Religion may be out of core curriculum for primary schools

Bristolscale7

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/religion-may-be-out-of-core-curriculum-for-primary-schools-1.2918634

What's the relation between the NCAA and the DES? Who/what is the NCAA?

GreenFolder2

URL doesn't work

Bristolscale7

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

URL doesn't work

Sorry about that. It's fixed now.

Absolam

Seems reasonably sensible... religious ethos schools can still teach religious education, schools with other ethoi can teach what they feel is relevant.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

Seems reasonably sensible... religious ethos schools can still teach religious education, schools with other ethoi can teach what they feel is relevant.

While still discriminating against non-believers for admissions.

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

While still discriminating against non-believers for admissions.

Since the article doesn't mention it, it seems likely that they'll continue to be allowed to prefer students who match their ethos when oversubscribed. Just like non religious ethos schools

GreenFolder2

Absolam wrote: »

Since the article doesn't mention it, it seems likely that they'll continue to be allowed to prefer students who match their ethos when oversubscribed. Just like non religious ethos schools

Well, that's simply not true on two counts.

1. Educate Together doesn't favour non religious students over anyone else. It's just first come first served and proximity etc. They accept all students equally - that's the whole point.

2. Ireland doesn't currently allow non religious ethos schools. Educate Together and others are defined as "multi denominational". Under the current rules a non religious ethos schools weren't ever invisiged. The rules are from the mid 1960s which in official educationalist Ireland was more like the mid 1860s.

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Well, that's simply not true on two counts.
1. Educate Together doesn't favour non religious students over anyone else. It's just first come first served and proximity etc. They accept all students equally - that's the whole point.
2. Ireland doesn't currently allow non religious ethos schools. Educate Together and others are defined as "multi denominational". Under the current rules a non religious ethos schools weren't ever invisiged. The rules are from the mid 1960s which in official educationalist Ireland was more like the mid 1860s.

Well;
1. That's not to say a non religious ethos school can't choose an ethos ground for preferment; they manifestly can, even if Educate Together schools don't.
2. Yes, it does. The one rule (not law) which required that a “religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school” has been abolished. Non religious patrons are as free to run schools as religious ones.

So I would say it's entirely true on both counts.

GreenFolder2

The Department might want to update its website then as it still has the 1960s (cough: more like 1860s) rules for national schools still up there, complete with references to Laundry as a subject.

Also copies on the INTO and various other educational organisations' websites.

I would have thought updating all of these would be fairly high priority if the rule is gone as otherwise you'll have people continuously citing it and using it.

You still have a situation where 96% of Irish schools are in religious patronage and 90% are Catholic. So, if most of those are still discriminating on enrolment, it's still pushing a lot of kids into crazy commutes, private schools and so on.

You'd have to wonder what happens to kids who can't find a school at all? I mean it must happen given the pressures on the school "system" in certain areas.

Is anyone being home educated / missing out on school entirely due to this?

We still have the ludicrous situation where the state requires compulsory education, which in reality is not feasible for most parents outside of a school environment, yet it does not really provide public schools, instead funds schools with a religious ethos and an actively discriminatory intake policy that will exclude children of non-religious and possibly other minorities.

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

Well;
1. That's not to say a non religious ethos school can't choose an ethos ground for preferment; they manifestly can, even if Educate Together schools don't.
2. Yes, it does. The one rule (not law) which required that a “religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school” has been abolished. Non religious patrons are as free to run schools as religious ones.

So I would say it's entirely true on both counts.

Your first point is only true if we ignore the first point the poster you are replying to is making and take your point as a stand alone statement.

matrim

"may be", "proposal", "consultation". Time for the church to throw a strop and this to be completely watered down and be effectively useless.

GreenFolder2

Can we not just start some kind of ground up crowd fund to cover taking a constitutional case?

It looks like a potential de facto breach of the notion that the state won't compel parents to send children to a school that is against their beliefs.

The only defence is some theoretical notion that you can just go off and set up your own school. In reality that's not possible for the vast majority of people. So the reality is that most non catholic parents are compelled to send their children to school regardless their beliefs and in many cases may be even peer pressure bullied into baptising them.

No matter what way you look at it, it's a bizzare situation and very unacceptable in what is otherwise a modern society.

Bristolscale7

matrim wrote: »

"may be", "proposal", "consultation". Time for the church to throw a strop and this to be completely watered down and be effectively useless.

The proposal is already useless. It's discretionary. So if catholic schools want to continute teaching about the holy prepuce they are free to do so.

GreenFolder2

Can't beat a system that makes fundamental rights to education subject to discretionary decisions of a local unaccountable private board or even individual staff members.

The amount of utter BS and faffing about on this stuff that goes on here is just mind boggling.

Either have open education or just call it what it is : institutionalised, state sponsored sectarianism.

All the dressing it up in the world doesn't wash away the fact that coming up with reasons why kids should be marginalised and deprioritised in publicly funded education systems is fundamentally very wrong.

expectationlost

more articles on NCCA report we can't read yet.

some schools could end up having more religion and they maybe the only schools some non-religious can go to

Hotblack Desiato

Absolam wrote: »

Since the article doesn't mention it, it seems likely that they'll continue to be allowed to prefer students who match their ethos when oversubscribed. Just like non religious ethos schools

Liar liar pants on fire. As usual another worthless shitpost.

JayRoc

Absolam wrote: »

Since the article doesn't mention it, it seems likely that they'll continue to be allowed to prefer students who match their ethos when oversubscribed. Just like non religious ethos schools

There are no non-religious ethos schools. Secular primary education doesn't exist, sadly. Closest thing is Educate Together (multi-denominational)

byhookorbycrook

JayRoc wrote: »

There are no non-religious ethos schools. Secular primary education doesn't exist, sadly. Closest thing is Educate Together (multi-denominational)

ET doesn't hold the monopoly on multi-denom, many Gaelscoileanna are muti-d too.

Skommando

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Liar liar pants on fire. As usual another worthless shitpost.

I suppose if you can't counter the point you could always try attacking the poster ?

Hotblack Desiato

Skommando wrote: »

I suppose if you can't counter the point you could always try attacking the poster ?

I just did, the post is false. Have you got anything worthwhile to add yourself?

Skommando

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I just did, the post is false. Have you got anything worthwhile to add yourself?

Yes, pointing out ad hominem. You're welcome.

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

The Department might want to update its website then as it still has the 1960s (cough: more like 1860s) rules for national schools still up there, complete with references to Laundry as a subject.
Also copies on the INTO and various other educational organisations' websites.
I would have thought updating all of these would be fairly high priority if the rule is gone as otherwise you'll have people continuously citing it and using it.

It might. Though I think you'll find it has.

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

You still have a situation where 96% of Irish schools are in religious patronage and 90% are Catholic. So, if most of those are still discriminating on enrolment, it's still pushing a lot of kids into crazy commutes, private schools and so on.

How many kids, would you say?

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what happens to kids who can't find a school at all? I mean it must happen given the pressures on the school "system" in certain areas. Is anyone being home educated / missing out on school entirely due to this?

You would, wouldn't you? In fact you'd imagine that if even one child in Ireland was missing out on school entirely due to this it'd be a national scandal. It'd be in the papers, and on the internet and such. Wouldn't it?

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

We still have the ludicrous situation where the state requires compulsory education, which in reality is not feasible for most parents outside of a school environment, yet it does not really provide public schools, instead funds schools with a religious ethos and an actively discriminatory intake policy that will exclude children of non-religious and possibly other minorities.

. The streets must be awash with all the excluded children at this stage. Something will have to be done!

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Your first point is only true if we ignore the first point the poster you are replying to is making and take your point as a stand alone statement.

Well be fair, the posters first statement was intended to refute my first statement... it's not my fault if my reply only addressed what was relevant in his

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Can we not just start some kind of ground up crowd fund to cover taking a constitutional case?
It looks like a potential de facto breach of the notion that the state won't compel parents to send children to a school that is against their beliefs.
The only defence is some theoretical notion that you can just go off and set up your own school. In reality that's not possible for the vast majority of people. So the reality is that most non catholic parents are compelled to send their children to school regardless their beliefs and in many cases may be even peer pressure bullied into baptising them.
No matter what way you look at it, it's a bizzare situation and very unacceptable in what is otherwise a modern society.

I don't think you can take a Constitutional case over a notion though. It really needs to be something specifically expressed in the Constitution which you have been denied, and the State doesn't compel parents to send their children to any school; they can home school or send them anywhere they can find a place for them. That this may be inconvenient falls well short of compulsion, particularly given that the obligation to educate sits squarely on parents in the Constitution, not the State.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Liar liar pants on fire. As usual another worthless shitpost.

Well, that's an erudite, reference supported rebuttal as usual

Absolam

JayRoc wrote: »

There are no non-religious ethos schools. Secular primary education doesn't exist, sadly. Closest thing is Educate Together (multi-denominational)

Sure. That does not mean there can't be though, does it? It just means no one has set one up yet, sadly. There seems to be plenty of people (here) who want someone else to do it, but I'm only aware of one group making the effort, and so far their efforts have been remarkably poor; so much so that you'd almost get the impression they want to complain about not being allowed to run a school rather than run a school.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I just did, the post is false. Have you got anything worthwhile to add yourself?

Well, you didn't counter it in fairness, that would require engaging with what I actually said. And if you're honest about it, you know there's nothing untrue in what I said, which is why you didn't engage with it, and went for the ad hominem instead.....

Advbrd

Wow, another thread on religion in schools and guess which non religious person we have 'contributing' one third of the posts.

Absolam

Any of the posts you feel like discussing? Though I agree, another thread on religion in schools may be a bit much.

Advbrd

Absolam wrote: »

Any of the posts you feel like discussing? Though I agree, another thread on religion in schools may be a bit much.

I have no desire to be bored to death.

Absolam

Well, if you're trying to make ad hominem more entertaining, it may require some effort

lazygal

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

ET doesn't hold the monopoly on multi-denom, many Gaelscoileanna are muti-d too.

But the vast majority are single denominational or inter denominational. I'd wouldn't say many, I'd say some are multi d.

robindch

Folks - please tone down the rhetoric.

thanking youze.

looksee

If we are going to discuss education, can we please accept that Absolem's (often repeated) view is that schools are in the control of the Catholic Church, this is enforced by civil legislation, there is no reason for this to change and if anyone wants a different form of education they should organise it themselves. Just accept it, the fact that you are not arguing it does not have to mean you agree.

We could plough through all the already beaten to death points about rights, separation of church and state and the use of public money, but there is little point, the same points will be repeated ad nauseum while chasing minor irrelevant points in an effort to blur the topic.

There are other much more interesting discussions to be had, and that particular one has been utterly exhausted.

Going back to the original topic, it is a good start that Religion (ie Catholic teaching) is being removed from the core curriculum, but there is still plenty of scope in the remaining 40% for religion to be merged into the rest of the day. Does this mean that the intensive First Communion and Confirmation training will still take place in school time?

recedite

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

The proposal is already useless. It's discretionary. So if catholic schools want to continue teaching about the holy prepuce they are free to do so.

Being discretionary doesn't make it totally useless though.
If you had a choice of sending your child to a school where they spent half an hour every morning discussing holy matters, or one where they spent that time learning computer coding, which would you opt for?
I take the point that not everyone lives in an area where there is a choice.
But the importance of this proposal, if it comes to pass, is that it exposes the timewasting of religious schools by allowing less religious schools to reallocate that time to something more constructive. Thereby giving them a competitive advantage that they have never been allowed to exploit before now.

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

Going back to the original topic, it is a good start that Religion (ie Catholic teaching) is being removed from the core curriculum, but there is still plenty of scope in the remaining 40% for religion to be merged into the rest of the day. Does this mean that the intensive First Communion and Confirmation training will still take place in school time?

It's not 40% for religion, it's 40% for all non-core subjects. And merging it into the rest of the day isn't the solution it's part of the problem - religion 'integrated' into other subjects like art and English makes it impossible to opt out of.
I don't see how sacramental preparation can be fitted in during the standard day without seriously impacting core subjects - if DoE are serious about this then having additional classes at the end of the day is the only option. If my RC religious order-run school could manage the latter in 1978 I don't see why any school would be trying to jam it all in during the normal day to the detriment of core subjects in 2016.

looksee

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not 40% for religion, it's 40% for all non-core subjects. And merging it into the rest of the day isn't the solution it's part of the problem - religion 'integrated' into other subjects like art and English makes it impossible to opt out of.
I don't see how sacramental preparation can be fitted in during the standard day without seriously impacting core subjects - if DoE are serious about this then having additional classes at the end of the day is the only option. If my RC religious order-run school could manage the latter in 1978 I don't see why any school would be trying to jam it all in during the normal day to the detriment of core subjects in 2016.

Agreed, that is pretty much what I was saying. Religion merged into the 40% of the day might be more of a challenge than the recognised possibility of opting out of a core subject. Though when you think about it, its not much of a 'core' subject if you can opt out of it.

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

If we are going to discuss education, can we please accept that Absolem's (often repeated) view is that schools are in the control of the Catholic Church, this is enforced by civil legislation, there is no reason for this to change and if anyone wants a different form of education they should organise it themselves. Just accept it, the fact that you are not arguing it does not have to mean you agree.

Ah now... I'm sure I can put forward my own view if I feel the need. I certainly won't insist anyone accept it, or even that they shouldn't discuss it, if they want.

looksee wrote: »

Going back to the original topic, it is a good start that Religion (ie Catholic teaching) is being removed from the core curriculum, but there is still plenty of scope in the remaining 40% for religion to be merged into the rest of the day. Does this mean that the intensive First Communion and Confirmation training will still take place in school time?

It's probably germaine to point out that nothing is being removed from the core curriculum; this is simply a proposal to create a core curriculum. The current curriculum includes seven distinct areas, and this proposal would see a focus on at least three of those getting about 60% of school time. So in theory at least, those schools who wish to could spend 40% of their time on First Communion... not that it's likely, just that the proposal doesn't seem to be designed to deliberately curtail faith based learning.

GreenFolder2

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

ET doesn't hold the monopoly on multi-denom, many Gaelscoileanna are muti-d too.

Some Gaelscoils are also under the Educate Together umbrella.

Bristolscale7

I thought the constitution mandated the inclusion of religion? ET's work around was just to teach 'religion' as part of a history/humanities rather than the dogmatic instruction of the protestant and catholic schools.

Absolam

The Constitution entitles parents to provide religious education for their children in publicly funded schools. The DoE determines how much time is to be spent on the various subjects; religious education has a set amount of time but the content of the RE classes is up to the patron. So Educate Together teach their own religious education curriculum.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

The Constitution entitles parents to provide religious education for their children in publicly funded schools.

Parents are supposed to provide the religious education? And what, the constitution just says the school has to give them access to a room and a photocopier or something?

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Parents are supposed to provide the religious education? And what, the constitution just says the school has to give them access to a room and a photocopier or something?

You might think it odd, but the Constitution is relatively silent on the subject of rooms and photocopiers. The school patronage thread has quite a lot about what is does say though, if you think it's a subject more worth pursuing than the OP?

JayRoc

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

ET doesn't hold the monopoly on multi-denom, many Gaelscoileanna are muti-d too.

I did not know that, and it is great news. Thank you!

GreenFolder2

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think you can take a Constitutional case over a notion though. It really needs to be something specifically expressed in the Constitution which you have been denied, and the State doesn't compel parents to send their children to any school; they can home school or send them anywhere they can find a place for them. That this may be inconvenient falls well short of compulsion, particularly given that the obligation to educate sits squarely on parents in the Constitution, not the State.

That is your interpretation and has never been tested in court.
It would be an interesting case.

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

That is your interpretation and has never been tested in court. It would be an interesting case.

Well, it's never been tested in Court because frivolous suits tend not to make it the Supreme Court. But I imagine if you can cite any precedent at all, from any Court, that allowing someone to be inconvenienced is the same as compelling them, or even a hint that a Judge might ever have considered it to be a possibility, it would certainly be an interesting attempt to make a case. I wouldn't hold my breath to see it before a Court though.

GreenFolder2

I already know your opinion on the issue is and you're not the arbiter of what is or isn't possibly a constitutional right.

I am suggesting that it be tested in a court to establish whether a constitutional right to access to education exists or not.

It's hardly a frivolous question!

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

I already know your opinion on the issue is and you're not the arbiter of what is or isn't possibly a constitutional right. I am suggesting that it be tested in a court to establish whether a constitutional right to access to education exists or not. It's hardly a frivolous question!

Well the thing about Constitutional rights is, not to put too fine a point on it, is they tend to be expressed in the Constitution. No one is going to court to claim they possibly have a Constitutional right that's not written in the Constitution. Because that would indeed be frivolous.

GreenFolder2

Absolam wrote: »

Well the thing about Constitutional rights is, not to put too fine a point on it, is they tend to be expressed in the Constitution. No one is going to court to claim they possibly have a Constitutional right that's not written in the Constitution. Because that would indeed be frivolous.

Actually, a very significant number of rights, including many very fundamental ones are based on court rulings interpreting things that aren't necessarily directly written in the constitution.

They're usually referred to as implied or derived rights.

The same applies to the US Constitution and many others.

It's not as simple as just narrowly reading the Constitution verbatim.

Hotblack Desiato

This is very brief, but they exist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unenumerated_rights#In_Ireland

Absolam

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Actually, a very significant number of rights, including many very fundamental ones are based on court rulings interpreting things that aren't necessarily directly written in the constitution. They're usually referred to as implied or derived rights. The same applies to the US Constitution and many others. It's not as simple as just narrowly reading the Constitution verbatim.

Well, I don't know about a very significant number, but there are certainly a very small number of personal rights (which are not to my knowledge called Constitutional rights) called 'found' or unenumerated rights which are not contained or expressed in but are derived from the Constitution. They are however, not 'found' by citizens who feel people ought to have them, but by the Supreme Court. The SC hasn't actually found any such rights as you would like, has it?

And you've provided no argument whatsoever (other than it would be interesting) for a case to be brought before the SC which might result in their finding any of your heretofore unfound Constitutional rights, have you?