Is there anything constructive I can do about this discrimination?

kylith

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The students right to opt-out has been facilitated. The parent has the right to take the student out of the school. It's all tickety-boo so far as rights are concerned.

Unfortunately, the religious studies classroom seems to be the only option if he stays in school for his free period.

But it's not feasible for a parent to leave work, drive to the child's school, remove the child from the school for 40 minutes, bring the child back to school, and drive back to work, twice a week.

There is no reason at all that the student can't quietly read a book in the class if the school has no library facility where he can be supervised. Not allowing him to is blatant feckology.

Like I said, OP, get him a copy of The God Delusion. He has no religious faith so there should be no issue with him reading a book about not having religious faith.

Lucy8080

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How exactly does the kid doing homework or studying anything else disturb the class in any way?

The kid has opted-out of this class. Why would any kid take this class if the teacher is prepared to just mind you all whilst you do homework/revision relating to any other subjects bar the one he teaches. I'd say that the teacher is not too willing to let the rest of the class get the idea that opting out of his subject brings rewards like getting your homework done on school time. If he did, he might as well get his cards and go home, because every kid will want to opt-out.

This kid should be in any other classroom bar this one for his free period. I have sympathy for both the kid and the teacher here .

Frowzy

Frowzy wrote: »

I believe that what I said was that the subjects teach them about being adults as well as life skills.

If the Religion class is being taught right (i.e. Teaching about other religions and beliefs) students can learn understanding and tolerance as well as patience. Huge life skills which can be used in the simplest of situations such as staff canteens for example.

Of course as my post also said this will only work if the teaching is broader than learning about the life of Jesus of Nazereth.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How does the religion class teach anything about tolerance and patience? Why should such things, as important as they are, be restricted to an (optional) religion class? Why not have a society and ethics class that teach these things? (And another class that teaches budgeting and nutrition, simple skills which many people seem to severely lack)

Apologies for being boring and pedantic by quoting two replies, however I feel that it's important to note that my posts have said that understanding, patience and tolerance are important. My belief, which I understand differs to yours, is that we can only be patient and tolerant when we understand where the other persons beliefs come from. Therefore a Religion class that teaches about other beliefs is helpful. Not being able to opt out of everything that differs from your personal beliefs can also promote understanding, patience and tolerance.

I totally get what you're saying about budgeting etc, in my day we had civics class, and some of this was intended to be included in LCVP, but that again is an opt out subject, and whether or not these topics are included remains (for me at least) to be seen.

Of course as parents we cannot abdicate all of this type of education to the schools, some of these life skills are instilled mostly in the home. All the skills we've both mentioned above can be taught from a young age in the home also. This is where my point about whether allowing our children to opt out of anything that differs from our or theirs viewpoint may not be right (I'm not saying I'm right). However from class discussion children will learn so much about others viewpoints that they will not learn in our homes. Personally I think this too is important.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Lucy8080

kylith wrote: »

But it's not feasible for a parent to leave work, drive to the child's school, remove the child from the school for 40 minutes, bring the child back to school, and drive back to work, twice a week.

There is no reason at all that the student can't quietly read a book in the class if the school has no library facility where he can be supervised. Not allowing him to is blatant feckology.

Like I said, OP, get him a copy of The God Delusion. He has no religious faith so there should be no issue with him reading a book about not having religious faith.

yup, it's not really an option for most parents.

The problem here is that the teacher whose class the student has opted out of is now expected to supervise the kid whilst he studies /works on other subjects.

Basically , you can stick your subject but mammy says you have to mind me whilst you teach it . Mammy also says I should be allowed to study what I like and also do my homework here.

Now, some folks might see that as blatant feckology too.

Like I said above, I've sympathy for both the kid and teacher here.

1moo345

This might come across insensitive, so I'll preface by saying this a legitimate question, not meant to offend at all.

But.. If a student isn't religious themselves, why is it harmful to learn about religions anyway? It's something they will come into contact in everyday life, with a lot of diverse people and different cultures in Ireland. I understand a lot of people are anti religion, or just opt out, but surely it applies to everyone?


I know in my religion class which was about 8 yrs ago, we learned about not just various religions, but also diverse cultures, spirituality and even atheism/agnosticism.

Again, sorry if I'm being rude, I really don't mean to be... I just see every bit of learning important, even if it is something you personally don't apply to.

Lucy8080

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could well be right there. The kids rights to opt out have to be respected , but I guess any opt-out subjects must make the teachers feel vulnerable about their jobs.

Is it just religion that is available to opt out of?

Lucy8080

knipex wrote: »

They dont have to take the call They can also opt out..

That's probably what frightens the teacher.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mahamageehad

1moo345 wrote: »

This might come across insensitive, so I'll preface by saying this a legitimate question, not meant to offend at all.

But.. If a student isn't religious themselves, why is it harmful to learn about religions anyway? It's something they will come into contact in everyday life, with a lot of diverse people and different cultures in Ireland. I understand a lot of people are anti religion, or just opt out, but surely it applies to everyone?


I know in my religion class which was about 8 yrs ago, we learned about not just various religions, but also diverse cultures, spirituality and even atheism/agnosticism.

Again, sorry if I'm being rude, I really don't mean to be... I just see every bit of learning important, even if it is something you personally don't apply to.

I think the point is not about the learning (although in the case of a hellfire and brimstone teacher that may be the case) but more the wasted time. 40 mins twice a week is 80 mins and a senior cycle student can use that time for studying exam subjects- especially ones that they're struggling with. I know I used my two free periods a week for extra work on my honours maths. Religion is a subject most students will have taken to leaving cert so it's not like they have no grounding in it at all.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tenigate

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you keep saying. And if the school was forcing someone to practice a religion, I'd probably agree with you.

But given the sample curriculum I posted earlier in this thread, and the fact that the student/parents enrolled in the school through their own free will, the student has no more right to opt-out than he has the right to opt out of PE, civics or any other non-exam subject the school decides to make mandatory.

smunchkins

I went to a CofI school a score of years ago, and we had plenty of free study periods unsupervised.
We also had a religion class where we got to watch movies all the time though, which was great fun. We all loved it!
I found this on the ASTI website
"Does the law require constant supervision?

The courts have held that constant and individual supervision is not necessary and the responsibility of the teacher is that of reasonable care.

The proper level of supervision in any particular instance will be a matter for the Board of Management and/or teaching staff. In considering the proper level of supervision, the person responsible will have to consider the age, maturity and number of pupils under his/her control as well as the topography of the area in which supervision takes place."

So even if they have a table in the canteen, the student should be able to avail of it for his free period.

And I agree with Frowzy that exposure to new cultures and ways of thinking is much better than exclusion/omission from studying all the aspects of human nature in relationship to the world.
A liberal mind should be open to examine all aspects of how other humans approach the world, and not shut out pedagogy that strives to help young minds question and deal with it and other people's beliefs. Engaging with why and how helps everyone to look at things differently.

If "no-faith" becomes a dogma to exclude/censor out views you disagree with, well, I think the word that springs to mind is irony!

Zillah

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The problem here is that the teacher whose class the student has opted out of is now expected to supervise the kid whilst he studies /works on other subjects.

So??? Let the kid sit at the back and read a book or do some extra studying while minding his own business. The efforts you are applying to try and make an eminently reasonable proposal sound problematic is utterly bizarre.

This whole situation is an embarrassment for a modern republic.

Tenigate

smunchkins wrote: »

"Does the law require constant supervision?

Regardless, the school is free to implement its own policies regarding supervision. I think this is a concept many in the thread fail to grasp.. the school makes the rules!

Sesame

1moo345 wrote: »

This might come across insensitive, so I'll preface by saying this a legitimate question, not meant to offend at all.

But.. If a student isn't religious themselves, why is it harmful to learn about religions anyway?

It's harmful as they may be told that the religion is the truth and it contradicts that child's learning in other areas. It can be an attempt at indoctrinating although it is more harmful at primary level where children with tend to accept facts without questioning. At least teenagers tend to use reason and evaluation when given these "facts" for the first time at an older age.

Its harmful to give information to teenagers on sexuality, contraception when those topics are taught in a way in keeping with the churches beliefs. It can affect their own family relationships when they are informed that their own family setups are against god's teachings - divorce, separation, gay parents, etc.

1moo345 wrote: »

I know in my religion class which was about 8 yrs ago, we learned about not just various religions, but also diverse cultures, spirituality and even atheism/agnosticism.

In an ideal world, that would be great if every religion class was like that, but unfortunately when a lot of our secondary schools have a religious body as a patron or an influence on the board of management, their belief system with permeate the religion class and be taught as the correct one.

Zillah

smunchkins wrote: »

And I agree with Frowzy that exposure to new cultures and ways of thinking is much better than exclusion/omission from studying all the aspects of human nature in relationship to the world.
A liberal mind should be open to examine all aspects of how other humans approach the world, and not shut out pedagogy that strives to help young minds question and deal with it and other people's beliefs. Engaging with why and how helps everyone to look at things differently.

If "no-faith" becomes a dogma to exclude/censor out views you disagree with, well, I think the word that springs to mind is irony!

I think you'll find that the vast majority of atheists/posters here are perfectly happy with the idea of a philosophy class where students are taught all about the different world religions. You'll also find that atheists generally know a hell of a lot more about religion than lay adherents - certainly the case with my friends and family. Supposed Catholics that I know are frequently shocked or confused when I tell them about their own religion.

The objection is in a class where a single religion is taught as true, i.e. religious indoctrination in an educational setting.

Zillah

Tenigate wrote: »

Regardless, the school is free to implement its own policies regarding supervision. I think this is a concept many in the thread fail to grasp.. the school makes the rules!

Ok, but might doesn't make right. They have the power to make the rules, that doesn't mean their rules are fair or reasonable.

kylith

Lucy8080 wrote: »

yup, it's not really an option for most parents.

The problem here is that the teacher whose class the student has opted out of is now expected to supervise the kid whilst he studies /works on other subjects.

Basically , you can stick your subject but mammy says you have to mind me whilst you teach it . Mammy also says I should be allowed to study what I like and also do my homework here.

Now, some folks might see that as blatant feckology too.

Like I said above, I've sympathy for both the kid and teacher here.

Mammy doesn't say that. The school says that. And the government says he has the right to opt out.

I'd be curious as to what the school's policy is for pupils who have opted out of language or music classes. I remember having a couple of free periods a week when I was in the run up to leaving; which were spent in the school library with students from many years, and which was supervised by whatever teacher also had a free period.

Iseedeadpixels

Give him a book on Satanism and demand he be allowed read a few verses per class.

Tayschren

Your in a minority and minorities dont do well in this country especially in the face of the religious fundamentalist hold on education whether it is FG, the department or the staked Education and Training Boards that replaced the VECs. The type of behaviors your encountering is all too common but as in most cases parents do not want to have their child singled out by these zealots for discrimination and suck it up.

One chance (small) you might have is if there are any board members in your ETB who can question the behaviors of the teacher and headmaster in actively discriminating against you child on religious grounds, maybe give the https://www.ihrec.ie/ a quick call and go over this issue, see if someone has a minute to look at the case.

This type of thing worry's me for my own kids future as I will be dealing with this nonsense in the very near future.

Sadly this is not going away tomorrow or soon.

BloodBath

It's 2017 and religion is still a compulsory subject but the sciences are not. Amazing really.

desertcircus

Whatever about the school not allowing the student to do his homework in the class, it appears from the original post that he's not allowed to study other subjects during religion class, with the argument being that it's unfair on other students. That's utterly idiotic and completely indefensible: we're talking about a situation in which a school is actively intervening to prevent a student from learning. They're willing to have the student in the classroom: they just want to stop him from actually getting anything useful out of being there, and have made up a garbage excuse that it's about fairness with the other kids.

kylith

desertcircus wrote: »

Whatever about the school not allowing the student to do his homework in the class, it appears from the original post that he's not allowed to study other subjects during religion class, with the argument being that it's unfair on other students. That's utterly idiotic and completely indefensible: we're talking about a situation in which a school is actively intervening to prevent a student from learning. They're willing to have the student in the classroom: they just want to stop him from actually getting anything useful out of being there, and have made up a garbage excuse that it's about fairness with the other kids.

It sounds to me like an attempt to bore him into joining the class for a religion he doesn't subscribe to.

Lucy8080

So, 6 pages in .

It's beginning to sound as if schools are showing a bit of solidarity with the teachers over job insecurity.

A kid can legally opt-out of a subject.

He can leave the school in his free period, but his parent must collect him (not really an option for most).And kinda odd ,considering the students age.

The teacher whose class has been opted out of is now the only one who can come to the rescue.

Now you can twiddle your thumbs for a year or take the class as you are stuck there anyway.

And no one can claim discrimination.

Or is that just mad speculation on my part?

Lucy8080

kylith wrote: »

Mammy doesn't say that. The school says that. And the government says he has the right to opt out.

I'd be curious as to what the school's policy is for pupils who have opted out of language or music classes. I remember having a couple of free periods a week when I was in the run up to leaving; which were spent in the school library with students from many years, and which was supervised by whatever teacher also had a free period.

Yeah, my curiosity is peaked too.

Can anyone answer Kyliths question above.

qrx

Why not just ignore the teacher, who technically is not actually your sons teacher? Tell your son to carry on doing is homework or study. What they gonna do about it, kick him out of the class?

Lucy8080

qrx wrote: »

Why not just ignore the teacher, who technically is not actually your sons teacher? Tell your son to carry on doing is homework or study. What they gonna do about it, kick him out of the class?

Detention? Another lesson for any one else who wants to opt out?

Peregrinus

Lucy8080 wrote: »

So, 6 pages in .

It's beginning to sound as if schools are showing a bit of solidarity with the teachers over job insecurity.

A kid can legally opt-out of a subject.

He can leave the school in his free period, but his parent must collect him (not really an option for most).And kinda odd ,considering the students age.

The teacher whose class has been opted out of is now the only one who can come to the rescue.

Now you can twiddle your thumbs for a year or take the class as you are stuck there anyway.

And no one can claim discrimination.

Or is that just mad speculation on my part?

Not so much mad speculation as a persistent attempt to ignore the problem.

The problem is not that the pupil has to stay in the classroom during his free period. The problem is that, while in the classroom during his free period, he is not allowed to do schoolwork, homework, or any work relating to any of the subjects that he is studying at the school. There is no good reason for this. That's the problem. It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.

Tenigate

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is not that the pupil has to stay in the classroom during his free period. The problem is that, while in the classroom during his free period, he is not allowed to do schoolwork, homework, or any work relating to any of the subjects that he is studying at the school. There is no good reason for this. That's the problem. It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp.

The problem is: the student does not have a free period. Once you grasp this fact, everything else will make sense.