Atheist forced to participate in prayer at school

Bannasidhe

the dad in question wrote: »

Enjoying all this. Just to answer a question of fact. The school does have RE lessons, Nathan does attend and has never looked to be removed. Why you ask. Because these lessons are discussions about topics around life, society and religion and Nathan takes full part in these lessons. In London, years ago, he would have come home with a red dot on his forehead for the hindu diwali celebrations as the school taught about religions. Learning about the religions is not the same as taking part in a service. History lessons will talk about a number of groups, religions and political movements that most would find abhorrent, a history lesson about America racism in the 1920s is not the same as going to KKK rally.

My own (unbaptised) son took part in RE classes in school - because he is interested in the mechanics of religion and learning what each religion believes and why...it is a fascinating subject but the study of religions does not require a belief in any religion.

Like your son he was used to a more inclusive world view having been educated in the UK until he was 9 where visits to mosques, synagogues, chapels, churches, temples etc were all part and parcel of RE but at no point did his educators ever say one specific religion was correct. It was 'Muslims believe this - this is how they worship/Jews believe this - this is how they worship/ Hindus believe this - this is how they worship/ Catholics believe this - this is how they worship etc etc

I lecture on topics like slavery, Imperialism, conquest and race theories - it does not mean I believe in these things. It means they exist and need to be understood.

Mandatory participation in a prayer session is a completely different kettle of fish imho and the one time (in Ireland - it never happened in the UK) son was told he had to participate I asked him if he wanted to - he didn't- so I told his school in no uncertain terms that this was not going to happen and since it was happening during official school hours but did not constitute either a teaching session under the national curriculum or form part of the schools normal (non-compulsory) extra curricular activities the school had better make alternative arrangements for students who did not want to participate. Plus - his maths class for that day was cancelled to facilitate this prayer session - he needed to study maths more than he needed to stand in a hall staring at the ceiling and shuffling about while not participating in prayer to a God he doesn't believe in.

I sent him to school to be educated - not to engage in religious observances. If we wanted to do that there are building just for that purpose - those building are not called schools.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am still going around mumbling 'Borris is actually a totes amazeballs school' and shaking my head.

Just had a glance at FB - there seems to be a pandemic of amazeballs :eek:

Jesus - had he existed - would have wept.

FouxDaFaFa

Jive Jesus?

*splutters drink everywhere*

Beruthiel

the dad in questionSir Chris
Oh for (instert diety name without causing offence) sake stop calling me Sir. As I was mentioned in the article its Chris.

I'm very tempted to change your nickname to Sir Chris.

Congrats to your son for standing up for himself and well done to you for supporting him.
It is people like you who will slowly help to change the way our school system is run.

sbsquarepants

robindch wrote: »

Am i the only one who thinks this statue of JC looks more like a tranny doing karaoke? I'm thinking either it's raining men, or i will survive:D

kylith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Am i the only one who thinks this statue of JC looks more like a tranny doing karaoke? I'm thinking either it's raining men, or i will survive:D

It's obviously YMCA

Malari

robindch wrote: »

I'm getting Burn Baby Burn - Disco Inferno!!! :pac:

Dades

I thought that was to keep out Balrogs.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I thought that was to keep out Balrogs.

Not the best thing to hang up in a room where students are likely to be praying for exams:

Gandalf wrote:

You shall not pass!

ShooterSF

How is it not religious instruction? Did the person giving the mass get up and say "God, if he exists, may possibly want you to follow the following rules, if he happens to be this particular god, one of which is to worship him, if he exists"?

Any comment about learning about diverse communities falls down at the point where you don't need to attend another persons rituals to know they take part in them. I know what scientologists/jews/mormons/hindus believe but should I have been made attend some of their rituals at school to make sure? And was I? (Nope)

Perhaps your point would be fair if the school proceeded to put on an array of different masses or seminars by every group out there. All of which would act as if their belief was actually fact and made everyone attend so they could experience this diverse community you think they're trying to help the student understand. However I doubt the only person kicking up a storm then would be the atheist.

Bannasidhe

Malari wrote: »

I'm getting Burn Baby Burn - Disco Inferno!!! :pac:

It's obviously 'I am what I am' - I'd know that pose anywhere. It's the bit that goes 'I am my own special creation'.

Sarky

Jesus just doesn't feel like dancin'. No sir, no dancin' today.

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I sent him to school to be educated - not to engage in religious observances. If we wanted to do that there are building just for that purpose - those building are not called schools.

Struggling to not come out with the 'No, they're called asylums' line here...:D

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

Struggling to not come out with the 'No, they're called asylums' line here...:D

Silly endacl - asylums are where we should send women who want to have an abortion....apparently.

:pac:

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Silly endacl - asylums are where we should send women who want to have an abortion....apparently.

:pac:

Whoops. Sorry. Standing corrected. Will be less silly in future.*








*does not constitute a guarantee of less silliness. Signifies an intention to reduce silliness.
E&OE

darealtulip

Did anyone hear the interview of Nathan today? Any links?

Morag

My son who is unbaptised and considers himself agnostic had ashes forced on him last ash Wednesday. It is too often assumed by teachers and 'chaplains' that a Caucasian Irish child is a catholic. He wasn't in the class for religion and when he entered the classroom and was confronted with the chaplin, he got flustered not knowing what was going on and started to explain he's not catholic, but as he didn't say 'No' she administered the ashes and moved on to the next child.

Needless to say we went ballistic, with letters to the board of management and I don't think there was malice in it, it's the unthinking assumptions which we have to keep constantly challenging.

looksee

I think that religious education and practise are inappropriate in schools. Teaching students about the religions and beliefs and social practises that are followed in the world is appropriate, but that is not the same thing.

However, right or wrong, the school in question has a very clearly stated religious ethos and anyone attending the school has to be aware of it. It does not follow that because someone forms a viewpoint that does not agree with the school's viewpoint, the school has to change its practises.

You can insist that a person stand in a room full of people praying, but you cannot force them to pray, or even acknowledge the value of what others are doing.

I wonder whether the student in question has attended family church weddings or funerals? Would he refuse to attend any event that had a hint of religion about it? Will he be refusing the turkey and cake at Christmas? Is he going to any Halloween parties?

Certainly, write a letter to the school giving his objections to religious practise in the school, copy it to the Department and the Minister of Education. Unless views are known nothing will change. But please don't make out to be a victim and a martyr (!) because you are being asked to do something that you have already acceded to.

eviltwin

This is an interesting thread and one thing it shows is the difference in attitudes between our schools.

My daughter is in a Catholic secondary school in Dublin. She is bapthised but since then we have become atheist, she would be very vocal in school about this. There is a mass held in the school twice a year and all the students attend however those who have a reason for not wanting to be there are exempt. My daughter and another lad in the class never go, there is never an issue and the school don't make a big deal of it. Reading about this young lad from Tipp I am very grateful that our school is so open minded and respectful of the beliefs, or lack thereof, of others.

mikhail

looksee wrote: »

I wonder whether the student in question has attended family church weddings or funerals? Would he refuse to attend any event that had a hint of religion about it? Will he be refusing the turkey and cake at Christmas? Is he going to any Halloween parties?

Marriage predates all modern religions. There is archeological evidence of ceremonial burial that predates all of recorded history by tens of thousands of years.

Christmas is at the time it is specifically to piggyback on various midwinter festivals, most notably Saturnalia. The bible specifically forbids Christmas trees.

Halloween is located on the old pagan festival of Samhain. Its Christian meaning is almost non-existant in practice. Tell me, what exactly do bonfires, witches and dunking for apples have to do with Catholicism? (Granted, they combined the first two to great effect in the middle ages.)

This cultural land grab by Catholicism is disrespectful to the rest of us.

looksee

mikhail wrote: »

Marriage predates all modern religions. There is archeological evidence of ceremonial burial that predates all of recorded history by tens of thousands of years.

Christmas is at the time it is specifically to piggyback on various midwinter festivals, most notably Saturnalia. The bible specifically forbids Christmas trees.

Halloween is located on the old pagan festival of Samhain. Its Christian meaning is almost non-existant in practice. Tell me, what exactly do bonfires, witches and dunking for apples have to do with Catholicism? (Granted, they combined the first two to great effect in the middle ages.)

This cultural land grab by Catholicism is disrespectful to the rest of us.

Show me where I mentioned Catholicism in my post. And atheism presumably means any kind of god, not just the Christian or Catholic god.

mikhail

looksee wrote: »

Show me where I mentioned Catholicism in my post. And atheism presumably means any kind of god, not just the Christian or Catholic god.

Explain to me what a harvest festival or a midwinter festival have to do with a god.

Dades

looksee wrote: »

You can insist that a person stand in a room full of people praying, but you cannot force them to pray, or even acknowledge the value of what others are doing.

I wonder whether the student in question has attended family church weddings or funerals? Would he refuse to attend any event that had a hint of religion about it? Will he be refusing the turkey and cake at Christmas? Is he going to any Halloween parties?

I guess the difference is at a wedding or a funeral you're not there to pray, you're there for social reasons. To not turn up would be disrespectful to either the couple or the deceased.

When you turn up at a prayer meeting or organised mass you're there for no other purpose than to pray or worship, and nobody is at the centre of it to be offended by your absence.

Bannasidhe

looksee wrote: »

I wonder whether the student in question has attended family church weddings or funerals? Would he refuse to attend any event that had a hint of religion about it? Will he be refusing the turkey and cake at Christmas? Is he going to any Halloween parties?

So if one is say a Catholic should one refuse to go to a Muslim/Hindu/Jewish/Other Christian denomination's wedding/funeral as one does not believe in their religion?

Turkey and cake are specifically for Christians only during the month of December??? :eek:

My many Wiccan friends will be upset to learn they cannot to go Halloween parties (they have the best Halloween parties!) because Halloween is for Christians only....I'm not going to be the one to tell them....

darealtulip

Sharrow wrote: »

My son who is unbaptised and considers himself agnostic had ashes forced on him last ash Wednesday. It is too often assumed by teachers and 'chaplains' that a Caucasian Irish child is a catholic. He wasn't in the class for religion and when he entered the classroom and was confronted with the chaplin, he got flustered not knowing what was going on and started to explain he's not catholic, but as he didn't say 'No' she administered the ashes and moved on to the next child.

Needless to say we went ballistic, with letters to the board of management and I don't think there was malice in it, it's the unthinking assumptions which we have to keep constantly challenging.

Please please can you register this with the Irish Human Rights Committee? An email will do. It is so important that they know of these things.

http://www.ihrc.ie/

They will not do anything other than register, but they will use the information in their audits.

Zombrex

looksee wrote: »

I wonder whether the student in question has attended family church weddings or funerals? Would he refuse to attend any event that had a hint of religion about it? Will he be refusing the turkey and cake at Christmas? Is he going to any Halloween parties?

I would imagine that this guy would object to being forced by his school to attend a church wedding he didn't wish to go to, object to being forced to eat food he didn't want to and object to being forced to attend a party he didn't want to.

I imagine you, and most people, would object also.

The over all point is that the school has a responsibility to educate students but shouldn't abuse that position of responsibility to do anything else outside of its remit.

A school should have no more right to require that a student attend a religious service (something outside of its remit to educate) than it should have the right to require that students attend a political rally.

I say should because that is of course not how it works in Ireland. But it should be how it works in Ireland.

Peregrinus

Zombrex wrote: »

A school should have no more right to require that a student attend a religious service (something outside of its remit to educate) . . .

For certain values of "educate", obviously.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

For certain values of "educate", obviously.

Come again?

Peregrinus

It's not that hard, Zombrex. Whether attending a religious service is outside a remit to "educate" depends on what you think "education" involves.

MagicMarker

Any chance you can answer my question Peregrinus?

MagicMarker wrote: »

Peregrinus, hypothetical situation for you.

If there was such a thing as a secular school with a atheistic ethos, and there were ritualistic services throughout the year where God is denounced, should attendance be mandatory for the Christian/Jewish/Muslim children?

Peregrinus

Sorry, magicmarker, didn’t see your question earlier. I wandered away from the thread for a while.

“If there was such a thing as a secular school with a atheistic ethos, and there were ritualistic services throughout the year where God is denounced, should attendance be mandatory for the Christian/Jewish/Muslim children?”

I have a bit of trouble wrapping my head around the question, I admit.

First, secularism is “the doctrine that morality should be based solely on regard to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in a god or in a future state”. Atheism is the lack of any belief in the existence of a god or gods. It seems to me that denouncing the idea of God goes a little bit beyond either secularism (which requires us to ignore or disregard the idea) or atheism (which requires us simply not to hold the idea). I think a school which did what you describe would have to be characterized not simply as secular or atheist, but as antitheist, or antireligious, or some such term. In which case, why are there any Christian/Jewish/Muslim children in it?

Now, the obvious response to that is, this is a Christian school which has an atheist child in it (because, presumably, he has no practical alternative). But that doesn’t make this school the analogue of the one you imagine, because nobody suggests that this school is holding “ritualist services throughout the year where atheism and secularism are denounced”, and requiring atheist students to attend them.

Obviously, they are holding services where theism is affirmed, but that’s not the same thing. As I’ve pointed out before, all schools impart some set of values and beliefs, usually consciously and intentionally. Doing so inevitably tends to counter a wide variety of other values and beliefs which are inconsistent. There is nevertheless a material difference between advancing one set of values and beliefs, and singling out an alternative set of values and beliefs for denunciation.

The second thing that boggles the mind a bit is the idea of a secular, atheist school holding “ritualistic services” - and ritualistic services focused, moreover, on what they do not believe rather than on what they do. This isn’t any kind of secularism or atheism that I encounter in the real world and, again, it highlights that the scenario you are postulating is not the analogue of the scenario actually presented here.

Drop the “ritualistic services” bit for a moment. (I presume your objection to an explicitly Christian education which includes mandatory Christian rituals is the Christianity, not the ritual.) Can we imagine a realistic, plausible scenario in which a school conducts activities (which need not be ritualistic services) which are aimed, not at affirming a particular value, belief or philosophy, but at attacking a particular value, belief or philosophy? How would we feel about that?

Queasy, I think, is the answer. It’s basically negative, destructive. I’m uncomfortable with an education founded on such an approach.

The closest I can come up with is this. Suppose that, in Germany immediately after the war, the Allied Military Government had considered it necessary to require all schools to provide “denazification classes” to pupils, to counter the insidious effects of the nazified school system that operated until 1945. Should attendance be mandatory for those pupils who were Nazis, or whose parents were Nazis?

I think we’d have little hesitation in answering “yes”, but of course our answer is heavily influenced by the fact that the philosophy being attacked is Nazism. We wouldn’t give the same answer if the philosophy under attack were skepticism or altruism or stoicism or materialism or humanism.

So the question comes down to this: do we bracket theism with naziism as a philosophy which can legitimately be singled out for attack and denunciation in this context, or with skepticism, altruism, materialism, etc?

I’m not inclined to bracket theism with naziism, so I’d not be happy with a school singling it out for explicit ritualistic negative denunciation, as you suggest. But the issue for me is not whether the theist kids should be required to attend; it’s whether the school should be doing this at all.

Finally, I suggest the question that you should have asked is this: an explicitly secular, atheist school wants to hold a festival (the closest approach, I think, to a service) celebrating skepticism, rationalism, materialism, humanism and similar values consistent with and often characteristic of secularism and atheism. Can the school properly make attendance mandatory for Christian/Jewish/Muslim children?

Yes, they can.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not that hard, Zombrex. Whether attending a religious service is outside a remit to "educate" depends on what you think "education" involves.

True, but then that debate has already been settled. It doesn't involve religious service.

The state has no obligation to provide a child with a religion. In fact it specifically shouldn't do this as defined by the constitution. It is not within its remit to educate children as demonstrated by the fact that schools that provide no religious service (as distinct from RE, learning about religion) do not fail to meet State requirements.

Religion is always something that the religious schools tacked on, it has never been a requirement of the State. Contrast that to something like mathematics, where the State has a responsibility to teach mathematics and all schools have a requirement to provide such classes.

The point is if the State requires children to go to school for their own good, then it should not abuse that agreement by the schools teaching them other things outside of the basic remit to educate. Having to be there shouldn't be used as an excuse to require compliance with anything outside of that, such as religious or political gatherings.

Or to put it another way, all children have to be in school to receive an education, its legally required of them. They don't have to be in school to receive religion. For health and safety reasons it is impractical for the child to be given the option of leaving, so the school instead should restrict what it does with the "captive" child to within the set of the things it is required to provide and which the child is required to attend.

Peregrinus

Zombrex wrote: »

True, but then that debate has already been settled.

For certain values of “settled”!

Zombrex wrote: »

The state has no obligation to provide a child with a religion. In fact it specifically shouldn't do this as defined by the constitution. It is not within its remit to educate children as demonstrated by the fact that schools that provide no religious service (as distinct from RE, learning about religion) do not fail to meet State requirements.

Religion is always something that the religious schools tacked on, it has never been a requirement of the State. Contrast that to something like mathematics, where the State has a responsibility to teach mathematics and all schools have a requirement to provide such classes.

You seem to be assuming that if the state doesn’t require something to be provided as education, then it’s not education.

But that’s ridiculous. The state doesn’t require anybody to attend third-level institutions. Does that mean that what third level institutions do is not “education”? At second level, there’s a wide range of optional subjects and activities which schools are not required to provide and which students are not required to pursue, even where provided. Does that mean that those subjects and activities are not “education”?

Zombrex wrote: »

The point is if the State requires children to go to school for their own good, then it should not abuse that agreement by the schools teaching them other things outside of the basic remit to educate. Having to be there shouldn't be used as an excuse to require compliance with anything outside of that, such as religious or political gatherings.

Or to put it another way, all children have to be in school to receive an education, its legally required of them. They don't have to be in school to receive religion. For health and safety reasons it is impractical for the child to be given the option of leaving, so the school instead should restrict what it does with the "captive" child to within the set of the things it is required to provide and which the child is required to attend.

You are effectively arguing that schools should not be allowed to provide anything which the state does not positively require them to provide. As a parent, I see absolutely no reason why I should give the state such a degree of control over my child’s education. The state’s role is to prescribe the minimum which must be afforded to every child by way of education, not the maximum.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

At second level, there’s a wide range of optional subjects and activities which schools are not required to provide and which students are not required to pursue, even where provided. Does that mean that those subjects and activities are not “education”?

No? Why are you getting hung up on the dictionary definition of the term when I was never discussing that or attempting to define it?

I'm talking about the State's specific remit to educate. That it is a tiny sub-set of all the things a person can be educated about. The state has no more of a remit to educate your children on religion than it does to educate them on how to be a good lover or what TD to vote for.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You are effectively arguing that schools should not be allowed to provide anything which the state does not positively require them to provide. As a parent, I see absolutely no reason why I should give the state such a degree of control over my child’s education. The state’s role is to prescribe the minimum which must be afforded to every child by way of education, not the maximum.

Compulsory education is in effect a contract between the parent/child and the State. The State requires that the child attend and as such it should limit itself to requiring that the child only attend for the specific education within the State's remit.

If you wish to educate your child outside of this remit, on your own or facilitated by the school, that is your business. Same if the child himself wishes to learn outside of this remit (I spent many a happy day in school learning about computer programming, not something required by the school but facilitated by it)

But then in this case neither the child nor the parents wished that the child attend religious services. In effect the school was abusing its responsibility to educate the child (and the child's requirement to attend) by requiring that the child attend something that falls well outside of the State's remit to educate. The State has no right to require attendance for things it has no responsibility to teach.

Saying that it is still education is spectacularly missing the point. If the State is going to require attendance it should limit this to only what it has a remit to teach. A school does not justify requiring attendance merely by saying they are educating the child about something.

Peregrinus

Zombrex wrote: »

No? Why are you getting hung up on the dictionary definition of the term when I was never discussing that or attempting to define it?

I'm talking about the State's specific remit to educate. That it is a tiny sub-set of all the things a person can be educated about. The state has no more of a remit to educate your children on religion than it does to educate them on how to be a good lover or what TD to vote for.

No, if you look back to post #177 you'll find that you were talking about the school's remit to educate.

The state has no remit to educate my children about anything. I decide who will educate my children; the state's role is to see that they are educated, and educated to an acceptable standard.

One thing the state can do to discharge its responsibility is to operate it's own schools, but that's not the only way they can do it and, even where they do do it, it's not often the only way they do it. If I choose to send my child to the state school then I am given the school a remit to educate the child in accordance with the ethos of that school. But if I choose to send my child to a Christian school then the school does have a remit to provide an explicitly Christian education to my child, because I gave it to them.

In short, the state doesn't get to limit the education provided to my child by the school of my choice.

Zombrex wrote: »

Compulsory education is in effect a contract between the parent/child and the State. The State requires that the child attend and as such it should limit itself to requiring that the child only attend for the specific education within the State's remit.

Yes. The state doesn't require this boy to attend the religious service. The school does. The school is not the state. The school has the authority to do this because it acts in loco parentis (and not in loco re publicae). The source of the school's authority over the child is the parent, not the state, and if there's a contract here it's between the parent/child and the school.

darealtulip

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, if you look back to post #177 you'll find that you were talking about the school's remit to educate.

The state has no remit to educate my children about anything. I decide who will educate my children; the state's role is to see that they are educated, and educated to an acceptable standard.

One thing the state can do to discharge its responsibility is to operate it's own schools, but that's not the only way they can do it and, even where they do do it, it's not often the only way they do it. If I choose to send my child to the state school then I am given the school a remit to educate the child in accordance with the ethos of that school. But if I choose to send my child to a Christian school then the school does have a remit to provide an explicitly Christian education to my child, because I gave it to them.

In short, the state doesn't get to limit the education provided to my child by the school of my choice.


Yes. The state doesn't require this boy to attend the religious service. The school does. The school is not the state. The school has the authority to do this because it acts in loco parentis (and not in loco re publicae). The source of the school's authority over the child is the parent, not the state, and if there's a contract here it's between the parent/child and the school.

It is a VEC school, which is a state school. The state also gives you the duty to educate your children. Besides that it is the state that funds the schools.

It is against your basic human right to be forced into a religious ceremony, specially in a state school.

iguana

Zombrex wrote: »

Compulsory education is in effect a contract between the parent/child and the State. The State requires that the child attend and as such it should limit itself to requiring that the child only attend for the specific education within the State's remit.

There is no requirement in Ireland that parents send children to school, only that they ensure they are educated to certain minimal levels. It's completely within a parent's right to never send their child to school or to send them to a school that sets it's own curriculum with no regard for that laid out by the DoE.

Bannasidhe

iguana wrote: »

There is no requirement in Ireland that parents send children to school, only that they ensure they are educated to certain minimal levels. It's completely within a parent's right to never send their child to school or to send them to a school that sets it's own curriculum with no regard for that laid out by the DoE.

I attended such a school from age of 7 - it was the only way parent's (both practicing Catholics) could ensure no religious indoctrination. The school was 100% private and received no funding from the State.

iguana

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I attended such a school from age of 7 - it was the only way parent's (both practicing Catholics) could ensure no religious indoctrination. The school was 100% private and received no funding from the State.

That's what I'm hoping to do with my son, and any future children. Though it's not just for (non) religious reasons, I prefer the educational style too.

Bannasidhe

iguana wrote: »

That's what I'm hoping to do with my son, and any future children. Though it's not just for (non) religious reasons, I prefer the educational style too.

We did the Merchant of Venice in 5th class - complete with discussion on Antisemitism.

By 6th class I was fluent in Early Modern English (which turned out to be very handy given my eventual profession), could dance the Minuet, play the violin, explain assonance, do quite complicated maths, find most countries on a blank map, explain erosion, write using a fountain pen, and pronounce 'th' correctly.

It may be a coincidence that I got my first degree when I was 19....

iguana

What school was it? Does it still exist?

endacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We did the Merchant of Venice in 5th class - complete with discussion on Antisemitism.

By 6th class I was fluent in Early Modern English (which turned out to be very handy given my eventual profession), could dance the Minuet, play the violin, explain assonance, do quite complicated maths, find most countries on a blank map, explain erosion, write using a fountain pen, and pronounce 'th' correctly.

It may be a coincidence that I got my first degree when I was 19....

And at what age did you learn to blow your trumpet?

:D:D














Sorry. Couldn't resist......

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It may be a coincidence that I got my first degree when I was 19....

Yay! Join the club! There're 2 of us! Was it 3 or 4 years?

Bannasidhe

iguana wrote: »

What school was it? Does it still exist?

Sadly no - it was founded by 6 spinster sisters in the 1920s named Sullivan, by the time I got there in the early 70s only the youngest sister (who was always known as Banky -you couldn't make this stuff up) was still alive - she died when I was in 2nd year of their secondary school and her heirs decided to keep the secondary school open until the last of those who had been pupils in the primary school graduated.

A school of the same name was opened in the late 80s but under the control of the DoE - it only lasted 2 years.

The proud boast of the school was that no pupil ever followed the State curriculum but it had an overall 99% pass rate in State exams.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Yay! Join the club! There're 2 of us! Was it 3 or 4 years?

3 in Ireland followed by 1 in the UK so 4 in total. At the time one couldn't get a B.A in Fine Art in Ireland so it was 3 years here then transfer for a year to a UK Art College. I went to Slade as a wet behind the ears just turned 18 year old who 'only' needed to do a year for my B.A.

If Ireland had allowed B.A's in Fine Art I would have already had the bloody thing. :mad:

Bannasidhe

endacl wrote: »

And at what age did you learn to blow your trumpet?

:D:D

25.

Edit - well - I can get my trumpet to make an annoying parrp sound but OH has hidden it and won't tell me where it is.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can get my trumpet to make an annoying parrp sound

Sounds like you're playing it as well as anyone then.

noodler

What next?

Sport days?
PE?
Support for School Sport teams?
CSPE?


It is totally unrealistic and downright unfair to force a school to leave back a teacher to supervise this child.

Pandora's Box.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

What next?

Sport days?
PE?
Support for School Sport teams?
CSPE?

Reading the thread?

Pandora's Box.

No, you're right.

Bannasidhe

noodler wrote: »

What next?

Sport days?
PE?
Support for School Sport teams?
CSPE?


It is totally unrealistic and downright unfair to force a school to leave back a teacher to supervise this child.

Pandora's Box.

Pupils can and do opt out of sports days and P.E. - usually for medical reasons.

Since when is supporting school sports teams by attending matches mandatory?