Is there anything constructive I can do about this discrimination?

qrx

robindch wrote: »

The Vatican has managed it. One would imagine the schools which it vicariously controls would have little trouble replicating that success.

Yes which they usually achieve through fear and intimidation rather than any legal basis. Which brings me full circle: stand your ground. Tell the lad to get his books out and study. Teacher won't like it and it will probably escalate the dispute which is probably what is needed.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

The OP should ask what would happen to an international student during Irish classes. Would they really be expected to sit at the front, reading something in their own language? Because for a student from, say, England, that would be anything in English which counts as studying English, which would be against the schools rules.

Lucy8080

robindch wrote: »

Mod:Lucy - you might recall from your previous visits to A+A and the various inthread warnings you receive at the time, that the forum is for discussion of whatever topics happen by. The forum is not for the delivery of unhelpful, tonedeaf posts, the majority of which are borderline trollery.

If you've nothing useful to add, there are plenty of places on the internet which you might enjoy a little more than here.

Listen thanks to all for the discussion and replies, best of luck to the o.ps. kid. Hope you can get around this. . I enjoyed the chat on this topic. I'll stick to posting on the other forums.

Tone-deaf,eh!

XVII

when I was at school, I chose Physics, while almost everyone else chose Biology. It happened that Physics teacher couldn't do classes at the same hours as Biology, so they took place after school. Because of that I was asked to attend Biology classes, as they couldn't leave me on my own. I was allowed to sit at the back, and do homework. And it should be your case, too.

Zillah

I had forgotten how exhausting this forum could be. The sheer wilful irrationality of the characters you get coming in here with a bone to pick with the atheists. Totally pointless.

veliktom

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The OP should ask what would happen to an international student during Irish classes. Would they really be expected to sit at the front, reading something in their own language? Because for a student from, say, England, that would be anything in English which counts as studying English, which would be against the schools rules.

I was in that situation myself. During Irish I went to the library to study or do whatever I liked really. If the free class happened to be either side of lunch I could stay down town for a bit longer if I liked, no-one would miss me. During senior cycle I arranged to go into relevant classes in the years above or below me for extra tuition/revision, the teachers were sound about it. This was in the '90s though, so things were fairly relaxed versus today so it seems!

peekachoo

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I recall in my school, students repeating the leaving cert were allowed opt out of ALL optional subjects including PE, they just sat in the study hall. They were allowed to join a PE class if they felt like it but were under no obligation to do so. Now im sure most will agree that some physical activity is more important than a religion class, so to me the fact that they could opt out of it so easily while the OPs son is being forced to sit in a class is borderline comical to me. Ireland in 2017, what a laugh.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Totally pointless.

Not totally pointless - it's often interesting to see what's important to religious posters, or what they claim is important.

One of the more interesting things which comes up again and again in relation to schools particularly is, broadly, how unsympathetic religious posters are to the needs of non-religious people. If the shoes were on the other feet, one senses that claims of discrimination would be coming thick and fast.

lazybones32

Choochtown wrote: »

Any advice would be welcomed.

Talk to the teacher first. Email him/her if you can't meet or speak before going on the offensive or contacting the principal.

I can see why your son is sat up front. Less likely to use phone, sleep or distract others. The messers still gravitate to the back of the room. Regular seating is established in the first few weeks of school, by students own choice, and your son has exercised his choice to not take the class and well, has removed from himself the freedom of choosing where to sit.
It is not a free class, so the teacher is within limits to prevent him from doing regular coursework. I think as the year moves on, your son will be able to read other subjects but writing or doing homework will reasonably not be allowed.

The teacher has to control 30 teenagers and get through the syllabus. That's their job. Get his/her reasoning before writing letters or kicking down the principal's door.

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

Talk to the teacher first. Email him/her if you can't meet or speak before going on the offensive or contacting the principal.

I can see why your son is sat up front. Less likely to use phone, sleep or distract others. The messers still gravitate to the back of the room. Regular seating is established in the first few weeks of school, by students own choice, and your son has exercised his choice to not take the class and well, has removed from himself the freedom of choosing where to sit.
It is not a free class, so the teacher is within limits to prevent him from doing regular coursework. I think as the year moves on, your son will be able to read other subjects but writing or doing homework will reasonably not be allowed.

The teacher has to control 30 teenagers and get through the syllabus. That's their job. Get his/her reasoning before writing letters or kicking down the principal's door.

Utter bollox. It is a free class and how exactly is it reasonable to not allow writing or homework?

MrP

lazybones32

MrPudding wrote: »

Excellent point, LB32. Although manners or courtesy aren't my strong point - despite my intellectual superiority as an atheist - i disagree with your use of the term "free class". Would you please elaborate on what you mean by it? I wasn't calling your whole post "bollix" but i get so passionate when you post that i can't contain myself.

MrP

FYP*
I will reserve my explanations for the OP.





*it's annoying when someone does that, isn't it?

Hotblack Desiato

Zillah wrote: »

I had forgotten how exhausting this forum could be. The sheer wilful irrationality of the characters you get coming in here with a bone to pick with the atheists. Totally pointless.

Not if mental gymnastics ever becomes an Olympic sport!

lazybones32 wrote: »

I can see why your son is sat up front. Less likely to use phone, sleep or distract others. The messers still gravitate to the back of the room. Regular seating is established in the first few weeks of school, by students own choice, and your son has exercised his choice to not take the class and well, has removed from himself the freedom of choosing where to sit.

Your fourth sentence entirely contradicts the third. In fact it actually contradicts itself. The 'messers' have freedom to choose where to sit, but a non-religious child is punished by being denied that.

It is not a free class

Which subject is he taking during that time? Clue : it's not religion as his parents have exercised their constitutional right to opt him out.

but writing or doing homework will reasonably not be allowed.

Entirely reasonable to allow writing or homework to be done. The 'problem' is that other pupils who are fed up being made listen to nonsense will realise they could be making much better use of their time, too.

Frowzy

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of this really answers my questions:
How does a religion class actually teach of this?
Why should it be taught specifically through religion classes when patience and tolerance go far beyond religious beliefs?

This goes way beyond discussion or debate, it's like being cross examined in court.

Your opinion differs with mine, let's leave it there.

recedite

Tenigate wrote: »

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

Fair play to Tenigate for coming into this forum and telling it like it is, despite all the flak

The fact is, there is no constitutional right to opt out of a religion class if it is "teaching about religion". There is however a right to opt out of religious indoctrination, but that is a different matter.
As the school in question is a VEC school, they will no doubt describe it as a "multi-denominational" or even a "multi-religion" class. Therefore, no opt-out.

Tenigate wrote: »

Except it's not a de-facto period & the school is making sure it stays that way.

Not sure if it's the one used by the op's son's school, however, have a look at the curriculum from this site.
http://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/5e6062d7-111e-4105-b81a-089fc73be199/SCSEC30_Religion_nonexam_syllabus_eng.pdf


By reading through it, you'll see it's not at all an indoctrination into Catholicism and there is plenty of opportunity to adopt critical views, debate, and learn about religion's impact on society and culture.

It may not be RC specific but it does appear to be strongly Christianity centred, which I would consider a very inappropriate document for the govt. publications office to produce. If we are to be a democratic republic, valuing all citizens equally, we should not make this a mandatory part of the national curriculum.
I would guess that this document could be challenged in the courts easily enough on equality grounds, if any VEC school principal sought to enforce it.

I made some enquiries with 6th year pupils of our local VEC school and yes, there are two mandatory religion classes per week, even when religion is not being taken as a LC subject.
But I am assured, oddly enough, that no religion is ever discussed in the classes. The pupil's description is that there are 4 or 5 general topics; motivational talks, goal setting and monitoring (mostly for academic work in other subjects) "anti-depression talks", discussion of any topical issues or problems that may arise for pupils, and some relaxation or "de-stressing" techniques.

So, IMO all of that is quite laudable, considering there is more pressure than ever on 17 year olds these days in regard to the LC points race, their social media profiles, body image etc..

The problem is really just in calling it a "religion" class. But it seems obvious that individual school principals and/or BOMs have a lot of latitude in steering this curriculum. Some have moved way beyond the state's suggested curriculum as linked to above, and some, sadly, have not.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/school-religion-primary-secondary-opting-out/

Section 30 (2) -(e) of the Education Act 1998 permits you to opt your child out of any subject that is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student. This section of the Education Act 1998 does not refer to religion classes in particular so you can opt your child out of any subject that is against your conscience and in any publicly funded school. Schools are not obliged to deliver the state curriculum in a neutral and objective manner, in practice this means that it is impossible to opt your children out of the elements of religion that are integrated into the state curriculum and that are part of the school day.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

The fact is, there is no constitutional right to opt out of a religion class if it is "teaching about religion". There is however a right to opt out of religious indoctrination, but that is a different matter.

What the Constitution actually says is:

“Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not . . . be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.”

So, the right doesn’t refer to religious indoctrination, but to religious instruction.

More to the point, though, it’s not actually a right to opt out; it’s more limited than that. The provision of state funding for schools can’t come with a condition that students must receive religious instruction, but so far as the Constitution is concerned the school itself can choose to make religious instruction compulsory, whether or not it receives state funding.

S. 30(3)(e) of the Education Act 1998, which Hotblack mentions, says that, when prescribing the curriculum for recognised schools, the Minister for Education “shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent” (or of the student, if the student is over 18). Again, that only restricts what the Minister can do; not what the school can do.

So, if you send little Concepta or little Oisin to the convent school run by the Armalite Sisters, it won’t be a condition of state funding that Concepta or Oisin receive religious education, and the curriculum won’t require it. But the school may nevertheless require it.

But in this case we’re not dealing with a convent school run by the Armalite Sisters; we’re told in the OP that this a VEC school. And, regardless of whether a VEC school could legally require him to take religion, this one doesn’t. We’re told that in the OP too.

So, the issue here is not whether the boy is allowed to opt out of religion class. He has already been allowed to opt out.

There are two issues:

First, the boy is required to remain in the classroom where the religion class is being run. Almost certainly, this is a resourcing issue. The school has a policy that as long as he is on the premises he must be under the supervision of a teacher, which I can’t say is an unreasonable policy for a school to adopt, and the way they have chosen to do this is to have him under the supervision of the teacher who is delivering the religion class. Not ideal, perhaps, but I can see where they’re coming from. We don’t know how the teacher feels about this - not thrilled, would be my guess, but he or she may not want to offend or inconvenience the school management by objecting. Importantly, nothing in the OP suggests that either the boy or his parents object to this arrangement.

Secondly, while in the classroom the boy is not allowed to work on any of the other subjects that he is studying; he can either pursue independent study of religion, or he can do nothing. This is the bit that the boy and his parents have a problem with.

The justification offered - again, from the OP - is that it would be “unfair” to other students. I’m not seeing this. How can it affect the other students in any way? It make no difference to them whether the boy is reading a religion book chosen by himself, or (say) a history book. Nor can it make any difference to the teacher under whose supervision he will be. (If anything, the task of supervision will be easier if the boy spends his time pursuing something he has selected; he is less likely to become bored, inattentive, distracted.) So this restriction imposed by the school does seem unreasonable, and the justification offered for it does not stand up. And I can’t see that it offers the boy (or anyone else) any educational advantage.

Others have raised questions about whether the same treatment is applied to student who opt out of art, say, or PE, or whether it would be applied to a student who was exempted from taking Irish. We don’t know the answers to these questions, but they’re good and relevant questions. If fairness doesn’t require those students to spend their periods pursuing independent study about art, PE or the Irish language, how does fairness require this student to spend his period pursuing independent study about religion?

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

FYP*
I will reserve my explanations for the OP.





*it's annoying when someone does that, isn't it?

Not really, unless one is really immature and easily annoyed.

MrP

lawred2

Lucy8080 wrote: »

looksee wrote: »

Write to the local VEC main office and state your case. There does appear to be a degree of deliberate obstruction going on.

It seems to me that this teacher is obliging the o.p. by letting the child sit in with the class. A class that the child has opted out of. The teacher is being treated like a baby-sitter.

It's kind of insulting to his professional integrity. I doubt if the teacher has any obligation towards this kid. His duty is to those kids who are taking the subject.

If the parent can't take responsibility for the child's free time, then maybe the child should take the class ,as it seems s/he is going to be there anyway.

How would any teacher feel about a scenario in which a kid can sit in the classroom and have a pass to totally ignore the subject,whilst every other kid has to participate.

My guess is that the school/teacher are praying that the o.p. has the nerve to go make a complaint.

Take the class .Take the offer of babysitting, but to demand that the kid can study any other subject bar this teachers subject in this teachers own classroom, well , that is taking the proverbial.

No teacher, of any subject, should have to put up with that nonsense.

What. A. Load. Of. Absolute. Crap.

padser

Is there not a really simple solution to this.

Tell the school that your "faith" involves the study of history, maths or science etc.

Therefore he will be reading a history book...

I can see somewhat why the school might object to him writing (as it does cause a noise) but they are on pretty thin ground if they object to him reading a book in a chosen subject - and they certainly aren't in a position to tell you what subjects are, or are not, part of your faith

Peregrinus

padser wrote: »

Is there not a really simple solution to this.

Tell the school that your "faith" involves the study of history, maths or science etc.

Therefore he will be reading a history book...

I can see somewhat why the school might object to him writing (as it does cause a noise) but they are on pretty thin ground if they object to him reading a book in a chosen subject - and they certainly aren't in a position to tell you what subjects are, or are not, part of your faith

There is a simple solution to this. Let the the boy do academic work of his own choosing, provided his doing so is not disruptive to the class and does not make any additional demands on the classroom teacher's time or attention.

I think an objection to the sound of his writing would be unreasonable, to be honest. In all my years of schooling and university, I don't ever recall being distracted or annoyed by the sound of someone else writing, and it's a sound to which students are pretty constantly exposed.

padser

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a simple solution to this. Let the the boy do academic work of his own choosing, provided his doing so is not disruptive to the class and does not make any additional demands on the classroom teacher's time or attention.

I think an objection to the sound of his writing would be unreasonable, to be honest. In all my years of schooling and university, I don't ever recall being distracted or annoyed by the sound of someone else writing, and it's a sound to which students are pretty constantly exposed.

Completely agree.

But the school is being unreasonable.

Within the context of them being unreasonable I'm trying to give the OP a solution that will narrow the scope for them to continue to be unreasonable while giving the OP most of what they want.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, the boy is required to remain in the classroom where the religion class is being run. Almost certainly, this is a resourcing issue.

From a related article by Dr Conor O’Mahony, a senior lecturer in constitutional law at UCC;

Taken together, Kjeldsen and Folgerø establish that the ECHR does not always require an opt-out; but where the subject in question crosses the line from objective information to placing undue emphasis on one religion or world-view, an opt-out must be provided and it must be effective. Requiring children to remain in class potentially falls short of this requirement, although it may be argued that allowing the children to entirely disengage from the subject being taught and to pursue their own activities strikes an adequate balance. Whether this latter position would satisfy the potentially more stringent requirements of the Irish Constitution is an open question. As noted above, Article 44.2.4° appears stronger than the ECHR in giving a seemingly absolute right to opt-out of religious instruction, regardless of the character of that instruction. Moreover, it specifically uses the phrase “without attending religious instruction”. The use of the word “attending” (as opposed to “participating in”, or something similar) could reasonably form the basis of an argument that anything short of leaving the room fails to vindicate the right to opt-out.

While I take your point with respect to religious instruction as opposed to religious education, the senior cycle text books that I've seen on religious education as taught at the school my daughter attends most certainly give an undue emphasis to Catholicism. Reasonable enough, it being a Catholic school, but on that basis an opt-out would have to be provided, and from my reading of the above it would have to be provided in a different room. Were I in the OPs position, I'd have a look at the textbooks being used in the class to see if the emphasis was unduly biased towards Christianity and make a case with the principal on that basis.

lawred2

Lucy8080 wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Mod:Lucy - you might recall from your previous visits to A+A and the various inthread warnings you receive at the time, that the forum is for discussion of whatever topics happen by. The forum is not for the delivery of unhelpful, tonedeaf posts, the majority of which are borderline trollery.

If you've nothing useful to add, there are plenty of places on the internet which you might enjoy a little more than here.

Listen thanks to all for the discussion and replies, best of luck to the o.ps. kid. Hope you can get around this. . I enjoyed the chat on this topic. I'll stick to posting on the other forums.

Tone-deaf,eh!

Every single one of your replies was pretty much an exercise in being obtuse, confrontational and served no propose other than to wind up..

Glad you got called out on it.

Peregrinus

padser wrote: »

Completely agree.

But the school is being unreasonable.

Within the context of them being unreasonable I'm trying to give the OP a solution that will narrow the scope for them to continue to be unreasonable while giving the OP most of what they want.

OK, I see where you're coming from.

But I don't think telling the school that your faith involves studying French or Applied Maths or whatever is going to help. They'll think you're taking the piss, which is pretty much the opposite of what you want to get them to think in this situation.

Any time I've had issues or potentially awkward conversations with my daughter's school, I've always found the best approach is not to be smart, and not be confrontational, but to be be positive and supportive and convey that you confidently expect the same attitude from the school.

"Thanks so much, we really appreciate you accommodating Jim on this, I know it's inconvenient but it is important to him. We understand that he needs to stay in the classroom, and he's aware that he has to not disrupt or distract the other students. The suggestion that he might read independently about religion is an interesting one but, to be honest, the reason he's opting out of the class is not just that he's not religious himself, but also that he's not really interested in religion. We don't see that he'll get much out of it, and probably he'll just be bored, so that might not be the best way to get him to spend his time in a way that is useful to him, and not disruptive to others. How about if he studies some of his other subjects? Between you and me, it wouldn't hurt him to do a bit more work in Physics; he's finding that course very challenging, but he's really keen to keep up with the class."

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

What the Constitution actually says is:

“Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not . . . be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.”

Religious instruction is religious indoctrination IMO, but there is no need to get into the semantics of that argument.
The OP has not clarified what the "religion" class entails. If it involves specific religious instruction (or indoctrination) then the OP should demand the opt-out and if it is not being made available, contact the Equality Commission.
If the class is of a more general nature, then the pupil is required to sit it out, the same as any other mandatory subject which they don't like.
The OP has not clarified in detail.

Peregrinus wrote: »

S. 30(3)(e) of the Education Act 1998, which Hotblack mentions, says that, when prescribing the curriculum for recognised schools, the Minister for Education “shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent” (or of the student, if the student is over 18). Again, that only restricts what the Minister can do; not what the school can do.

Good point, and therefore that piece of legislation is more of a bark than a bite. Similar to the other section in the act which says religious discrimination is not actually discrimination if the school has a religious ethos. Its all about semantics and bull$hit. Its about giving the appearance of equality, without the actual substance.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, the issue here is not whether the boy is allowed to opt out of religion class. He has already been allowed to opt out.

I'm not sure that is the case. It appears the student has been offered a mental opt-out, but not a physical one. This might be the school offering some sort of concession, without actually offering an official opt-out.
The OP has not clarified in detail.

looksee

lawred2 wrote: »

Every single one of your replies was pretty much an exercise in being obtuse, confrontational and served no propose other than to wind up..

Glad you got called out on it.

Mod: Lawred2 you are around long enough to know not to respond to a mod decision on thread.

lazybones32

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Your fourth sentence entirely contradicts the third. In fact it actually contradicts itself. The 'messers' have freedom to choose where to sit, but a non-religious child is punished by being denied that.



Which subject is he taking during that time? Clue : it's not religion as his parents have exercised their constitutional right to opt him out.



Entirely reasonable to allow writing or homework to be done. The 'problem' is that other pupils who are fed up being made listen to nonsense will realise they could be making much better use of their time, too.

The boy himself opted out of the class, not his parents. Might help to read op again?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

From a related article by Dr Conor O’Mahony, a senior lecturer in constitutional law at UCC . . .

Interesting - thanks for that.
Kjeldsen, though, involved a challenge to compulsory sex education introduced into state primary schools, with the compulsion being applied by the state. Similarly, Folgerø dealt with a challenge to Norwegian legislation which mandated an educational of objective of giving students a Christian upbringing. Basically, those two cases hold that the state must either provide religious instruction which is genuinely objective and pluralistic, or it must provide an effective opt-out.

The same considerations wouldn’t necessarily apply to religious education provided by a voluntary school, which acts on behalf of the parents, not the state. (This particular case, of course, involves a VEC school.)

smacl wrote: »

While I take your point with respect to religious instruction as opposed to religious education, the senior cycle text books that I've seen on religious education as taught at the school my daughter attends most certainly give an undue emphasis to Catholicism. Reasonable enough, it being a Catholic school, but on that basis an opt-out would have to be provided, and from my reading of the above it would have to be provided in a different room. Were I in the OPs position, I'd have a look at the textbooks being used in the class to see if the emphasis was unduly biased towards Christianity and make a case with the principal on that basis.

Sure. I didn’t want to suggest that the right to an opt-out was narrowly circumscribed; in fact, the reverse. Recedite suggested that the legal/constitution right was a right to opt out from religious indoctrination; in fact it’s a right to opt out from religious instruction. Arguably, even dispassionate and neutral information about various religions is “religious instruction”, but, even if it isn’t, “instruction” is clearly wider than “indoctrination”. So Irish law may in fact confer wider opt-out rights than the ECHR.

You’re quite right, though, to point out that the Constitution does talk about “attending” religious instruction so, if someone is exercising his constitutional right, there’s a good argument that he can’t be compelled to sit in a classroom in which religious instruction is being provided to others. But there’d be a risk in taking this stance; the Constitution only protects against a compulsion to attend religious instruction as a condition of state funding. If you inconvenience the school by demanding (in effect) separate supervision and pointing to the Constitution, they may scrutinise your demands more carefully and discover that, after all, the constitutional guarantee doesn’t cover your case.

The right solution here is that the boy would sit in a library/study, and be adequately supervised, and be able to study whatever would yield him most educational advantage, and ideally the school would be resourced to enable it to provide this. But if you’re bargaining with the school over what can be done to accommodate the boy, pick your battles; the right to independent study is of more importance/value to the boy than the right to sit in a different room, and it costs the school nothing to provide it, so I’d look for that first, and worry about the separate room afterwards.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Religious instruction is religious indoctrination IMO, but there is no need to get into the semantics of that argument.

While I agree with the above, the more important thing is the distinction between religious instruction and religious education, and more importantly where what purports to be objective religious education includes enough bias towards Catholicism and/or Christianity that it can be construed as religious instruction. For example from the description of the textbook my daughter currently uses;

The section on the Search for Meaning resonates deeply with young people in contemporary Ireland and challenges them to adopt and appreciate Christian values in their lifelong quest for meaning.
'
'
The Morality section investigates some of the most contemporary and groundbreaking ethical issues that students will be faced with in their future lives. It investigates the advances in medical science and locates these developments in the context of a Catholic morality.

While this is all well and good for Catholic children attending a Catholic school it is neither objective nor unbiased, and as such any parent who wished for their child to opt out could reasonably demand to do so.