School patronage

recedite

lazygal wrote: »

Rule 68 was part of the rules for national schools. It never applied to second level schools.

I did point that out as well

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

The Feb one was not workable. Supposing there was a school that was already teaching a balanced religion class, without indoctrination. The pupils might have heard about the new rule and decided to opt-out of the class en masse. What would the school do with them then. What would the school do with the religion teacher?
I think in the long term there will be less call for religion teachers, and those that are employed in ETB schools will need upskilling, to cover other areas such as mental health welfare issues and ethics (which some are already doing to some extent) But the Dept. can't just potentially make them all redundant with one circular. Far better to control what they are teaching, and make it acceptable to all.

Pupils and parents are entitled to opt out of any subject.
No one can expect children to be forced to study religion so a teacher keeps his or her job.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I think its important to give credit where its due, and not to be complaining all the time :pac:
Look how far we have come in the last few years. Rule 68 (for primary schools) dropped in 2016...

And how exactly do you think these changes came about, other than by vociferously rejecting the status quo on the one hand, an by independently creating an alternative model through ET on the other?

You might be happy with the status quo and rather dubiously suggest that many atheists would generally be happy with compulsory religious education classes. I'd suggest that we have a long long way yet to go in terms of educational reform in this country and don't see anything much to celebrate in this particular government response.

smacl

lazygal wrote: »

Pupils and parents are entitled to opt out of any subject.
No one can expect children to be forced to study religion so a teacher keeps his or her job.

Absolutely! The education system we pay for with our taxes is there first and foremost to educate our children in the way that we, as a society, see fit. It is not there to protect the jobs of those who may have little of value to teach. As with anyone else working for a living, they should re-train such that they've something useful to teach. Put another way, if we have a limited amount of money to spend, say enough for one additional member of staff, do we employ a religion teacher, a science teacher, a maths teacher, a language teacher, a technology teacher, a SNA, etc... For many people, including those that are religious themselves, I'd suggest that the religion teacher is going to end up at the bottom of that list.

evolving_doors

expectationlost wrote: »

Teachers warn removal of ‘baptism barrier’ will cause chaos for schools
INTO https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teachers-warn-removal-of-baptism-barrier-will-cause-chaos-for-schools-1.3650441 sheesh

I doubt very much it's 'teachers' warning of this. It's Sheala Nunan of the INTO going on a solo run using that platform for her own promotion.

It's a school management/enrollment issue (specifically the one talked about..) not a teaching issue.

The IPPN is where she should be raising this issue... and letting them speak on behalf of principals/management.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

You might be happy with the status quo and rather dubiously suggest that many atheists would generally be happy with compulsory religious education classes. I'd suggest that we have a long long way yet to go in terms of educational reform in this country and don't see anything much to celebrate in this particular government response.

I'm happy with the way things are progressing, and I think you are being a bit mean spirited. Would you object to compulsory religion classes in an ET school? We are not talking indoctrination into any one religion here, we are talking education about religions, combined with some form of ethics and social responsibility discussion. I'm all for it. I have a daughter in an ETB school and according to her they don't do all that much on religion, but they incorporate a lot of what she calls "anti-suicide stuff" into the religion classes and also some meditation and de-stressing. That surprised me at first, but on reflection I realised that the school and/or teacher was using the time to plug a very important gap in the kids education. Which "in theory" is missing from the general curriculum, but which they are in fact now getting.

smacl wrote: »

And how exactly do you think these changes came about, other than by vociferously rejecting the status quo on the one hand, an by independently creating an alternative model through ET on the other?

In the long term ET had some hand in it, as did the general change in society and the decline of religious authority in society.

In the short term, I give the credit to Michael Nugent and AI. he campaigned saying the ETB religion classes were "too catholic" (I'm paraphrasing now but that was the general idea, and it was correct) considering they were supposed to be state education and the opt-out wasn't properly available. The February circular attempted to address that, but it made the two mistakes of allowing religious indoctrination to remain in the classes of some schools, while possibly allowing students to opt out of the classes in other schools that did not feature any indoctrination, thereby creating a logistical nightmare.
Nugent then went on an information gathering campaign in ETB schools to highlight the fact that the Feb circular wasn't working or being implemented. As I see it, Dept.of Education has headed off any embarrassment this might cause by remedying their mistakes. From now on, if any ETB school wants to incorporate religious instruction into the religion class, they will have to ask the pupils/parents for an opt-in (the default position will be opt-out) And they will then have to provide alternative tuition. It would most probably be unworkable.
So while the easy option for the school principal before was mandatory religious instruction, the easy option now is no religious instruction.



So now, while he doesn't seem to realise it yet, Nugent has won this battle.
Nobody is going to give him a medal, or put him on a podium and present him with a bouquet. But as the yanks would say "Good job" you have done a good service to the community and the country. And I say that as a parent who has a child in one of these schools.
It is over to the parents and the students themselves now, to make sure these new rules are fully implemented.

EdgeCase

What concerns me is that because we are not adapting towards an open, secular, genuinely public school system we are laying the foundations for social problems in a few decades time.

Ireland’s very much more diverse than it was both because of immigration and the society becoming much less religious generally.

If we can’t accommodate people in a public school system, as we effectively have a private school religious system that is almost entirely state funded and never really evolved a proper public school model, then we end up creating sectarian divisions and people who will inevitably feel excluded from the mainstream of society.

You’re going to see more schools appearing that are Muslim ethos or evangelical Christian ethos and that’s just going to end up with a potential for nearly de facto educational apartheid.

There’s still a huge blind spot about this in Ireland and while there’s some improvement there hasn’t been that much.

We wouldn’t accept the kind of discrimination and segregation by religion and gender at 3rd level or in sport or work so why do we accept it in education?

Can you imagine any other public service that ran on that basis?
Like say Catholic and Church of Ireland libraries or NCT centres that prioritised one faith group over all others and none ?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Would you object to compulsory religion classes in an ET school?

Yes.

We are not talking indoctrination into any one religion here, we are talking education about religions, combined with some form of ethics and social responsibility discussion.

As with any subject, if it is not taught critically, it is doctrinaire. In terms of social responsibility, we already have CSPE (Civic, Social and Political Education) as part of the national curriculum. In terms of personal mental and physical wellbeing we have SPHE. The fact that you feel the need to tack on topics such as ethics and social responsibility to a religion class to make it worthwhile really just illustrates that it has little value in and of itself. That said, if it was taught critically, as an optional subject, I'd have no issue with it. To reiterate, while the church might prefer you to think that ethics and being socially responsible stem from religion, that is very far from a universally held belief.

In the short term, I give the credit to Michael Nugent and AI.

Kudos to Michael and crew for what they've achieved and the work they've put in. That said, in terms of progressing the goal of providing a truly secular and inclusive education option to a large number of people, I think ET have achieved orders of magnitude more and continue to do so. I rather doubt the various governments of the day would have even acknowledged the demand for secular education if it wasn't for parents building ET schools in spite of rather than with the assistance of the Dept of Ed. While the ET ethos may not be what everyone wants, it has certainly brought awareness of the ever increasing public demand for secular education to the fore.

I find it strange to see someone promoting AI on the one hand while defending mandatory religious education in state funded schools on the other. Seems bizarre.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

To reiterate, while the church might prefer you to think that ethics and being socially responsible stem from religion, that is very far from a universally held belief.

I'm well aware of that. But that's just one of the interesting discusssions for students to have during a class on religion. How are they going to know this stuff if we censor all talk of religion during school hours?


It just seems a bit hypocritical that you are banging on the keyboard like a chimpanzee because ETB schools run a class that uses the word "religion" in its title, but without your really knowing or caring or what is taught in the class. While at the same time raving about ET schools (which are known to actually celebrate religious festivals in the classroom, and occasionally get in guest speakers from various religions) And while your own daughter is attending a convent school where she gets the full-on RCC indoctrination which you described and complained about a few posts back.
If you want to be the proverbial aggressive atheist, fine. But at least be consistent about it.

smacl wrote: »

I find it strange to see someone promoting AI on the one hand while defending mandatory religious education in state funded schools on the other. Seems bizarre.

I'll just point out here that

(a) according to this new circular, religion in ETB schools is no more mandatory than history or geography, both of which can also be interesting subjects. But there isn't always room in the timetable these days for everything, especially with the likes of coding and technical drawing/graphics coming in as standard subjects.


b) Ideally I'd prefer to see one class with a simple name like "civics" or "religion and ethics" which would rotate through the different topics of religion, ethics, social responsiblity/awareness, human relationships and consent etc. and discuss how all these connect and interact. I think that's what today's religion classes will gradually evolve into, but I'm not hung up about the title of the class. As long as the content is suitable for all kids, its all good. I think that kind of class should be mandatory, at least in the junior cycle.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I'm well aware of that. But that's just one of the interesting discusssions for students to have during a class on religion. How are they going to know this stuff if we censor all talk of religion during school hours?

Who's talking about censoring anything here? There are lots of subjects that students might find interesting, some of which make quite good optional subjects, but not making them mandatory for all students hardly amounts to censorship even to the wildest imagination.

It just seems a bit hypocritical that you are banging on the keyboard like a chimpanzee because ETB schools run a class that uses the word "religion" in its title, but without your really knowing or caring or what is taught in the class. While at the same time raving about ET schools (which are known to actually celebrate religious festivals in the classroom, and occasionally get in guest speakers from various religions) And while your own daughter is attending a convent school where she gets the full-on RCC indoctrination which you described and complained about a few posts back.
If you want to be the proverbial aggressive atheist, fine. But at least be consistent about it.

Gotcha. So the ETB religion class has the word religion in the title but doesn't actually teach religion. Seems odd on that basis that AI / Teach don't preach are very particular about parents being able to opt out of state religious education classes distinctly from religious instruction or combined religious education and instruction. As for my daughter going to a convent school, you'll find many if not most of the secondary schools have links to religious orders and at one point were run by nuns or brothers. The religion classes were to the state religious education curriculum, as I'd imagine are the classes at your kids ETB. Terrible bloody school but religion was not the big problem. As for ET encouraging children to openly display and celebrate their religious and ethnic identity, why not? Would you perhaps rather censor them? Note that this is very different from teaching religion as a classroom subject, where Catholicism is placed centre stage and there are critical discussions on 'other religions'. The term 'other religions' is an interesting one in that it appears in the NCCA religious education curriculum and really illustrates a total lack of religious neutrality.

I'll just point out here that

(a) according to this new circular, religion in ETB schools is no more mandatory than history or geography, both of which can also be interesting subjects. But there isn't always room in the timetable these days for everything, especially with the likes of coding and technical drawing/graphics coming in as standard subjects.

If it is not offered as a option to the students, it is mandatory to them. The fact that the school may have an option not to teach it is of no consequence once this option is not passed on. Again, not seeing how religious education merits the same attention as history or geography, and FWIW I did technical drawing for my leaving in 1984, so not exactly a new subject either.

b) Ideally I'd prefer to see one class with a simple name like "civics" or "religion and ethics" which would rotate through the different topics of religion, ethics, social responsibility/awareness, human relationships and consent etc. and discuss how all these connect and interact. I think that's what today's religion classes will gradually evolve into, but I'm not hung up about the title of the class. As long as the content is suitable for all kids, its all good. I think that kind of class should be mandatory, at least in the junior cycle.

And there you go again, confusing religion, ethics and civics this time. Once again, look at the national curriculum. CSPE covers civics and politics, SPHE covers social responsibility. I don't think today's religion classes will evolve into anything because I do believe they'll become optional to the student, get tiny numbers attending, and end up as a small minority subject. I'd guess that schools with a strong religious ethos, among not just the board of governors but also the student and parent body, will provide religious instruction alongside religious education and other schools will simply drop it entirely as a taught subject.

alaimacerc

smacl wrote: »

Who's talking about censoring anything here? There are lots of subjects that students might find interesting, some of which make quite good optional subjects, but not making them mandatory for all students hardly amounts to censorship even to the wildest imagination.

No real actual imagination needed. When one's preferred "ethos" has been in a vastly privileged position for a long time, having it moved to a marginally less privileged one feels exactly like oppression. In hippocampus money, though clearly not in actual logic.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

It just seems a bit hypocritical that you are banging on the keyboard like a chimpanzee

But not that you show so little respect for the considered contributions of other posters?

expectationlost

emma o'kelly with more background docs https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/1007/1001501-emma-o-kelly/

Hotblack Desiato

Teach Don't Preach - New Circular Letter for religion in ETB schools? Atheist Ireland to meet Department of Education

recedite

I think there is some confusion here about whether the national curriculum as taught in ETB schools is biased towards RCC or not. And to be fair, the Dept of Ed circulars have been a bit vague (perhaps deliberately)
From expectationlost's previous post..

*This refers to the NCCA Religious Education syllabuses for both Junior and Senior cycle. A new NCCA Junior Cycle Religious Education Specification will be introduced from September 2019 and will replace the current NCCA Religious Education Junior Certificate Syllabus. 2 In section 5 of that circular it was stated that the NCCA Religious Education curriculum at either Junior or Senior cycle level also serves the religious instruction requirements of the Catholic church and that where that is the case it is important that parents are made fully aware that the curriculum is not necessarily confined to learning about religions.
The NCCA-developed Religious Education Junior and Senior Cycle syllabuses, and the Religious Education specification for Junior Cycle, to be introduced in 2019, are intended for students of all faith backgrounds and none. The content prescribed in the syllabuses is intended to ensure that students are exposed to a broad range of religious traditions and to the non-religious interpretation of life. They do not provide religious instruction in any particular religious or faith tradition.

The key point is that the last line applies to the 2019 syllabus. The current syllabus is still a bit dodgy, as mentioned in note 2 above (referring back to the February circular). I'm not sure if anyone has seen this 2019 syllabus, or if it even exists in reality.

In the meantime, I would assume note 3 applies to any RCC specific content within the current syllabus...

3 Religious Education, where it is offered by a school, must be delivered in the timetabled class periods without any religious instruction or worship of any religion forming any part of class activity. This means that any practice or material that would introduce religious instruction or worship cannot be used in the future.

Although they have not made that point very clear. Its that typical civil servant mentality of trying to gloss over/cover up their own mistakes. So there is this interim period now for 2018, which has been fudged; it is neither one nor the other.


But I reckon as long as things are moving along in the right direction, a little bit of latitude, or a transition period, can be allowed. Especially when it comes after many decades of intransigence and stagnation on this whole issue.



BTW it might be interesting for somebody to create a poll on the forum to gauge opinion on whether a small amount of "teaching about religion in an objective way" is considered useful in schools, or should be an opt-out subject.

Hotblack Desiato

Read the link I posted. The NCCA RE curriculum is far from objective.

lazygal

I've no interest in my children learning about religion. I'll be opting them out of any RE course in school. I'd rather they study something useful.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Read the link I posted. The NCCA RE curriculum is far from objective.

Yes but read my last post. People are failing to distinguish between the last NCCA curriculum and the next (amended) one.

expectationlost

recedite wrote: »

Yes but read my last post. People are failing to distinguish between the last NCCA curriculum and the next (amended) one.

the one that doesn't exist yet and you think schools will stick to it?

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Yes but read my last post. People are failing to distinguish between the last NCCA curriculum and the next (amended) one.

The NCCA curriculum for religion isn't a good course imo. My children won't be doing the subject.

waterfaerie

expectationlost wrote: »

the one that doesn't exist yet and you think schools will stick to it?

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Even if it was as balanced as some are making out, which I would be very sceptical about anyway, there's no reason to assume schools and teachers will stick to it. One of the main reasons the government have backed out of the last circular is because the schools don't know what to do with their religion teachers. They're not exactly going to hire in new, unbiased staff if they have no work for the existing staff! The existing catholic religion teachers will be teaching this. I can't believe anyone could believe it's not going to be biased.

recedite

My reading of the situation now in 2018 is that ETB school students have every right to opt out of the NCCA curriculum and demand alternative tuition in another subject. If individual schools want to avoid this, its up to the principal and the religion teacher to modify the course content by removing anything that could be construed as RC religious instruction.
And I hope individual students and parents are rigorous in enforcing this.

lazygal

All schools have to do is timetable religion as an optional subject. That's it. The schools and unions are deliberately trying to make this complicated so they don't have to change the status quo.

Hotblack Desiato

And of course keep teachers of a useless "subject" in jobs.

smacl

Interesting article in today's Irish Times on how discriminatory enrolment practises are leading to racial segregation in our school systems. We certainly have a disproportionately large number of new immigrants in my daughter's ET school, though very difficult to know whether that's because they've been rejected by other schools or simply prefer the ET ethos. I'm guessing a mixture of both, where the number of Middle Eastern and North African muslim kids has declined as they seem to prefer gender segregation and a more conservative ethos at second level where it is an option.

Information collected during the Department of Education’s annual census for the school year 2013-2014 shows 23 per cent of Irish schools educated almost 80 per cent of children of immigrant origin.

I'd wonder about the risk of future ghettoization if this isn't addressed. The government approach seems to be to make conciliatory noises while reinforcing the status quo

A spokeswoman for the Department of Education says its “firm view” is all schools should be inclusive, something she says is reflected in the admissions Bill, the drafting of which is at “an advanced stage”. The Bill, however, still allows schools to protect their ethos and admit pupils on the basis of religion.

Plus ca change...

Geuze

Given the quality of many of people who have attended Jesuit schools, I would like there to be more Jesuit schools.

Why anybody would want the State to run all schools is beyond me.

British comprehensive schools are not exactly inspiring.

If people want their children to go to a State school, then there are VEC / ETB schools in most towns.


One of my hopes is that my children could attend a Jesuit school.

Odhinn

Geuze wrote: »

Given the quality of many of people who have attended Jesuit schools, I would like there to be more Jesuit schools.

Why anybody would want the State to run all schools is beyond me.

British comprehensive schools are not exactly inspiring.

If people want their children to go to a State school, then there are VEC / ETB schools in most towns.


One of my hopes is that my children could attend a Jesuit school.

Are you comfortable with the fact that the jesuits in a jesuit school put themselves and their order above the health and wellbeing of your child?

EdgeCase

Irish Constitution:

Article 44

2 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

4° Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.

Article 44

3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

So, I guess we just continue to ignore the constitution then to suit the unions?

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Interesting article in today's Irish Times on how discriminatory enrolment practises are leading to racial segregation in our school systems.

Interesting article all right but it's from February 2015.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting article all right but it's from February 2015.

Doh!