Religious education in preschool

LordSutch

lauradryeye wrote: »

Hi all,

My 4 year old daughter just joined our local preschool and she mentioned that they can't eat their lunch until they said their blessings and done the sign of the cross. I'm not sure if they also do prayers as she doesn't tell me much!

In Preschool?

Wow, never heard of that before. Mind you, we've only had experience of two preschools so maybe we were lucky?

Sign of the cross & blessings presumes all children are RC.

Samaris

Speaking of not reading the OP's post, mea culpa, I misread it and missed the question part on the prayers. I've always taken "saying grace" as a prayer.

Also, it's probably worth my clarifying here, but what is the situation as regards preschools and State education, does anyone know? Are they optional rather than state-mandated and are they entirely private institutions, unlike primary/secondary schooling?

lazygal

Samaris wrote: »

Speaking of not reading the OP's post, mea culpa, I misread it and missed the question part on the prayers. I've always taken "saying grace" as a prayer.

Also, it's probably worth my clarifying here, but what is the situation as regards preschools and State education, does anyone know? Are they optional rather than state-mandated and are they entirely private institutions, unlike primary/secondary schooling?

It's a mixed bag of private operators, community settings and big chains. The only overtly religious pre school near us is run by the HSE. It's specifically Catholic.

iguana

Samaris wrote: »

Are they optional rather than state-mandated and are they entirely private institutions, unlike primary/secondary schooling?

All schools are optional in Ireland. The only thing that is mandated is that by the time a child turns 6 they must either be in a school or registered as homeschooled.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can any pre-school have no ethos? Serious question.

You should know that 'ethos' in the Irish educational sense invariably means 'religious ethos', it's why ETs are 'multidenominational' not non-denominational, so even a school without religious patronage has to have an 'ethos' with regard to religion.

A non-discrimination policy, however laudable it may be, is not an 'ethos'.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

Parents look for many things in a pre-school, but having to ask in a non-religious playschool what their approach to religion is, would not be something they would expect to have to clarify.

Well first off let's bear in mind that the only evidence we have of this being a "religious school" is that they give thanks before eating. That's it. Anything else at this point is nothing more then conjecture on your part.

But if I took non religion half as seriously as you or most on here and if something as benign as giving thanks before eating was going to present such a major issue for me, I would definitely want to know the ethos of any potential school and would most certainly be asking them what, if any, religious activity was involved before signing my child up to them. It would take mere seconds to ask. If doesn't come up in the conversation, it's clearly not a priority.

looksee wrote: »

However, it cannot automatically be assumed that all parents wish their children to be introduced to religious practices at pre-school age

Agreed but given that the vast majority of the population identify as RC it's safe enough to assume that the vast majority in any class are either in favour of or indifferent to something as benign as saying thanks before eating. You seem to forget that atheists are a small minority. And furthermore, atheists who think like you and get themselves worked up about trivial matters such as this are an even smaller minority of that small minority. Factor in rural areas and the numbers are skewed even more in favour of religion. So while nothing can ever be assumed when it comes to education, the current stats don't stack up in your favour..

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not a school. It's a pre-school. Pre-schools are not supposed to have an 'ethos'. The syllabus they are supposed to be following precludes it.

I see some have already responded to this point so i won't repeat it other then to say an ethos doesn't have to be religious. Anywhere you get a collection of people you will likely have an ethos. In and of itself, it's not a bad thing.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think a preschool needs to be upfront about the beliefs and values that it aims to inculcate in this way (and if the OP's preschool was upfront about it's inculcation of Christian belief, it wasn't so upfront that the OP actually noticed it when signing on).

I agree with this point but again, surely there must be some onus on the parents to ensure the ethos of any prospective school is in keeping with their own beliefs, views, opinions etc. If this school was overtly religious and had sacred heart pictures all over the walls this forum would be up in arms over that as well. But again, all we know is that they ask the kids to say thanks before eating. That's it. There's no suggestion from op that they do anything other then this in terms of religion. So for all we know they were completely upfront but up to this point they just haven't encountered parents who have an issue with children giving thanks before eating as for the vast majority of parents it's just not an issue.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can any pre-school have no ethos? Serious question.

Pre-schools are not the same as schools, they are not ruled or inspected by the department of education.

Instead the HSE/Tusla inspect them and set standards.

As mentioned previously, if a Tusla inspector saw a pre-school session praying to a specific faith before meal and they were following either of the two main curriculum's they would dock the creche marks as part of the inspection.

It actually wouldn't matter if the creche was part funded by the catholic church, the church can't simply ignore the curriculum they've signed upto. If they don't like the curriculum they can do something else.

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Well first off let's bear in mind that the only evidence we have of this being a "religious school" is that they give thanks before eating. That's it. Anything else at this point is nothing more then conjecture on your part.

But if I took non religion half as seriously as you or most on here and if something as benign as giving thanks before eating was going to present such a major issue for me, I would definitely want to know the ethos of any potential school and would most certainly be asking them what, if any, religious activity was involved before signing my child up to them. It would take mere seconds to ask. If doesn't come up in the conversation, it's clearly not a priority.



Agreed but given that the vast majority of the population identify as RC it's safe enough to assume that the vast majority in any class are either in favour of or indifferent to something as benign as saying thanks before eating. You seem to forget that atheists are a small minority. And furthermore, atheists who think like you and get themselves worked up about trivial matters such as this are an even smaller minority of that small minority. Factor in rural areas and the numbers are skewed even more in favour of religion. So while nothing can ever be assumed when it comes to education, the current stats don't stack up in your favour..



I see some have already responded to this point so i won't repeat it other then to say an ethos doesn't have to be religious. Anywhere you get a collection of people you will likely have an ethos. In and of itself, it's not a bad thing.



I agree with this point but again, surely there must be some onus on the parents to ensure the ethos of any prospective school is in keeping with their own beliefs, views, opinions etc. If this school was overtly religious and had sacred heart pictures all over the walls this forum would be up in arms over that as well. But again, all we know is that they ask the kids to say thanks before eating. That's it. There's no suggestion from op that they do anything other then this in terms of religion. So for all we know they were completely upfront but up to this point they just haven't encountered parents who have an issue with children giving thanks before eating as for the vast majority of parents it's just not an issue.

The significant point is that they are taught to bless themselves. This is a very specifically RC action which can have a great deal more significance to others than it does to Catholics, who see it as a natural gesture in various circumstances.

I have at various stages in my life promised to give over my children's faith to the Catholic church (as the price for being married in a church, which was vitally important to my spouse), I have attended Mass on a pretty regular basis for a while, and was almost convinced. I supervised first communion and confirmation events for all our children, I helped them learn prayers and catchecism and did not criticise any of it.

In all that time I have never blessed myself, that would have been, to me, the point of accepting the RC church in its entirety; a stage that I did not, within myself, ever reach, and eventually went completely the other way.

That is just my reaction, I do not intend that it should be applied to anyone else, but I can see how it might be a step too far in accommodating the religious customs of other people.

I have already given my views on appreciating our food.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

As mentioned previously, if a Tusla inspector saw a pre-school session praying to a specific faith before meal and they were following either of the two main curriculum's they would dock the creche marks as part of the inspection.

I think you're literally making that up, not least because religion isn't even mentioned on the Tusla Inspection tool used to carry out inspections (though having a strong ethos is). Can you provide an actual inspection report that shows an inspector has ever done as you say?

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You should know that 'ethos' in the Irish educational sense invariably means 'religious ethos', it's why ETs are 'multidenominational' not non-denominational, so even a school without religious patronage has to have an 'ethos' with regard to religion.

A non-discrimination policy, however laudable it may be, is not an 'ethos'.

Only if you arbitrarily define "ethos" to mean "religious ethos". And doing so looks suspiciously like an attempt to deny that non-religlious institutions have any ethos at all, and/or to avoid thinking about or scrutnising any ethos that is not a religious ethos. Which is not a good or healthy thing. I certainly would have no confidence in any school that pretended it was educating my child in an environment free of any ethos. They are either stupid or dishonest and, in either case, unfit to be educators.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

The significant point is that they are taught to bless themselves. This is a very specifically RC action which can have a great deal more significance to others than it does to Catholics, who see it as a natural gesture in various circumstances.

To be honest, I struggle to understand the concept that a gesture made by those of any particular faith could hold more significance for people outside of that faith and those of no faith at all. It doesn't make any sense but not much about religion does..

Why on earth would a harmless religious gesture, made by another person, in response to their faith, bother you to such an extent

looksee wrote: »

I have at various stages in my life promised to give over my children's faith to the Catholic church (as the price for being married in a church, which was vitally important to my spouse), I have attended Mass on a pretty regular basis for a while, and was almost convinced. I supervised first communion and confirmation events for all our children, I helped them learn prayers and catchecism and did not criticise any of it.

But I think this goes some way to explaining it..

And apologies if i've misunderstood your post but it also appears to explain why you tend to be one of the most vocal posters on here with regard to people who you judge as going through the motions for the sake of religion.. You were obviously put in a position where you felt you had to do it yourself and that would piss anyone off.

I appreciate the honesty of your post and I recognise myself in much of it. Having been raised in a religious home, i never embraced religion but i certainly went through the motions in my childhood and early teens. It never sat easy though and I questioned it deeply from a very early age. That journey has taken me through a number of spiritual phases in my life but oddly enough, it was while studying theology that I really began to identify as atheist. I became very angry and bitter, not just with the church but with anyone who followed it. I couldn't understand how everyone couldn't see through the bull**** and it infuriated me for a long time..

But ultimately atheism wasn't to be my natural resting place either. It never sat easy and the anger was troubling me so I kept searching.. It was only when I finally stopped trying to label myself into some predefined box that i began to feel comfortable and eventually came to a place where i'm just happy in my skin and believe what i believe.

I no longer have any need for religions, churches, priests, scriptures, rules etc. Because of this, many atheists here like to label me as "woo merchant" which always makes me laugh. People can label me whatever they want. I stopped caring about labels many years ago. This woo merchant is very happy in his own head and that's all i need..

I'm not for a second suggesting by the way that you or any other atheist is on a path to theism although i have no doubt that some are. I fully respect your lack of belief and i understand the rational arguments that got you there.

What i do challenge however is the idea that atheism is the only show in town that can possibly make sense and that people at various stages of belief or disbelief should be accountable for those beliefs or lack of. No-one should ever have to explain why they choose what they choose. That's between them and their god if they have one. And likewise i get a little frustrated at the militancy on here at times.

Back to the op, here we have a parent who put their child in a particular preschool as it was convenient, without bothering or thinking to ask if any religion would be involved and on finding out that the kids say grace, asks this forum what to do about it. Que a bunch of angry responses stating that these women are forcibly indoctrinating young children against their will and the will of the parents which in the absence of any further detail from the op is nothing but conjecture born out of individual personal hang ups and issues regarding religion in general..

As part of cultural diversity there will always be a need for compromise but many here it seems don't want compromise. They want a secular society to the detriment of religion and that will never work either. In fact that's the opposite of cultural diversity.

If this parent was forced to put their child in this particular school i would understand. If the school had lied to the parent on admitting the child i would get the point. If these kids were being strapped to a chair and forced to bless themselves i would understand the anger. If they are saying prayers and reading the bible or learning Christianity as fact i would probably share the rage..

But on the basis of the op, none of these things are true and the solution could be as simple as op mentioning to them they they are atheist and it could all be resolved just like that. A little bit of reason and calm goes a long way and will get a far more positive response then the "hang them all" approach being expressed here... That'll just get their back up and you'll get nowhere.. But each to their own and all that..

recedite

Swanner wrote: »

What i do challenge however is the idea that atheism is the only show in town that can possibly make sense and that people at various stages of belief or disbelief should be accountable for those beliefs or lack of. No-one should ever have to explain why they choose what they choose. That's between them and their god if they have one. And likewise i get a little frustrated at the militancy on here at times.

Atheists are usually fine about religious people having their own beliefs, however irrational those beliefs are. Its only when they start foisting those beliefs on others, for example the atheist's child, that a problem occurs.

Swanner wrote: »

Back to the op, here we have a parent who put their child in a particular preschool as it was convenient, without bothering or thinking to ask if any religion would be involved and on finding out that the kids say grace, asks this forum what to do about it.

The point is, the religious aspect wasn't advertised very well, or expected, or necessary. I think you would be annoyed if some staff member was trying to introduce your child to the Hare Krishna religion while you were walking around a supermarket.

Swanner wrote: »

As part of cultural diversity there will always be a need for compromise but many here it seems don't want compromise. They want a secular society to the detriment of religion and that will never work either. In fact that's the opposite of cultural diversity.

Religion can exist quite happily in a secular country. It just means that personal beliefs are generally kept separate from workplace policies and access to public facilities. In that kind of situation, diversity is allowed to flourish, and will do so if it has enough merit to do so. If certain minority religions cannot survive without controlling state funded schools, then they will disappear, and be replaced by others with more appeal. That's how competition works in a free market.

The Bishop Basher

recedite wrote: »

The point is, the religious aspect wasn't advertised very well, or expected, or necessary. I think you would be annoyed if some staff member was trying to introduce your child to the Hare Krishna religion while you were walking around a supermarket.

Well that's a slightly different scenario but I would have no concerns regarding my kids and their spiritual leanings. They will be what they will be and i'm ok with whatever that is.. We talk about it and i've enjoyed watching them grow in that way. Both of them have gone through a CoI education, fully opted in to religion. Neither would consider themselves to be either CoI or religious. So that's 100% failure rate for CoI on the indoctrination front in this house anyway.. The RC church lost one here too..

Regarding the school not saying anything.. Fair enough, there would be an onus on both parties to figure out the finer details before committing. But i would have thought, if lack of religion was a priority for the parents then the parents should have asked. They assumed incorrectly. It happens. It can be dealt with.

looksee

recedite wrote: »

Atheists are usually fine about religious people having their own beliefs, however irrational those beliefs are. Its only when they start foisting those beliefs on others, for example the atheist's child, that a problem occurs.

This. Entirely this, and only this.

looksee

Swanner, I am interested in your analysis of my attitude to religion, I had not quite thought of it like that and it is possible that you are correct.

However, I do not feel that I need someone to be an apologist for me. The point of the post was that while making the sign of the cross is pretty much an automatic gesture to people raised as Catholics, either a considered gesture with a meaning, or just something that they do because that is what they were brought up to do; to others, lapsed Catholics, atheists or people of other religions, it can have more significance. It is recognising something that they do not accept.

Given the posts that will arise elsewhere on the site fairly shortly it is like saying 'we are going to give all the children in the school a poppy to wear, don't fuss about it, its only a flower and they won't even realise what it represents'.

As to the point you have raised several times, about me being a vocal poster and various other descriptions to that effect. Look, this is a discussion site. I am putting my point of view. Because this forum is a place where a lot of concentrated discussion is going on about atheism it is only likely that I am going to come over as deeply involved. And at one level I am. However I am not angry and I am not obsessed with atheism. It is something that I almost never discuss outside this forum.

I genuinely don't care what people believe - provided they do not insist on my participation in their beliefs.

It is in no way rational or reasonable to have religion as the default situation in schools. It is absolutely not necessary for religious practises to be part of the school day. In the absence of religion in the classroom all children could be taught together, with no need for segregation, the knowledge and skills they need for their everyday life and future work, and their parents could organise whatever religious teaching they need out of school time. You may not agree with this, fine that is your prerogative, but here, in this forum I will feel free to express that opinion.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if you arbitrarily define "ethos" to mean "religious ethos". And doing so looks suspiciously like an attempt to deny that non-religlious institutions have any ethos at all, and/or to avoid thinking about or scrutnising any ethos that is not a religious ethos. Which is not a good or healthy thing. I certainly would have no confidence in any school that pretended it was educating my child in an environment free of any ethos. They are either stupid or dishonest and, in either case, unfit to be educators.

It appears you did not read, did not understand, or chose to ignore my previous post but nonetheless chose to reply.

We are discussing education in Ireland and ethos as it is defined in relation to education in Ireland. Even ETs are defined in relation to religion, as "multi-denominational" even though they do not instruct in any particular religion, never mind a number of them. For many years the Dept of Education could not, or chose not to, conceive of the very idea that a school need not have a religious patron.

There are no non-denominational schools receiving state funding in Ireland, so the question of a school without "ethos" (as the Irish education system defines "ethos") does not arise.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It appears you did not read, did not understand, or chose to ignore my previous post but nonetheless chose to reply. We are discussing education in Ireland and ethos as it is defined in relation to education in Ireland. Even ETs are defined in relation to religion, as "multi-denominational" even though they do not instruct in any particular religion, never mind a number of them. For many years the Dept of Education could not, or chose not to, conceive of the very idea that a school need not have a religious patron.

To be fair, even Educate Together don't say their ethos is multi-denominational. What they say is "While routine references to Educate Together schools as ‘multi-denominational’ suggests that their approach to religion is their distinguishing feature, this is only one of four principles underpinning the ethos. <...> The reality is that school ethos cannot be defined in any one word, especially one so variously understood. ". They also say "Educate Together schools have an ethos of respect, diversity & inclusion."
So ET understand that their own ethos is not a religious ethos, nor is it defined in relation to religion. I think a lot of the ire directed at the concept of an ethos is based on the fact that anti theists identify it with religion, when it is obviously a much broader concept and is as evident in irreligious as religious endeavours.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

There are no non-denominational schools receiving state funding in Ireland, so the question of a school without "ethos" (as the Irish education system defines "ethos") does not arise.

Not really; a school needn't be denominational to have an ethos. You may claim the Irish education system defines "ethos" as "religious ethos" but it obviously doesn't, and non religious educators like Educate Together agree it doesn't. The education system allows for non denominational schools, but it seems there are more denominational organisations interested in doing the job at the moment than there are non denominational organisations. Maybe that means there's an opportunity there for someone willing to give it a go? Or, given Secular Schools Ireland Ltd's foray some time back, maybe just an opportunity for a competent someone to give it a go. As an aside, they're seeking patronage of three schools currently, and they have an ethos, whilst being resolutely opposed to sectarian ethos and the teaching of religion. So you might even say the secularists with skin in the game don't agree with you when it comes to ethos...

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

However, I do not feel that I need someone to be an apologist for me.

Apologies if you thought i was. That was not my intention..

looksee wrote: »

The point of the post was that while making the sign of the cross is pretty much an automatic gesture to people raised as Catholics, either a considered gesture with a meaning, or just something that they do because that is what they were brought up to do; to others, lapsed Catholics, atheists or people of other religions, it can have more significance. It is recognising something that they do not accept.

I understand that but so is looking at a church or a nun or a priest. You see these all the time and i'll bet you don't bat an eye lid.

Someone else engaging in the act of blessing themselves can only ever hold as much significance for you as you choose to attach to it.. Turning off that attachment is as simple as deciding to..

looksee wrote: »

I genuinely don't care what people believe - provided they do not insist on my participation in their beliefs.

Maybe you don't care what they believe but you certainly take issue with the fact that some people choose to identify as RC while also choosing not to attend mass or partake in other ways. And while i do understand your frustration on that front, people are perfectly entitled to identify with any religion as they see fit, regardless of which faith practices they choose or choose not to partake in..

looksee wrote: »

It is in no way rational or reasonable to have religion as the default situation in schools. It is absolutely not necessary for religious practises to be part of the school day. In the absence of religion in the classroom all children could be taught together, with no need for segregation, the knowledge and skills they need for their everyday life and future work, and their parents could organise whatever religious teaching they need out of school time. You may not agree with this, fine that is your prerogative, but here, in this forum I will feel free to express that opinion.

For the most part, I agree..

jane10

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the contrary, we spend a lot of time getting preschoolers to behave in ways that are compatible with beliefs that they don't have yet.  We do this because, when they acquire the capacity for belief, we want them to have these beliefs.  Hence, we teach them to share their toys, not to settle arguments by fighting, etc.  This is because we want them to conform to, to internalise and in time explicitly to adopt beliefs which we have, but they do not (yet).

I think a preschool needs to be upfront about the beliefs and values that it aims to inculcate in this way (and if the OP's preschool was upfront about it's inculcation of Christian belief, it wasn't so upfront that the OP actually noticed it when signing on).  I don't, however, accept that Speedwell or Peregrinus or anyone else gets to dictate that certain beliefs are "enough" and that it is somehow wrong or objectionable for any preschool to go beyond that.  This is a matter for the parents of the children concerned and for the people running the preschool.

Hello
Usually learning within schools focuses on subjects (90 per cent or more) and every other element of reporting consists of cursory reporting of several 'co-scholastic' parameters. Next time as a parent you are at the Parents Teachers Association meeting, ask your school, how they scored your child on co-scholastics. What are the means of assessment? Schools have evolved their assessment systems, making observations and feedback to parents an integral part of assessment.