitarian society because if everyone else is treated equal...what, you lose out? 98.6% of schools are religious ethos, therefore, you can point this out, but don't you dare try to change it, that would be very unfair to me.

Jays, one can see why civil rights movements took such a long time to kick off.

Answer me this then - why is it that religion is the one, sole subject in which "facts" that are not neccessarily truthful are specifically taught to young children in our schools as something that is at least on a par with subjects that are based on factual evidence? Why is this a sensible approach? Why is it a sensible approach to have, as part of the state-funded method of education in this country, an education system that prioritises children of one specific subgroup above all others and at the expense of all others? Oh, because "we don't live in an egalitarian society" and that's all good with you so you will dismiss any objections as selfish parents trying to do down the poor Catholic children - as opposed to having all the children being educated in our schools on the same level, with the same opportunities. Why is it even a defensible position to argue that you have a benefit that others should not have because of your religion?

An education is a neccessity - it is a legal requirement and perhaps the single most (or well up there in the mosts) important influence on what becomes of a child's life. This isn't some little, unimportant issue that's being pressed because "they have something we don't", this is a push for equality to all children in our Irish schools so that all of them have the best chances possible in life. It is, admittedly, also absolutely ridiculous that one brand of mythology is taught as historical fact*, but that's where we are.



*And it is always entertaining to ask the visiting priest why Hinduism is a false religion, but it tends to go badly with the teacher once the priest is gone.

Samaris

By the way, I am absolutely in favour of parents teaching their children about their religion and family customs at home or in the many after- or around-school classes, such as Sunday School classes and...what was the name of that religious childrens group that I attended...it wasn't a Sunday School but it was a recognised name. Or religious classes of other religions, etcetera. I don't, however, particularly appreciate taxes going to support it using up valuable time within official education. It's purely ridiculous once it gets to the big events, especially Communion. I learned a hell of a lot more about how to recite Catholic prayers that year than I did maths and science, I'll tell you that.

By the way, if you support children getting to know other customs, surely you would also support their understanding more world religions and other peoples modes of beliefs in a neutral way? It's just exposure to other cultures after all. I'm also fine with children learning about world religions, I just object to one particular set being taught as Truth by our tax-funded education system in our secular state.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Having a single dominant religion foisted upon you regardless of your own beliefs or lack thereof, as is the case in the vast majority of schools in this country, is the antithesis of freedom of religious expression. It is an oppressive abuse of a dominant position, plain and simple.

I suspect engaging with anything in your reply is contraindicated, so I'll try progressing the conversation in another way.

You've set out the educational model you'd like to see; exclusively secular schools under the control of the State if I take you up correctly? Obviously that model would require significant changes to the Constitution, as well as substantial overhaul and investment in the education system. I'm not aware of any appetite amongst the political parties for an referendum on withdrawing parents rights, so I'd say even setting the wheels in motion for such changes is at very best a few years away, would you agree?

So... how long, assuming the optimistic side of realism, do you think it will be before what you want could exist? My suspicion is, with the best will in the world, not before everyone who's currently going into school has left it. Now I'm not knocking long term goals, we all need ambitions, but I find myself wondering why so much effort is invested in arguing for something that at best won't make any difference to anyone's life in the next decade, but the possibilities for making a difference now gain little or no traction.

What is there (if anything) that you think proponents of secular schools can actually do, which can effect what you think is positive change for this school going generation? What's a reasonable goal?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

What is there (if anything) that you think proponents of secular schools can actually do, which can effect what you think is positive change for this school going generation? What's a reasonable goal?

Well, suppose Leo announced tomorrow that state funding of schools would be withheld from any school with an admissions policy that endorsed religious discrimination. How long would it be be before the offending schools produced new admissions policies? I'm guessing only weeks or months.

Secondly, suppose an order was made that all state funded schools would henceforth be required to teach religion in a neutral way, so that the schools would be equally suitable for all citizens. How long would it be before change occurred? Again, I'm guessing only a few months before any BOM with the power to do so adapted to the new rules.
Some schools would be held back by their owners. They might last a year as private religious schools before having to hike up the fees. At that stage most would lose their clientele, and as a result they would either close down, or divest to a purely educational "patron" who would feel able to comply with the rules.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

What is there (if anything) that you think proponents of secular schools can actually do, which can effect what you think is positive change for this school going generation? What's a reasonable goal?

The primary school I went to many years ago (or back in the time that dinosaurs roamed the earth if you talk to my kids) had a rather fantastic headmistress called Florrie Armstrong who went on to set up the very first ET school. Some four decades on we have 81 such ET primary schools and a further 9 secondary ones, which only meets a fraction of the demand for secular education out there. The growth rate is however slowly accelerating year on year, so while many of this generation will be disappointed and have to put up with an unwanted indoctrination into the Catholic ethos, I would sincerely hope that they are one of the last generations to have to go through this. The fact that we also have a generation of parents who only go to a church when necessary and pay little heed to Catholic dogma is likely to accelerate this further. As for the politicians and constitutional implications, they'll do the bare minimum amount of work to get the votes to keep them where they are, but once they realise that is where the votes are they'll codify it all and pretend it was their idea in the first place.

Out of interest, how long do you think religious ethos schools can continue to remain as the principal mode of education in a country where native priests are practically extinct and the larger part of the population has ceased regular religious observance?

Samaris

There was an argument going on some pages back that it was amazing how many people returned to Catholicism after dropping away from it once they went to uni as young adults.

Someone pointed out today that it might be worth looking at the correlation between these adults becoming parents that have to start working towards getting their children into schools. Especially when 20% of Irish schools are over-subscribed.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They do it because they have no other workable option. As several posters have repeatedly pointed out to you.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to several posters - there are several other workable options for their children's education. Your reply still doesn't answer the question as to why you might feel parents who support the ethos of the school, should show consideration to those parents who do not support the ethos of the school?

smacl wrote: »

Wow! So you recognise that our society does not treat people equally, which is no doubt the case, but you actually applaud this? The above statement boils down to 'might is right and if you don't like it, tough luck'. From where I'm sitting you've just painted yourself as a rather unpleasant extremist and I would suggest that your view are very far from those held by most Irish people not to mention Christianity in general, after all "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". Oh, and the politicians will only continue to ignore those in favour of a more egalitarian and secular society once they consider their voting power insignificant, which is rapidly ceasing to be the case. In case you missed it, we currently have a minority government who are fighting a losing battle on many fronts to maintain the status quo.

No, I don't 'applaud' it. I'm simply saying that neither equality, nor egalitarianism according to some people's ideas of equality and egalitarianism, is of any interest to me personally. I can understand why some people would consider that an unpleasantly extremist position, but then you would have to look at it in the context that their proposed ideal for an egalitarian, secular society with equality for all, is based upon the erasure of people's fundamental human rights.

I'm not at all suggesting that 'might is right'; not at all ironic either that you would point that out to me, and then go on to suggest that it was a good thing that people who are not in favour of your idea of a secular, egalitarian society are fast becoming a minority. I'm simply pointing out that is not the case, and that those who argue for the removal of people's fundamental human rights are in a minority, and while they are of course entitled to try and call the shots - they are not entitled to be taken seriously. People will decide for themselves whether to take them seriously or not, and due to the fact that they lack any real representation, the fact is that often times they just aren't taken seriously. They just don't represent or present a credible threat to society, so I'm not overly concerned that there might be a risk they will ever achieve their aims with regards to Irish society.

King Mob wrote: »

Just to point this quote out, because it's also the central problem you're having.

No. No it is not reasonable to assume this at all.

This is evidenced by the fact that despite this apparent "support" for the Catholic ethos, there doesn't seem to be that much support for Catholic ideals. (Like for instance, going to church.)
This is also evidenced by the numerous people who state that the only reason they baptise their children is that they wish to have a better chance of getting into a school that better suits them in terms of location etc.

This is also evidence by the fact that my mother sent me to a Catholic school, yet did not agree with it's ethos and specifically said so.

So, a rather ignorant and fatal assumption.

Rather than being an ignorant and fatal assumption, it's perfectly reasonable for the school to assume that when parents are enrolling their child or children in the school, that they are aware of their responsibility to support the ethos of the school. The fact that some parents ignore this responsibility is where the ignorance and assumption on their part comes into play when they then expect that they should be supported by the school community which they themselves chose not to support. I'm not even going to quarrel with your handful of anecdotes tbh, I'm well aware of parental assumptions based upon their ignorance of their responsibilities towards the school community where they have chosen to enrol their child(ren). The fact that the parents may have ulterior motives for enrolling their children in the school is really their own business, and doesn't negate the reasonable assumption made that they would want to support the ethos of the school.

Samaris wrote: »

Plenty of opportunities...in the 3.2% of schools that are not religious ethos?

Yes? Plenty of opportunities, the figure of 3.2% represents the number of schools, not the number of teaching posts available in those schools. There may well be even more opportunities available for your friend given the number of people I have interviewed for teaching positions in Catholic schools who had previously held positions in ET schools. They may also find though they are competing with prospective teachers who had qualified to teach in Ireland but chose to go abroad, and were now returning and hoping to teach in their old schools, or in schools in their local area, or the area they had moved to for personal reasons (family, etc). Just like anyone else really, your friend would face competition in the teaching sector, and not necessarily just because of their principled stance - there are plenty of highly qualified teachers they would be competing with, and there is no requirement on any teacher to be of the same religious affiliation (or none) as the school they wish to teach in.

Sure, problematic, but not on-topic.

It was perfectly on-topic as it relates to your assertion that withdrawing their children from class is only an imposition on non-religious parents that do not wish to have their children exposed to dangerous nonsense. Clearly, as demonstrated by the example case study I presented - this is not the case.

This comes down to little more than "I would agree with you if our schools were all excellent, but they're not so there's no point in solving one issue of inequality because sure we can't solve the rest of it so shush." So you would agree that it may be best for State education in this country to start children off from the same position vis a vis religious education IF schools were properly funded? Or, y'know, we could solve this really freaking obvious issue here and also work to solve the other issues? If that wasn't your point, then it would seem that your paragraph was a bit off-topic.

You read that completely wrong then than the point which was intended. Of course I'm not telling you to shush, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I'm not saying there's no point in attempting to solve one issue of inequality that you're focussed on, I'm saying that there are other issues which deserve greater resources because they are greater inequalities than your single issue. I don't agree at all that it may be best for the State to fund education in this country equally among patron bodies because some patron bodies represent more schools than others, and so there should be proportionate representation, rather than equal representation.

That would be fairer to all than simply denying the greatest provider of education funding solely because a minority of people in society believe that they are promoting dangerous nonsense. To be perfectly honest, that idea in itself, is dangerous nonsense from my point of view, but then again - I would say that.

That is...breath-takingly selfish as an argument. Okay, so you don't want to live in an egalitarian society - I bet that position would change if you were being discriminated against in some way! But since in this case, you are on the "I'm alright, Jack" side, you don't want an egalitarian society because if everyone else is treated equal...what, you lose out? 98.6% of schools are religious ethos, therefore, you can point this out, but don't you dare try to change it, that would be very unfair to me.

Just to be absolutely and perfectly clear - when I said I would not want to live in an egalitarian society, I was referring to your vision for an egalitarian society, the one that erases people's fundamental human rights. You're also wrong in suggesting that my current position would change if I were discriminated against in some way. I have been involved in education for a long time now and I have sought equality on a number of fronts with regard to the rights of children to an education, and not just any old education, but to an education which allows them the opportunities for social mobility that their parents often couldn't care less for, or sometimes that their parents simply cannot afford. I didn't care that they weren't Catholic, I cared about their parents wishes for their children first and foremost, and use every resource I have to see that their children get the education that is best for them, according to their parents wishes, and according to the child's potential. I don't treat every child equally, because that would mean providing a sub-standard level of care, as opposed to giving every child the opportunity to fully envisage his or her potential.

I didn't suggest you couldn't try and change anything btw. I was making the point that the 98.6% figure is only stating a fact, but it doesn't actually change the fact. What is more important to point out is that if it can be shown that there is a need for non-denominational schools in Ireland, then that 98.6% figure changes - it becomes less representative, as more schools are opened to fulfil a growing need for more diversity in the provision of education in Ireland. You're unlikely ever to gain support for denying someone something, you're far more likely to gain support for something. I would support calls for more schools to provide the sort of education you're suggesting. I would not support calls for the State being able to deny funding for education on the basis of religion, whether it be Quakers, Protestants, Jews, Pentecostals, Seventh Day Adventists, or indeed Zoroastrians.

Jays, one can see why civil rights movements took such a long time to kick off.

Because they lacked popular support in society perhaps? That's certainly a more feasible explanation than the idea that anyone was actively trying to deny anyone their civil rights, as some people here are arguing for. It's easy to see why their ideas aren't particularly strongly supported. If you can have more people in society see what civil rights you appear to think they are being denied, then perhaps your ideas for the system of education you would prefer might gain more traction outside of the virtual sphere. The problem is getting parents even interested in their children's education is a tough job, never mind people who aren't parents.

To give you some indication of the lack of interest in children's rights - the Children's Referendum had the second lowest turnout in the history of the State - 33.5%

Answer me this then - why is it that religion is the one, sole subject in which "facts" that are not neccessarily truthful are specifically taught to young children in our schools as something that is at least on a par with subjects that are based on factual evidence? Why is this a sensible approach? Why is it a sensible approach to have, as part of the state-funded method of education in this country, an education system that prioritises children of one specific subgroup above all others and at the expense of all others? Oh, because "we don't live in an egalitarian society" and that's all good with you so you will dismiss any objections as selfish parents trying to do down the poor Catholic children - as opposed to having all the children being educated in our schools on the same level, with the same opportunities. Why is it even a defensible position to argue that you have a benefit that others should not have because of your religion?

You're making an awful lot of arguments, and then assuming answers for me on my behalf without even giving me a chance to reply, and I'm left wondering "What's the point? You have all the answers!", but then you do deserve the courtesy of a proper reply when you're at least able to be civil about it.

The reason why children are taught religion in religious ethos schools should be obvious - because that is the model of education provided by the religious ethos school. Other types of schools provide other models of education, which parents are free to avail of, should they wish to do so. The education system in Ireland actually doesn't prioritise one subgroup above another, it is the patrons of the schools who prioritise one subgroup above another. As to why they do that, well that too is obvious - because it is in the interests of their community that they provide the model of education that the parents within that community want for their children. Think of the modern equivalent of it as 'safe spaces'.

You can't argue that something which you believe is of no benefit to children should be denied to them, and then claim it is unfair that children are being denied the opportunity to avail of something which you believe is of no benefit to them. It just makes no sense whatsoever. You appear to be arguing that in order for your vision of equality and egalitarianism to be realised - parents should be denied the opportunity to choose the method by which their children are to be educated. Now not only are you trying to deny people their fundamental human rights, but you are also trying to deny parents their parental rights! That sounds very much to me like you want everyone to be in an equally lesser position, and that to me sounds very much like a regressive approach to education, rather than a progressive approach to education which would recognise diversity and allow equal opportunities for everyone on that basis, rather than denying people opportunities, to bring everyone down to the same level, rather than raising everyone up to the same level.

An education is a neccessity - it is a legal requirement and perhaps the single most (or well up there in the mosts) important influence on what becomes of a child's life. This isn't some little, unimportant issue that's being pressed because "they have something we don't", this is a push for equality to all children in our Irish schools so that all of them have the best chances possible in life. It is, admittedly, also absolutely ridiculous that one brand of mythology is taught as historical fact*, but that's where we are.

*And it is always entertaining to ask the visiting priest why Hinduism is a false religion, but it tends to go badly with the teacher once the priest is gone.

Y'know, I agreed with everything you said in that paragraph, and then you go and include the asterisk'd bit about how entertaining it is for you to make other people uncomfortable. I don't see what's particularly entertaining about it, but to each their own, literally. Would it be so equally entertaining if you were a religious parent who's child came home and told them that the teacher had said or done something in the class which made them feel uncomfortable?

It happens: Limerick school apologises for Charlie Hebdo in classroom

A real thigh-slapper that one, all the kids fault of course, the adults bore no responsibility. This is why I'm somewhat grateful that your friend took the principled stance they do - less chance of them undermining the family and the parents as the primary educators of their children.

Samaris wrote: »

By the way, I am absolutely in favour of parents teaching their children about their religion and family customs at home or in the many after- or around-school classes, such as Sunday School classes and...what was the name of that religious childrens group that I attended...it wasn't a Sunday School but it was a recognised name. Or religious classes of other religions, etcetera. I don't, however, particularly appreciate taxes going to support it using up valuable time within official education. It's purely ridiculous once it gets to the big events, especially Communion. I learned a hell of a lot more about how to recite Catholic prayers that year than I did maths and science, I'll tell you that.

By the way, if you support children getting to know other customs, surely you would also support their understanding more world religions and other peoples modes of beliefs in a neutral way? It's just exposure to other cultures after all. I'm also fine with children learning about world religions, I just object to one particular set being taught as Truth by our tax-funded education system in our secular state.

Meh, for me personally, I prefer a more immersive method of education when it comes to learning about other people's cultures and beliefs, as I don't believe in the idea that anyone really truly learns anything regarding other cultures and beliefs when it's taught in the neutral way I think you're suggesting. It doesn't mean that they have to forego their own cultural and religious identity, it just means that they can learn from others.

I genuinely do understand your objections to the current state of affairs, I really do, but I just disagree with the idea you see as the way forward for society and the way you determine is the best way to address the issue.

King Mob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Rather than being an ignorant and fatal assumption, it's perfectly reasonable for the school to assume that when parents are enrolling their child or children in the school, that they are aware of their responsibility to support the ethos of the school. The fact that some parents ignore this responsibility is where the ignorance and assumption on their part comes into play when they then expect that they should be supported by the school community which they themselves chose not to support. I'm not even going to quarrel with your handful of anecdotes tbh, I'm well aware of parental assumptions based upon their ignorance of their responsibilities towards the school community where they have chosen to enrol their child(ren). The fact that the parents may have ulterior motives for enrolling their children in the school is really their own business, and doesn't negate the reasonable assumption made that they would want to support the ethos of the school.
l

So the fact that a person doesn't actually support the ethos of the school doesn't affect the assumption that they support the ethos of the school?
No... It kinda does. It shows the assumption is false and doesn't always hold true.


Why, if the majority of people support catholic ethos, is mass attendance so low?

One eyed Jack

King Mob wrote: »

So the fact that a person doesn't actually support the ethos of the school doesn't affect the assumption that they support the ethos of the school?
No... It kinda does. It shows the assumption is false and doesn't always hold true.

The fact that you chose to focus on the last line in that paragraph, doesn't negate the explanation that preceded it. Reading the whole paragraph shouldn't have led to you being confused really. If parents choose to enrol their children in a school, then it's reasonable for the school to assume that the parents would support the ethos of the school in the interests of their children's education. The fact that the assumption later turns out to be false, is contingent on the fact that the parent later makes it known that they do not support the ethos of the school. It's not the fault of the school, it's the responsibility of the parents.

Why, if the majority of people support catholic ethos, is mass attendance so low?

As I said - if parents have their own ulterior motives for enrolling their children in a particular school, that's their own business. They are expected to support the school community if they expect support from the school community.

Collective responsibility is admittedly more of an idealistic aspiration in modern times in an individualistic, liberal society though, and that comes with both it's benefits and it's drawbacks - more individual freedom, less of a feeling of having a responsibility or an obligation towards others in society.