How to achieve secular schools/educational equality

RainyDay

Mary63 wrote: »

We most certainly are not a secular country zaph,if we were atheist children wouldn't have a problem getting into Catholic schools.

We are as far from secular as we can get,we still hold all our important ceremonies in church,baptisms,communions,confirmations,weddings and funerals.Most of us are buried in consecrated church grounds.We are born in hospitals run along religious ethos grounds and we die in the same hospitals and most of us and our relatives want the last rites performed on us before we die.Traditions die hard and parents even though they mightn't go to church regularly still want traditions handed on to their children and the school is where they expect these traditions to be taught.

Who is this 'we' that you speak of, Mary? Because you're certainly not speaking for me.

Mary63 wrote: »

The Equality campaign was run as a social media campaign rainy day and it was quite astonishing that forty per cent of the electorate voted no not that sixty per cent voted yes.The YES side had the Government behind them,the entire media outlets,the unions,even the ex President of Ireland and still almost half the electorate said no.

That's a blatant lie Mary. 1/3 of those who turned out said no, which is a long way off 'half the electorate'.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't be silly. Of course it's correct. There are a million kids in Irish schools, and something like 2% of those are in fee schools. Forcing parents who don't have the money to pay for Christian ethos schools when there are already Christian ethos schools in the country simply isn't an option.

Great, so now we've moved on to discussing the merits of the option. Simply because you don't like it does not mean that it is not an option. It is interesting to see your absolute abhorrence of this option being discussed - which makes it all the more important that it should be discussed.

Huntergonzo

"We are a Catholic Country"

I always prefer to say "we are a country invested with catholics".

Anyway a piece of land can't have a religion, anymore than a tree can, or cat or stapler for that matter. As far as I'm concerned physical countries tend to be indifferent to human superstitions.

recedite

Mary63 wrote: »

..Athiests,people associate that ideology with backwardness and veganism and they don't want their children exposed to what they perceive as cults...

Interesting, I didn't know that backward vegans had infiltrated the atheist cult. This is alarming news.

Mary63 wrote: »

..we are a catholic country,we need to look to Spain and portugal and see how their education system works,they are catholic countries too.

Well, they used to be considered that anyway. Back in General Franco's day. But nowadays..

According to a study by the Spanish Centre for Sociological Research in 2015 about 68% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholic Christians, 3.8% as followers of other faiths (including Islam, Protestant Christianity and Buddhism etc.), and about 25% identify as atheists or non-believers. Most Spaniards do not participate regularly in religious worship. This same study shows that of the Spaniards who identify themselves as religious, 61% barely ever goes to mass, 14% go to mass few times a year, 10% few times per month and 14% every Sunday or multiple times per week. Although a majority of Spaniards are Catholics, most, especially those of the young generation, ignore the Church's conservative moral doctrines.

CelticRambler

RainyDay wrote: »

International comparisons are difficult, but I'm a bit bemused as to why you reject Irish experiences in a debate on Irish education.

Because the question posed in the OP was can we discuss how equality in education (ie secular schooling) can be achieved, without going off on the side track of whether it should happen?

I think it's safe to assume that Looksee intends this secular schooling to be of equal quality and desireablility for parents and their children. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the "need" to have secular schooling arises from a percieved problem with the current system.

This means that whatever is proposed must be different to what's currently available - a range of options that have evolved over many decades, or indeed many centuries if you include the determination of the native Irish Catholic population to educate their children in Hedge Schools despite it being illegal.

So regardless of how secular or catholic you might describe Ireland in 2016, you cannot forecast how non-denominational schools by citing examples from the society you're trying to change. The best you can do is look at other countries with a broadly similar heritage who have already implemented something close to what you hope to achieve.

RainyDay wrote: »

Please do share details of the UK rankings and ratings that show the religious schools as being streets ahead. It would be interesting to see more detail on these.

No can do! That's the kind of information gathered and interpreted during twenty years of parenthood in an effort to get the best education for my children. FWIW, that also included taking my children out of school entirely for about six months (better no school than the wrong one!)

I could be the "poster parent" for one of these new schools - I'm a practising Catholic, but that's irrelevant when it comes to the choice of school. I had/have one child in a secular school, two in RC, one in CoI.

As a parent, the one word I most definitely do not want to hear is equality - you've got to persuade me that a secular school will give my children an exceptional advantage over everyone else.

Samaris

CelticRambler wrote: »

As a parent, the one word I most definitely do not want to hear is equality - you've got to persuade me that a secular school will give my children an exceptional advantage over everyone else.

There will always be better and worse schools. Barring that the vast majority of schools are Catholic ethos, the only real advantage of a specifically Catholic-ethos school is that a parent doesn't need to indoctrinate their child into the Catholic religion; the school will take care of it.

Although they might occasionally have to explain to their sprog that their teacher is a) correct and Catholic in that their parents are going to hell for not going to Mass or b) that it's rubbish.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

There will always be better and worse schools. Barring that the vast majority of schools are Catholic ethos, the only real advantage of a specifically Catholic-ethos school is that a parent doesn't need to indoctrinate their child into the Catholic religion; the school will take care of it.

And that's quite a considerable advantage in it's own right that if we're ever to see mainstream secular education in this country, is an advantage which must be overcome by offering an alternative advantage to people in order to get them to support non-denominational education.

Although they might occasionally have to explain to their sprog that their teacher is a) correct and Catholic in that their parents are going to hell for not going to Mass or b) that it's rubbish.

Is that on the religious curriculum? I don't think it is, that sounds more like an individual teacher's perspective tbh, and that could happen in any school, religious ethos or otherwise -


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/school-apologises-to-muslim-pupil-over-charlie-hebdo-in-class-30968831.html


If you're calling for support for secular education because you feel that children ought to be protected from stuff that's made up, wouldn't it be a good idea to present adults with the facts and let them make those decisions for themselves, and avoid making stuff up to support your position?

The facts should be able to stand on their own merit if you truly believe in the benefits of your cause you're trying to promote. The benefits should be obvious, rather than going through the religious curriculum with a fine tooth comb to pick out bits and engage in PR spin.

CelticRambler

Samaris wrote: »

There will always be better and worse schools. Barring that the vast majority of schools are Catholic ethos, the only real advantage of a specifically Catholic-ethos school is that a parent doesn't need to indoctrinate their child into the Catholic religion; the school will take care of it.

Although they might occasionally have to explain to their sprog that their teacher is a) correct and Catholic in that their parents are going to hell for not going to Mass or b) that it's rubbish.

Once again referring to the OP and the question of how can/could more secular education be made available, there is nothing in your post that would convince me to support it. As long as anyone promoting secular education uses an argument against religion as their justification, they immediately undermine the proposition.

Schools are places of education: if you keep banging on about religion, I'll think you're just another holy-joe-atheist and couldn't give a damn about making sure my child gets an exceptional education. That's not going to advance the development of non-denominational schools, because parents on the whole are not willing to sacrifice their children's opportunities for the sake of quasi-religious nutters.

As a parent, I want to hear about education, not religion. I had a quick look at the websites for the Catholic schools (primary and secondary) that I'm familiar with in Ireland, England and France. None of them make "a thing" about being Catholic/religious schools (not without digging down
into the information) - they only claim to be ambitious.

silverharp

I could see one option as being to expand schools in areas where there is high demand, they can keep their ethos but agree to split their RE classes so that someone can pass though the school without being indoctrinated. Another thing should be the setting up of some European model schools that teach French, German and Spanish in a semi immersive fashion, there are plenty of second generation European kids in Dublin now and the only schools that provide this are fee paying.
I'd imagine most parents these days dont see schools as catholic "safe spaces" however if there is a subtext that catholic school means no Muslims or African then its going to be a tougher sell.

RainyDay

silverharp wrote: »

I'd imagine most parents these days dont see schools as catholic "safe spaces" however if there is a subtext that catholic school means no Muslims or African then its going to be a tougher sell.

On the rare occasions that I'm at a catholic mass, there are always a few Africans, Filipinos and Poles around, so presumably those communities would be interested in catholic schools.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because the question posed in the OP was can we discuss how equality in education (ie secular schooling) can be achieved, without going off on the side track of whether it should happen?

I think it's safe to assume that Looksee intends this secular schooling to be of equal quality and desireablility for parents and their children. I think it's also reasonable to assume that the "need" to have secular schooling arises from a percieved problem with the current system.

This means that whatever is proposed must be different to what's currently available - a range of options that have evolved over many decades, or indeed many centuries if you include the determination of the native Irish Catholic population to educate their children in Hedge Schools despite it being illegal.

So regardless of how secular or catholic you might describe Ireland in 2016, you cannot forecast how non-denominational schools by citing examples from the society you're trying to change. The best you can do is look at other countries with a broadly similar heritage who have already implemented something close to what you hope to achieve.

Yes, we obviously have to look outside of Ireland for useful models, but we can't ignore the current position or our history within Ireland either.

CelticRambler wrote: »

No can do! That's the kind of information gathered and interpreted during twenty years of parenthood in an effort to get the best education for my children. FWIW, that also included taking my children out of school entirely for about six months (better no school than the wrong one!)

I could be the "poster parent" for one of these new schools - I'm a practising Catholic, but that's irrelevant when it comes to the choice of school. I had/have one child in a secular school, two in RC, one in CoI.

If the information isn't generally available, it has no part in being the basis of a future model here. It may reflect your personal experience, but that doesn't mean it is relevant for a national policy discussion.

CelticRambler wrote: »

As a parent, the one word I most definitely do not want to hear is equality - you've got to persuade me that a secular school will give my children an exceptional advantage over everyone else.

That's up to you, but honestly, anyone who claims to be offering 'exceptional advantage' is spoofing. We need to provide exceptional schooling to ALL students, not build a system where some get advantages over others.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you're calling for support for secular education because you feel that children ought to be protected from stuff that's made up, wouldn't it be a good idea to present adults with the facts and let them make those decisions for themselves, and avoid making stuff up to support your position?

The facts should be able to stand on their own merit if you truly believe in the benefits of your cause you're trying to promote. The benefits should be obvious, rather than going through the religious curriculum with a fine tooth comb to pick out bits and engage in PR spin.

My previous posts have given a much wider explanation of what I'm referring to, but that was a throwaway comment in one specific thread. I didn't "make it up" either, I spoke from my own experience; I have no idea what the official position is on not traumatising children these days. The structure of the sentence I thought made it clear enough that it was a possible, not a definate.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Schools are places of education: if you keep banging on about religion, I'll think you're just another holy-joe-atheist and couldn't give a damn about making sure my child gets an exceptional education. That's not going to advance the development of non-denominational schools, because parents on the whole are not willing to sacrifice their children's opportunities for the sake of quasi-religious nutters.

Yes, they are, which is something I've banged on about before. Now, firstly, I don't think that articles of faith should be taught as a level of fact onside with history, maths and the rest of it. Faith is not fact; in fact, the very basis of faith is a lack of knowledge about the reality of the situation. History, maths, geography, even World Cultures and CSPE are factual.

Secondly, in the 2012 OECD report, Ireland spent 10% of teaching time on religious education, and a further survey by the Irish National Teacher’s Organisation in 2013 found that 70 per cent of schools were spending more than that allocated time per week on religion. Besides that, it goes up again in Communion year, which I think is Second Class now (it was First Class when I was in school). We spend 12% of teaching time on maths, much lower than OECD average, and only 4% of time on science, which is also quite a bit lower than average (6%). I have no idea what the exceptional educational advantage of that is.

And thirdly, there is just no necessity to consider it part of mainstream education. Secular education would be a baseline that everyone, Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could get together on. Faith formation is and should be separate to that, in my view. It should be a personal journey for a person, facilitated by family and the local church. Or colander, if one prefers.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

My previous posts have given a much wider explanation of what I'm referring to, but that was a throwaway comment in one specific thread. I didn't "make it up" either, I spoke from my own experience; I have no idea what the official position is on not traumatising children these days. The structure of the sentence I thought made it clear enough that it was a possible, not a definate.

Ahh no, I didn't mean you were specifically making that up at all, I'm well aware that it was a regular thing decades ago with all the fire and brimstoney stuff, but nowadays it's a bit more fluffy clouds and positivity, etc. Of course it's still possible, but in selling the idea of secular education, I'd be with Celtic Rambler on this one in that I don't want to hear about how things used to be or any negativity about religion, I want to hear about the positives of secular education.

Yes, they are, which is something I've banged on about before. Now, firstly, I don't think that articles of faith should be taught as a level of fact onside with history, maths and the rest of it. Faith is not fact; in fact, the very basis of faith is a lack of knowledge about the reality of the situation. History, maths, geography, even World Cultures and CSPE are factual.

I'd actually agree with you on this, because I understand where you're coming from - in a non-denominational school environment, I would prefer there were no references to religion at all tbh outside of just imparting their historical and cultural contexts.

Secondly, in the 2012 OECD report, Ireland spent 10% of teaching time on religious education, and a further survey by the Irish National Teacher’s Organisation in 2013 found that 70 per cent of schools were spending more than that allocated time per week on religion. Besides that, it goes up again in Communion year, which I think is Second Class now (it was First Class when I was in school). We spend 12% of teaching time on religion, much lower than OECD average, and only 4% of time on science, which is also quite a bit lower than average (6%). I have no idea what the exceptional educational advantage of that is.

This I could listen to all day. Now you're talking facts, and emphasising that there are other subjects could be focused on in place of religion - science, art, drama, music, languages, PE, etc.

And thirdly, there is just no necessity to consider it part of mainstream education. Secular education would be a baseline that everyone, Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could get together on. Faith formation is and should be separate to that, in my view. It should be a personal journey for a person, facilitated by family and the local church. Or colander, if one prefers.

I could get behind this 100% tbh. This is what we should be selling to people, the real meaning of education without indoctrination. I don't like the informal nature of the ET model, but academic, social and personal development is something I'm very much an advocate of. I'd leave any references to faith and identity politics outside the school.

silverharp

^^

my kids primary school has 45 min per week and some of his friends in the local school said the same. they might do more in the communion and confirmation year though however primary school rules say they shouldnt do this

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This I could listen to all day. Now you're talking facts, and emphasising that there are other subjects could be focused on in place of religion - science, art, drama, music, languages, PE, etc.

Drat, I meant to say 12% of teaching time on maths, the OECD average is 18%. I wrote above 12% on religion again!

I also think that a bit more emphasis could be put on PE. It was a two-period thing once a week when I was in school, so 80 minutes. From personal experience, I bloody hated PE, but that aside. Kids are more sedentary these days (says she from the old fogey position of late 20s!), between computers and what seems to be a big increase in stranger-danger paranoia. It'd probably do sprogs no harm to have another bout of it.

Technology is another big one that other countries, such as Mexico, put a lot more emphasis on. We live in a technology-based world now, and Ireland has a strong technical sector. That is something else that needs more work. 4% of time on science is a bit dismal, although I grant that primary school is different.

Another point which is getting less relevance nowadays, but single-sex schooling. We have a higher proportion of single-sex schools than any European country and it's increasingly thought that single-sex schooling benefits are a bit of a canard. It is becoming less relevant as boys and girls schools merge, albeit reluctantly. If nothing else, it ensures that boys and girls get to learn each other's subjects. In my own experience in a single-sex girls' secondary school, the genderisation of subjects was ridiculous. The most glorious difference being girls learned French, boys learned German.

silverharp

Samaris wrote: »

Another point which is getting less relevance nowadays, but single-sex schooling. We have a higher proportion of single-sex schools than any European country and it's increasingly thought that single-sex schooling benefits are a bit of a canard. It is becoming less relevant as boys and girls schools merge, albeit reluctantly. If nothing else, it ensures that boys and girls get to learn each other's subjects. In my own experience in a single-sex girls' secondary school, the genderisation of subjects was ridiculous. The most glorious difference being girls learned French, boys learned German.

its an interesting one, while there ought to be a choice (and my kids will spend their school time in a mixed school) the counter case is that boys and girls develop at different speeds so intellectually girls speed ahead from 11 to 16ish and boys catch up after so the boys could feel out performed in certain subjects and lose interest. Also in a very feminised education system boys can be marked down subconsciously by teachers or the teachers expect the boys to behave like girls when they do tend to express themselves differently. Also in subjects like English its going to be easier to tailor the material to appeal to boys,whether this happens in practice or not I dont know.

Mary63

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teacher-to-be-compensated-over-comments-on-gay-son-1.2484823

And you think the COI brethren are going to hand over any of their schools to the State.

No real progress can be made until the whole national school system in its entirety can be dismantled so there is no point in having Catholics schools only in your sights.

lazygal

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teacher-to-be-compensated-over-comments-on-gay-son-1.2484823

And you think the COI brethren are going to hand over any of their schools to the State.

No real progress can be made until the whole national school system in its entirety can be dismantled so there is no point in having Catholics schools only in your sights.

Who said only Catholic schools were part of the equation?

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

Who said only Catholic schools were part of the equation?

There has been quite a number of posts in these discussions solely focused on removing the RCC from Irish education.

The last few posts in this thread have also demonstrated why I said this earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd leave any references to faith and identity politics outside the school.

The whole "equality" politics shouldn't be getting mixed up in an argument for secular schools IMO. I'd rather see children receiving a proper education without all the social politics involved.

Mary63

Every single thing I have read on this topic seems to be exclusively about targeting Catholic schools,were the COI schools asked for their opinions on divestment as a matter of interest.

I am very surprised that the woman who took the case got the job in the first place in the COI school,there mustn't have been anyone from the"right"religion interested.The COI people look after their own.

lazygal

Mary63 wrote: »

Every single thing I have read on this topic seems to be exclusively about targeting Catholic schools,were the COI schools asked for their opinions on divestment as a matter of interest.

I am very surprised that the woman who took the case got the job in the first place in the COI school,there mustn't have been anyone from the"right"religion interested.The COI people look after their own.

More of the 'values' taught in faith schools?

Mary63

The Muslims will employ only muslim teachers probably,the catholics will employ Catholics,the protestant their own too,its human nature to surround ourselves with people like ourselves,its called survival of the species.

If you can't find a club of your own lazy gal you can't expect to barge into our clubs when you haven't attended or paid any joining up fee,you should have to bide your time and set up your own little club and draw up your own rules.

You won't be able to stand on church grounds collecting for atheist Ireland so I don't know how the fundraising will go.

robindch

Mary63 wrote: »

If you can't find a club of your own lazy gal you can't expect to barge into our clubs when you haven't attended or paid any joining up fee,you should have to bide your time and set up your own little club and draw up your own rules.

Mary63 is taking a two-day break to fulminate, wheeze and fist-wave in the privacy of his/her own home.

During that time, your friendly mods will clean up this thread by putting the unhelpful nonsense into the other school thread, and leave this one to the more important discussion about what can be done to persuade the Irish government and Irish schools not to use religion to discriminate against Irish children.

Bristolscale7

I'm unsure how to achieve the desired goal but based on the last twelve months it seems that an Irish solution is emerging.
Developments (laziness precludes links or chronological order):
1. Rule from 1800s, I mean 1960s rescinded.
2. Education minister says that legal device is up to 49% of a school can be outside the religious ethos.
3. Reform of national religious curriculum occurs.
4. Much national shaming as Ireland's ultramontanist, anachronistic system is laughed at in the world media.

So my prediction is that new schools will come under the 49% rule in the next decade or so and everyone will pat themselves on the back. At the same time, the department of ed. will continue to push a national curriculum that teaches ethics and comparative religion.

However, with a FF or FG education minister you can forget all of the above.

xband

silverharp wrote: »

its an interesting one, while there ought to be a choice (and my kids will spend their school time in a mixed school) the counter case is that boys and girls develop at different speeds so intellectually girls speed ahead from 11 to 16ish and boys catch up after so the boys could feel out performed in certain subjects and lose interest. Also in a very feminised education system boys can be marked down subconsciously by teachers or the teachers expect the boys to behave like girls when they do tend to express themselves differently. Also in subjects like English its going to be easier to tailor the material to appeal to boys,whether this happens in practice or not I dont know.

To be honest, that's really not a very realistic way of approaching life.
In the workplace, in university and in all other aspects of life, both genders work together. It's absolutely insane that we have arguments for separating boys and girls in school

Similar arguments were used in the 19th century and early 20th century as reasons why women shouldn't be admitted to university, shouldn't be allowed to hold professorships, shouldn't be doctors, etc etc.

You can find studies to prove pretty much anything, if you're looking for a gender-biased result. That's the unfortunate reality of it.

Of course boys and girls will learn differently if the school system is largely a victorian construct that treats them differently and where primary and secondary teachers have some kind of cultural notions about differences between the sexes.

Boys and girls work together in schools all over the world, they're the absolute norm in most developed countries and most non-theocracies and the academic performance of both genders seems to be rather good.

Also, when you think about it, the other biasing factor in Ireland and Britain in research is that single sex schools tend to be somewhat more academically focused 'traditional grammar schools' where as mixed schools tended to be more modern comprehensive / community schools. The performance of the overall school will be slightly lower because there's a broader intake, that doesn't mean that the people who are capable of performing well aren't. It's just that you've a more diverse range of abilities than you might have in a more selective school. So, you're really looking at dilution of statistics rather than poor performance.

Also, what is the purpose of education? To measure a narrow range of skills obsessively or to provide students with a grounding in life and ability to move on to third level or other routes to work?

The biggest issue in Ireland is that you *still* have plenty of incidences where girls schools are missing science subjects due to historical cultural bias.

I know girls who have had to go down the road to the boys' school to do physics and that has put plenty off.

RainyDay

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

However, with a FF or FG education minister you can forget all of the above.

You're right, but this is only part of the picture. It's not so much about the Minister as about the Govt. If the Govt is led by FG as pretty much every possible prediction predicts, you can forget almost all of the above. There won't be any fundamental change as long as FG lead the Govt.

Mary63 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teacher-to-be-compensated-over-comments-on-gay-son-1.2484823

And you think the COI brethren are going to hand over any of their schools to the State.

Do you think the atheist brethren around to 'ask nicely' until others come to their senses? No, they're just going to stop paying the teachers, and let the religious brethren sort out paying for their own teachers.

Mary63 wrote: »

No real progress can be made until the whole national school system in its entirety can be dismantled so there is no point in having Catholics schools only in your sights.

Fully agree with you, surprisingly enough.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

To be honest, that's really not a very realistic way of approaching life.
In the workplace, in university and in all other aspects of life, both genders work together. It's absolutely insane that we have arguments for separating boys and girls in school

Similar arguments were used in the 19th century and early 20th century as reasons why women shouldn't be admitted to university, shouldn't be allowed to hold professorships, shouldn't be doctors, etc etc.

You can find studies to prove pretty much anything, if you're looking for a gender-biased result. That's the unfortunate reality of it.

Of course boys and girls will learn differently if the school system is largely a victorian construct that treats them differently and where primary and secondary teachers have some kind of cultural notions about differences between the sexes.

Boys and girls work together in schools all over the world, they're the absolute norm in most developed countries and most non-theocracies and the academic performance of both genders seems to be rather good.

Also, when you think about it, the other biasing factor in Ireland and Britain in research is that single sex schools tend to be somewhat more academically focused 'traditional grammar schools' where as mixed schools tended to be more modern comprehensive / community schools. The performance of the overall school will be slightly lower because there's a broader intake, that doesn't mean that the people who are capable of performing well aren't. It's just that you've a more diverse range of abilities than you might have in a more selective school. So, you're really looking at dilution of statistics rather than poor performance.

Also, what is the purpose of education? To measure a narrow range of skills obsessively or to provide students with a grounding in life and ability to move on to third level or other routes to work?

The biggest issue in Ireland is that you *still* have plenty of incidences where girls schools are missing science subjects due to historical cultural bias.

I know girls who have had to go down the road to the boys' school to do physics and that has put plenty off.

kids arent adults, you lost me

xband

silverharp wrote: »

kids arent adults, you lost me

I addressed a lot more than adults' situation in the post.

If I lost you, not much I can do about it.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

Too many big words?

I'm triggered.

xband

I just don't know why I bothered posting.
Anyway, best of luck. Not really interested anymore. Too many entrenched views on religious and single sex. It's like arguing with brick walls.

Emigration to a modern country (not living in 1816) seems like best option if you've kids and don't want them in sexist, religious, sectarian schools.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

I just don't know why I bothered posting.
Anyway, best of luck. Not really interested anymore. Too many entrenched views on religious and single sex. It's like arguing with brick walls.

Emigration to a modern country (not living in 1816) seems like best option if you've kids and don't want them in sexist, religious, sectarian schools.

I'm an atheist so i don't know why you directed that at me?

xband

It's just the general tone of discussion in here on this topic. It's not particularly targeted at anyone.

You can't make any comment or someone attempts to just shoot it down or do that paragraph by paragraph multi quite ripping apart thing.

Just saying, I find the "discussion" a bit of a waste of my day.

My experience is that Ireland has incredibly entrenched and really backwards views of how education should be and there's often zero willingness to discuss change.

Everything reverts to snobbery, sectarianism, sexism or other reasons why they feel the need to see schools as state funded private clubs where "the other" is excluded.

Children here are defined by type : religion, social class (use of token/barrier fees at "private" schools), gender, language and slotted into small, private yet state funded schools where they're safely kept away from the rest of society.

Give it 20 years and it'll be a major problem as you'll have a far more diverse Ireland and a lot of young adults who've been treated as second class citizens or "outsiders" by their country. It's a recipe for lack of social cohesion and ghetto thinking as schools are really out first and probably most impactful experience of interacting with state services.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

It's just the general tone of discussion in here on this topic. It's not particularly targeted at anyone.

You can't make any comment or someone attempts to just shoot it down or do that paragraph by paragraph multi quite ripping apart thing.

Just saying, I find the "discussion" a bit of a waste of my day.

My experience is that Ireland has incredibly entrenched and really backwards views of how education should be and there's often zero willingness to discuss change.

Everything reverts to snobbery, sectarianism, sexism or other reasons why they feel the need to see schools as state funded private clubs where "the other" is excluded.

Children here are defined by type : religion, social class (use of token/barrier fees at "private" schools), gender, language and slotted into small, private yet state funded schools where they're safely kept away from the rest of society.

Give it 20 years and it'll be a major problem as you'll have a far more diverse Ireland and a lot of young adults who've been treated as second class citizens or "outsiders" by their country. It's a recipe for lack of social cohesion and ghetto thinking as schools are really out first and probably most impactful experience of interacting with state services.

Sure but the religion one ought to see some movement as very few parents for religious reasons want to see their kids school only contain Catholics. I've never heard that opinion in the real world.
As for sexism in schools, there can be if its based on things like subject options and that boys and girls should study different subjects. But its not sexist in any negative sense to discuss the pros and cons of how boys and girls are educated because there are sex differences and they ought to be taken into account. So projecting how adults should interact onto children should not be automatic. Its about maximising potential without holding either gender back.

Samaris

silverharp wrote: »

As for sexism in schools, there can be if its based on things like subject options and that boys and girls should study different subjects. But its not sexist in any negative sense to discuss the pros and cons of how boys and girls are educated because there are sex differences and they ought to be taken into account. So projecting how adults should interact onto children should not be automatic. Its about maximising potential without holding either gender back.

That whole idea is gradually losing favour. It's suggested that when all things are otherwise equal, there isn't a great deal of difference between how the genders learn. Ireland is actually unusual for a western country in the amount of single-sex schools it has. There's two big issues with that - first, the genders don't mix and so miss out on a lot of normal peer relationships. Secondly, due to historical notions about what girls and boys should study, the schools tend to be equipped for different subjects, so girls primarily, but also boys miss out on being able to study certain topics. Money becomes an issue at that point - a girls' school is rather unlikely to pour a lot of cash into a technical lab, girls are far less likely to study the classics (because of a lack of Latin and Greek) and definitely not technical drawing, metalwork and woodwork.

Conversely, boys come out of school with no idea of how to cook for themselves. Xbrand mentioned having to go down the road to learn physics - yep, that was my experience of it. And for history.

silverharp

Samaris wrote: »

That whole idea is gradually losing favour. It's suggested that when all things are otherwise equal, there isn't a great deal of difference between how the genders learn. Ireland is actually unusual for a western country in the amount of single-sex schools it has. There's two big issues with that - first, the genders don't mix and so miss out on a lot of normal peer relationships. Secondly, due to historical notions about what girls and boys should study, the schools tend to be equipped for different subjects, so girls primarily, but also boys miss out on being able to study certain topics. Money becomes an issue at that point - a girls' school is rather unlikely to pour a lot of cash into a technical lab, girls are far less likely to study the classics (because of a lack of Latin and Greek) and definitely not technical drawing, metalwork and woodwork.

Conversely, boys come out of school with no idea of how to cook for themselves. Xbrand mentioned having to go down the road to learn physics - yep, that was my experience of it. And for history.

I don't disagree but its more about logistics. The problem is being stuck with infrastructure that that can take generations to move on or catch up. Based on various criteria you could build 2 schools on the same site. You could have one school and have parallel classes at certain ages or for certain subjects. and indeed there are social benefits to having mixed schools so I am not trying to argue against them on principle. The problem that can happen is that a mixed school could be rum along lines that suit girls more for instance in which case you would have underperformance or alienation by certain boys.

flutered

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There has been quite a number of posts in these discussions solely focused on removing the RCC from Irish education.

The last few posts in this thread have also demonstrated why I said this earlier -





The whole "equality" politics shouldn't be getting mixed up in an argument for secular schools IMO. I'd rather see children receiving a proper education without all the social politics involved.

i dunno why are they so interested in removing catholicsm from the schools, according to the last census 87% or near enough, with the c o i etc adding on a few more percentage points, this is leaving the folks with agnostic leanings in a rather small percentage, but with a loud strident voice, there are better ways to get their point across, getting 60% of the population to agree with them is a big ask, again it will depend on the make up of the next goverment

xband

silverharp wrote: »

I don't disagree but its more about logistics. The problem is being stuck with infrastructure that that can take generations to move on or catch up. Based on various criteria you could build 2 schools on the same site. You could have one school and have parallel classes at certain ages or for certain subjects. and indeed there are social benefits to having mixed schools so I am not trying to argue against them on principle. The problem that can happen is that a mixed school could be rum along lines that suit girls more for instance in which case you would have underperformance or alienation by certain boys.

Given that the single biggest barrier to performance in schools in Ireland is social deprivation, not gender, it seems like it would be also focusing on the wrong issues entirely.

Males and females seem to manage to perform perfectly well in school systems where pretty much every school is mixed. They also get on fine in 3rd level.

There's a very well feathered canard quacking rather loudly around this whole area of research tbh

Logistically and financially speaking, we are also creating umpteen unnecessary divisions and duplication of schools. Every extra division to create a new type of school for another identified group of children is another building, another principal's salary, another secretary, another set of overheads. Not to mention, having to ferry boys and girls to different schools in the morning and putting unnecessary strain on parents and CO2 into the atmosphere.

I've seen plenty of examples of BNS and GNS next to each other both struggling for basic facilities and also ridiculous things like a guy (of about 8) not being allowed to 'fraternise' with the girls from the school next door. What kind of warped view of gender does that give children?!

silverharp

xband wrote: »

Given that the single biggest barrier to performance in schools in Ireland is social deprivation, not gender, it seems like it would be also focusing on the wrong issues entirely.

Males and females seem to manage to perform perfectly well in school systems where pretty much every school is mixed. They also get on fine in 3rd level.

There's a very well feathered canard quacking rather loudly around this whole area of research tbh

Logistically and financially speaking, we are also creating umpteen unnecessary divisions and duplication of schools. Every extra division to create a new type of school for another identified group of children is another building, another principal's salary, another secretary, another set of overheads. Not to mention, having to ferry boys and girls to different schools in the morning and putting unnecessary strain on parents and CO2 into the atmosphere.

I've seen plenty of examples of BNS and GNS next to each other both struggling for basic facilities and also ridiculous things like a guy (of about 8) not being allowed to 'fraternise' with the girls from the school next door. What kind of warped view of gender does that give children?!

why are you answering my point about gender considerations with ones about deprivation? thats a different issue. Of course some issues are more important than other and cash might favour focusing on one thing and not something else.
As for everything is grand, nothing to see here move along , gender performance issues do show up which maybe magnified by social issues so it is worth looking at even if mixed schools are perfectly fine but that the teachers and teaching style take these factors into consideration, it doesnt have to be any more complicated than that.

expectationlost

article in dublinquirer http://dublininquirer.com/2016/01/06/as-other-parties-pledge-to-fight-religious-discrimination-in-schools-fine-gael-stands-alone/ and politico http://www.politico.eu/article/in-irish-schools-non-catholics-struggle-for-admission-religious-discrimination-access-to-education/ abt education and party policies, should our rights depend on number of votes or number of TDs in gov?

Hotblack Desiato

flutered wrote: »

i dunno why are they so interested in removing catholicsm from the schools, according to the last census 87% or near enough, with the c o i etc adding on a few more percentage points, this is leaving the folks with agnostic leanings in a rather small percentage, but with a loud strident voice, there are better ways to get their point across, getting 60% of the population to agree with them is a big ask, again it will depend on the make up of the next goverment

Ridiculous to suggest the box-ticking exercise in the census should have any bearing whatsoever on how our schools are run.

It's not a question asking people about schools at all.
Does 1/3rd and growing rapidly of marriages in civil ceremony tell you anything about the attitudes of present and future parents to religion? Also the approx 1/3rd of parents who are unmarried? How do you think they feel about conservative catholic dogma being pushed in schools?

Minorities have rights whether the majority like it or not. Democracy is not 51% of the population doing whatever they like and the other 49% having to put up with it.

The marriage equality referendum was a welcome result but is a bad precedent for how human rights should work in this country. Nobody should have to go begging a majority of voters to let them access a state service on the same basis everyone else does.

Either our politicians grow a set, or we will have an ECHR case.

Trump4Prez

I think there should be a separation between school and church.

The schools should not be involved in the Praying, First Confession, Communion and Confirmation process.

The church and the christian community can organize an evening or sunday class, away from the school environment where they can teach their kids and prepare them for these ceremonies

A secular child should not be forced to be in a classroom where prayers are going on. The child and their parents should not be pressured into taking part in the sacraments because their done through the school.

Shrap

Trump4Prez wrote: »

I think there should be a separation between school and church.

The schools should not be involved in the Praying, First Confession, Communion and Confirmation process.

The church and the christian community can organize an evening or sunday class, away from the school environment where they can teach their kids and prepare them for these ceremonies

A secular child should not be forced to be in a classroom where prayers are going on. The child and their parents should not be pressured into taking part in the sacraments because their done through the school.

I'm finding it weird to agree with "Trump4Prez". Feels so wrong :eek:

CelticRambler

Trump4Prez wrote: »

A secular child should not be forced to be in a classroom where prayers are going on. The child and their parents should not be pressured into taking part in the sacraments because their done through the school.

They're not forced into any classroom. Their parents make a decision not to opt for one of the alternatives, all of which are permitted by the state (and more easily accessible/implemented in Ireland than in many other countries).

For a brief moment earlier today, I thought this thread had got back onto looksee's "how?" track, which is/would be a really interesting discussion. Unfortunately, it's gone off the rails again into an argument about religion/indoctrination/faith/whatever. I've never met anyone go on about religion so much as an internet atheist - even the Jehovah's Witnesses have more normal conversations! :rolleyes:

I was going to respond to some of the more calmly-made assertions (quite a few of which I agree with in one way or another) but it all seems rather pointless if the only reason is to feed the anti-religion intolerants.

xband

silverharp wrote: »

why are you answering my point about gender considerations with ones about deprivation? thats a different issue. Of course some issues are more important than other and cash might favour focusing on one thing and not something else.
As for everything is grand, nothing to see here move along , gender performance issues do show up which maybe magnified by social issues so it is worth looking at even if mixed schools are perfectly fine but that the teachers and teaching style take these factors into consideration, it doesnt have to be any more complicated than that.

I am merely pointing out that single biggest issue in terms of access to 3rd level and the employment market and how people perform in the Leaving Cert is social deprivation. Gender disparities are not exactly preventing middle class boys/girls from excelling in mixed or single gender schools.

I'm just pointing out that this issue of gender separation in schools tends to be something one only encounters in Ireland, Britain (much less so) and generally in Islamic countries and also in the developing world. It's not something that you encounter at all really in public school systems elsewhere in Europe or the United States, yet somehow they all get on fine.

But, since I'm not allowed to answer a point by discussing something very relevant to it, I can only assume your aim is to just shut down the debate.

This is exactly why I was saying that I'm not really interested in discussing education in Ireland anymore as far too many people have dogmatic, narrow minded and totally entrenched views and will not even attempt to look beyond them.

It's all about close down debate, keep the status quo - be it religious, class or gender, uniforms etc etc.

Things that work perfectly well in similar countries all over the world are totally ignored in education here and for some reason we have this Irish exceptionalism approach to everything.

I also constantly get the impression that the whole thrust of the education system here is about protecting the status quo and vested interests, and nothing to do with ensuring maximum quality of educational input, best results and learning environment and providing teachers with excellent resources. Instead, it's all about protection of various little empires.

It just frustrates me that a normal, rational debate can't be had about these issues in Ireland.

silverharp

xband wrote: »

I am merely pointing out that single biggest issue in terms of access to 3rd level and the employment market and how people perform in the Leaving Cert is social deprivation. Gender disparities are not exactly preventing middle class boys/girls from excelling in mixed or single gender schools.

sure but just because something is the biggest doesnt mean you dont look at the others. Gender disparities might not effect my kids so much but at lower end it could be the difference between a kid engaging in education or deciding at a young age to give up on it.

xband wrote: »

I'm just pointing out that this issue of gender separation in schools tends to be something one only encounters in Ireland, Britain (much less so) and generally in Islamic countries and also in the developing world. It's not something that you encounter at all really in public school systems elsewhere in Europe or the United States, yet somehow they all get on fine.

the attitude to education should be for it to be as good as it possibly can be. There are issues, universities are complaining about the standard of students in recent years. Even a supermarket chain in Britain had to teach basic maths to some of their checkout assistants. And when you have the British PM having to discuss whether kids learn their times tables you can tell that its all a bit rudderless

xband wrote: »

But, since I'm not allowed to answer a point by discussing something very relevant to it, I can only assume your aim is to just shut down the debate.

assume away , again no idea what you are on about. So far you have accused me of not understanding big words and now I am trying to shut down debate. It might better if you dont attack me personally

xband wrote: »

This is exactly why I was saying that I'm not really interested in discussing education in Ireland anymore as far too many people have dogmatic, narrow minded and totally entrenched views and will not even attempt to look beyond them.

It's all about close down debate, keep the status quo - be it religious, class or gender, uniforms etc etc.

Personally I want better schools, better curriculum, higher standards etc. I'd imagine some general resistance is about Irish people seeing that Britain has gone from trendy policy to trendy policy and it not working, where steady as it goes at least doesn break it

xband wrote: »

Things that work perfectly well in similar countries all over the world are totally ignored in education here and for some reason we have this Irish exceptionalism approach to everything.

whats exceptional about Irish schools here?

xband wrote: »

I also constantly get the impression that the whole thrust of the education system here is about protecting the status quo and vested interests, and nothing to do with ensuring maximum quality of educational input, best results and learning environment and providing teachers with excellent resources. Instead, it's all about protection of various little empires.

It just frustrates me that a normal, rational debate can't be had about these issues in Ireland.

yep, the catholic church wants to protect its turf and its a silly division as to how schools are run

Hotblack Desiato

CelticRambler wrote: »

Their parents make a decision not to opt for one of the alternatives

For the vast majority of parents there are no alternatives. If there were, there would be no need for this thread or the campaigns going on currently.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

For the vast majority of parents there are no alternatives. If there were, there would be no need for this thread or the campaigns going on currently.

There doesn't appear to be any real demand from the vast majority of parents though calling for alternatives, and that's a real problem for campaigners who are effectively in a minority, with no real motivation for change among the majority. I've yet to see any compelling reason for a secular education system other than simply the fact that it offers parents more choices. If people aren't willing to actively support that, then is there anything would make a compelling argument to get them to actively support it and put pressure on politicians to change the education system?

I don't know that there is tbh.

Huntergonzo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There doesn't appear to be any real demand from the vast majority of parents though calling for alternatives, and that's a real problem for campaigners who are effectively in a minority, with no real motivation for change among the majority. I've yet to see any compelling reason for a secular education system other than simply the fact that it offers parents more choices. If people aren't willing to actively support that, then is there anything would make a compelling argument to get them to actively support it and put pressure on politicians to change the education system?

I don't know that there is tbh.

In fairness the media plays a big part in this as well, they set the agenda over what to be outraged at, at the minute extremist Muslims are the number one enemy and if anything that is likely to slightly strengthen Catholicism in the Irish psyche.

If the media properly highlighted the obvious discrimination in our publicly funded primary schools it may garner more interest from parents.

Delirium

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There doesn't appear to be any real demand from the vast majority of parents though calling for alternatives, and that's a real problem for campaigners who are effectively in a minority, with no real motivation for change among the majority. I've yet to see any compelling reason for a secular education system other than simply the fact that it offers parents more choices. If people aren't willing to actively support that, then is there anything would make a compelling argument to get them to actively support it and put pressure on politicians to change the education system?

I don't know that there is tbh.

a poll from 2012 found that 3 out of 4 parents would send their children to schools run by patrons other than Churches if they had a choice.

silverharp

Huntergonzo wrote: »

In fairness the media plays a big part in this as well, they set the agenda over what to be outraged at, at the minute extremist Muslims are the number one enemy and if anything that is likely to slightly strengthen Catholicism in the Irish psyche.

If the media properly highlighted the obvious discrimination in our publicly funded primary schools it may garner more interest from parents.

Media tend to be reactive , they only push open doors. Child abuse, the property bubble etc. The demographics for newspapers must be getting older too so its not going to be a hot button issue for their readers.

One eyed Jack

Huntergonzo wrote: »

In fairness the media plays a big part in this as well, they set the agenda over what to be outraged at, at the minute extremist Muslims are the number one enemy and if anything that is likely to slightly strengthen Catholicism in the Irish psyche.

If the media properly highlighted the obvious discrimination in our publicly funded primary schools it may garner more interest from parents.

It's all relative though really. Because a secular education system isn't seen as a priority by the general public, it's not going to feature too highly on any national media agenda. The Irish Times tend to hit it in spots though -

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/non-catholic-in-a-catholic-school-1.2446488

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/dominican-school-cancels-invite-to-atheist-speaker-1.2420125

Huntergonzo

silverharp wrote: »

Media tend to be reactive , they only push open doors. Child abuse, the property bubble etc. The demographics for newspapers must be getting older too so its not going to be a hot button issue for their readers.

This is true and I think the older reader/listener tends to take the news they're given whereas younger people tend to go looking for news on the internet (perhaps a generalisation but it's what I've witnessed).

Now there's an incredible amount of bullshít on the internet as well of course but I think it's no harm to ask your own questions and research things that the media isn't reporting.