|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 20, 2009 9:49:58 GMT
I have wanted to start a thread discussing education in general and Catholic education in particular for sometime. I am of the belief that standards are plummeting, but that a lot of the avenues taken are cop-outs, in particular home-schooling (this works admirably well in some cases, but poorly in others). Then there is the effort to found independent Catholic schools - for example, St Patrick's Academy, Islandeady in Co Mayo, which is hardly a blazing success. But the most immediate concern here is a reply to some of my remarks on the now defunct St Thomas Aquinas School on Mounttown which was an effort by the SSPX to set up an independent, unrecognised school, which ultimately failed.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Apr 20, 2009 10:18:33 GMT
I have wanted to start a thread discussing education in general and Catholic education in particular for sometime. I am of the belief that standards are plummeting, but that a lot of the avenues taken are cop-outs, in particular home-schooling (this works admirably well in some cases, but poorly in others). Then there is the effort to found independent Catholic schools - for example, St Patrick's Academy, Islandeady in Co Mayo, which is hardly a blazing success. But the most immediate concern here is a reply to some of my remarks on the now defunct St Thomas Aquinas School on Mounttown which was an effort by the SSPX to set up an independent, unrecognised school, which ultimately failed. Do you feel the system of education in Ireland needs to be reviewed/changed?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 20, 2009 13:49:51 GMT
In response to alaisdir6's misled account of St. Thomas Aquinas School above... Good to have a second opinion, but the brief information I gave on the school was supplied mainly by worshippers in St John's, Mounttown, more than one of whom was a qualified primary teacher. This might well be true. How do you know how you would have done in mainstream education? This is all fine - you were in a small school, with committed parental support and a school mistress highly skilled in literary based subject who was able to devote the sort of time and energy on you that would not have happened in a mainstream school. You began secondary school with a head start in two subjects not normally studied in primary. But you owe something to your secondary school and much to your parents... It is not so long ago that every national school in the country had a library like this and the state is still paying money for primary school liberaries. Your advantage is that you had a few teachers (Maria Purcell, with the backing of her sister Edel and later Robert and Marianne Mohr) who were very interested in cultivating literacy. What you are describing seems to me to be an Arts graduate's fantasy primary education. Which has its uses, but it is not a whole education, even if you benefitted a great deal from it. One can only assume that the smaller numbers ensured that these activities had no adverse effect. But this sort of time sacrifice also ensured any natural growth of the school was stunted. This is not a sign of a good school. No. As I have observed above, they had skills in the humanities well above that of most qualified primary teachers. But they would not be able to function to that degree, with a standard size class, or with a mixed group of students, many of whom don't have the same type of talents as others have. Some would have a technical orientation, for example. Some would have parents who don't believe in education due to their own experience. And some would have problems of a psychological nature. A primary teacher is, desirably, trained both to impart a curriculum which is more than academic, which includes arts, crafts and physical education in addition to the core and ancilliary subject and to give time to the pupils who need more help and more work. In addition they have to deal with difficult parents. Now one of the point of this thread is that I don't believe that this is happening much. But I do believe that the teaching staff in St Thomas Aquinas School had it easy, probably in a similar way that Gaelscoil pupils do better on average than those in mainstream schools. But that does not mean the Gaelscoil education is better. I don't believe it necessarily is. I am well aware of Dr Mohr's qualifications and I have heard much praise for his books. It is an indication of his skill in teaching writing that he made a living on contracts from private companies in training their technically skilled but not very literate employees how to write. I also know from the doctor's own mouth of his ideas about education in English literature, which I agree with. But primary school isn't necessarily the place for them. But Romeo and Juliet in 6th Class is good. At one time, every national school pupil in Ireland did at least one, often two Shakespearian plays (The Merchant of Venice was very popular). A lot of people don't know that the original back-bone of support for the Abbey Theatre was the Dublin working class, who had done Shakespeare in primary school - unlike now when director Ken Loach was criticised for writing a character into The Wind That Shakes the Barley who was a train driver who admired the poetry of William Blake. There was nothing unusual about the latter in the 1920s or for much longer afterwards. If the Dublin working class liked drama, the mainstay of the Cork Opera House at the same time was the Cork working class when opera 'stars' like McCormack and Carusa were nearly universally recognisable and the Italian workers on seeing Giuseppe Verdi's funeral cortege spontaneously burst into the Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves from his 'Nabucco' (my nomination to replace Beethoven/Schiller's 'Ode to Joy' as European anthem). But I digress. As Shakespeare was once studied at primary level, so was elementary physics and chemistry and teachers often performed basic scientific experiments. In my time, this was poorly compensated with a programme called 'Nature Studies'. Don't ask me what they have now. Now I have had this discussion outside this Forum with Hibernicus and he reckons the loss of this is due to the inclusion of Irish in the curriculum after independence. He might well be right, but though this is on the point of this thread, it is off the point of this post, so that is for another day. You want to praise the place because it is doing something every school used to do and still should do? I also notice you prove the achievements of the school in the humanities, but not in regard to mathematics or the sciences. This can happen. St Patrick's, Islandeady landed a big award in public speaking about a decade ago, but that doesn't make the place a good school either. You are not telling me the full story here. What was Irish like in your secondary school and did you attend the Gaeltacht at any stage? I am especially interested in physical culture - what was PE like in St Thomas Aquinas School? And it was as inadequate as I imagine it was, don't tell me it doesn't matter, it matters a great deal. You must have heard 'Mens sana in corpore sano' at some stage. One point that Theodore Dalrymple constantly makes is that this practice has been abandoned in British inner city schools on the grounds it is elitist. Now, if you read my remarks on previous dispositions of the Dublin and Cork working classes, you will see I am with Dalrymple on this observation. But to return to the point, the school is only doing what schools should do and in the process giving the teacher respite. And also, this is much easier to organise with small groups than big groups. And not that Father Ramon Angles, who has extensive experience of running a large SSPX school in St Mary's, Kansas, believed the school to be a dead duck? Really, you don't expect me to believe the success story you describe came to nothing just like that. Anyway, if the school had that type of success, it would have attracted pupils from outside the SSPX congregation. But the simple fact is that it couldn't exist in any form other than as a small school, with limited success. As I said, a doomed project from the outset. Or otherwise, one not embarked with any great degree of seriousness. No. You were not given equal opportunities. Those of an orientation towards the humanities had an advantage. Those who didn't had a corresponding disadvantage. This is a charge thrown against Irish primary education in general, but this sort of thing was hothoused in the likes of St Thomas Aquinas School. God help us, Ms Keating, but do you really think the alma mater of Conor Cruise O'Brien and Justin Keating is a place for a Catholic boy? Now I observed above that St Thomas Aquinas School did not attract pupils from outside the SSPX community. If secular schools are preferred to standard Catholic schools, it is a sympthom that the accusation of cultic paranoia among the SSPX and instilled in its adherents has some substance. I have a bad habit, too, when I hear of committed Catholics choosing to study in Trinity when their subject choice is available in UCD of questioning this. It may be that all the universities have an inbuilt secularist bias, even anti-Catholicism, but Trinity has a much longer history of this and there is not much prospect of a change. That wasn't the view in St Michael's. Some one has been telling you porkies. The age at which confirmation was traditionally confered was the age in which they were supposedly ready to assume adult responsibilities. In much of the world until quite recently, that was towards the end of primary school, at 12 and if students received the sacrament earlier, at 11 or 10 it was due to the fact the diocesan bishop had too much responsibilities to come every year (when bishops were prepared to do this; there are now at least two dioceses in Ireland where priests are delegated to do so, which disgusts me) I have heard very persuasive arguments to say that as adult responsibilites are delayed in post-industrial society, it is more appropriate to administer the sacrament in one's late teens. I also believe we are better to make this voluntary, but most clergy disagree with me on this. Now reception of communion at seven is an innovation of St Pius X, before this was older, often as old as 14 and confirmation usually came afterwards, so as I say I wonder who told you 9 was a traditional age for reception of confirmation. It was not, and notwithstanding the conferring of the sacrament on infants in the eastern tradition, it is certainly not appropriate to assume anyone is ready to undertake adult responsibilities at the age of 9, nor do I believe it ever was. Oh, and by the way, Miss Purcell left the school as a result of argument with Father Couture. And Dr Mohr did as a result of similar incompatibility with Father Dubroeq. Thereafter the Mohrs, long time adherents of the traditional Mass began attending the Novus Ordo in Latin. Believe me, Miss Keating, I could hardly be better informed given who some of my sources are. The attack is warranted. The school failed. If some people benefitted, wonderful, but clearly not everyone did. It was quite unhappy for some of the staff. And the whole initiative seems to have stemmed from one man's ego. This simply isn't done. Too many traditionalists are too prepared to take too many risks with children. If only one loses, it is not worth the risk. And in that case, I think more than one lost out. Also, excellent schools don't fade into oblivion; they get more students. This didn't happen here. Indeed the target market witheld their support. This does nothing to strengthen your case.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 20, 2009 13:59:54 GMT
Do you feel the system of education in Ireland needs to be reviewed/changed? Certainly. At the best of times it needs to be constantly reviewed, but we are not there now. Now that's what I believe about education in general - Catholic education is something else altogether. In general, I would favour a situation where a choice existed between high quality secular education and high quality Catholic education, and within reason, provision for minority denominational education. I think historically a lot was lost, but that pupils did leave school with high level literacy and numeracy. I think at present that IBEC has too much influence over educational policy. But what I would say is that every holder of the Leaving Cert should have a good knowledge of the humanities inclusive of art and music appreciation, a good knowledge of maths and the sciences so that even if they didn't take that route they would have an appreciation of what is going on in that direction, a good level of civic spirit and a high quality physical/sport education (this is actually becoming more crucial given some medical problems among teenagers - and we need to encourage men to go into primary education too). Furthermore, I would like to see some sort of conscious philosophy behind all this. In regard to the religious aspect, which you and I don't share, I would expect that young people from Catholic schools know their faith and appreciate the culture behind it - and that they can make an informed choice whether to take it or leave it.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Apr 22, 2009 8:03:20 GMT
Ok, Alo, let me chuck in my spiel. Irish kids spend 13-14 years studying Irish in school. How many of them can speak it after the Leaving? A very small proportion. Some manage to revive it temporarily to get the Ceard Teastais or the Irish exams for the Bar or for the Law Society, but effectively it is a dead duck after school. Likewise the vast majority of Irish kids do 5-6 years of a continental language (usually French, with German, Spanish, Italian and now a couple more coming later). But how many of these speak these languages. Now before anyone points this out I know that Latin, Greek and biblical Hebrew are options too, but minority options. Indeed, given that the last is studied mainly by orthodox Jewish students who use it in the synagogue, it perhaps has the largest proportion of application of any language studied in Irish schools.
So the bottom line - an education system where some rewards are reaped for all the hours spent on Irish or other languages.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Apr 22, 2009 11:42:29 GMT
You know, lads, did you ever look around what people read on buses and trains, where they're at their leisure? It is not too often ye see anyone reading great literature - you see a lot of pulp fiction. Not really a sign of a good education system isn't it.
As for art appreciation - how did an enterprising joker like Conor Casby get his caricatures of Biffo Cowen into the National Gallery and the Hiberian Academy without getting noticed at first - at least not until an admiring crowd formed around the pics. I remember listening to a couple of real Dubs looking at Sam Stephenson's Bunkers down at Wood Quay, dismissing them with the eloquent line "Great job, mate, pity about the f***in' buildin'". The certainly don't make them like they used to.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 23, 2009 11:31:07 GMT
Certainly the remarks are well taken - the lack of ability of Irish school graduates in Irish or any other language and the low level of general cultural. But I realised I fell for some of the academic snobbery I have been accusing others. Technical education is Ireland hasn't been mentioned yet. Maybe it is better unmentioned, because it is nothing less than appalling.
I am beginning to think we have the worst education system in the world. In all respects. But at this stage it is more resource driven than at anytime in its history (though the recession will have an effect). What are we doing wrong?
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Apr 23, 2009 11:36:04 GMT
What are we doing right? Illiteracy and innumeracy have never been higher. When have you last seen someone do a simple calculation without a calculator? Resources or no resources, things are going down hill.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 24, 2009 10:51:47 GMT
I have no particular brief for the SSPX (as anyone who reads this forum regularly will know) but there are a couple of points which alasdair has made on which they could be defended. Sending children to Sandford Park in preference to Catholic schools is not necessarily a sign of cultic paranoia. Anyone who reads orthodox/traditionalist literature or bolgs emanating from the UK or the US will soon find pieces by Catholics (not all SSPX by any means) who state that they prefer to send their children to secular schoools or universities, or to teach in state schools rather than Catholic schools. The reason for this is that state schools will expect Catholics to be "different" in some ways and will therefore be prepared to tolerate people who hold "official" Catholic views, whereas many/most Catholic schools are dominated either by liberal Catholics or by people who are basically ex-Catholic secularists (cf the recent BRANDSMA REVIEW articles on the current ethos of Mary Immaculate College and the views/behaviour openyl expressed by many of its teacher training students). Such people are generally insistent that the only legitimate form of Catholicism is the liberal variety and can be quite aggressively hostile towards conservative/traditionalist Catholics. In light of this I don't think it unreasonable that Pixies might prefer to send their children to a secular or Protestant school which will have some inhibitions about deliberately trying to win the pupils away from their parents' views rather than to a Catholic school which might see it as a bounden duty to do so. (I agree that many Pixie views are wrong and harmful, but it is not only those views which will be attacked. Furthermore, there is a basic question of parents' authority over their children and of the abuse of teachers' authority over pupils - I would object to a Catholic school actively setting out to proselytise Protestant or Hindu pupils by attacking their parents' faith in the manner described by such writers.)
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 24, 2009 14:19:07 GMT
I accept your basic premise - there is a certain degree of respect or at least distance in non-Catholic schools. As regards to Mary Immaculate College, there are a number of sources for this current in the Brandsma, one of which is extremely reliable, but another of which is anything but reliable. A better question would be how that college compares with other hitherto Catholic institutions - St Patrick's, Drumcondra for example. I also would not have a lot of confidence in the religious department in Mary Immaculate - with Fathers Éamonn Conway (Tuam Archdiocese) and Eugene Duffy (Achonry) in situ there. All goes back to Enda McDonagh in Maynooth.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Apr 25, 2009 7:05:46 GMT
I always being pleasantly surprised about the general education in Eire. The separation between boys and girls, the uniform, this belongs to private, catholic and expensive schools in France. Not to mention the mandatory religious aspect of irish education.
I have no illusion regarding the last, and I reckon the religious aspect of education in Irish schools had became very poor. Is there any prayers said at all ? Also the teaching of the Irish language, seems to be poor as well, as, in 11 years, I never meet a young Irish person capable of speaking Irish fluently. Irish language seems extremely difficult and maybe the young generation - despite Irish being part, obviously, of the Irish culture and heritage - shows a revulsion or a dislike regarding it.
I had been educated in the typical French education system. Totally laic, secular, left wing orientated, republican and horrible. The young French are not taught any religious aspect whatsoever. If you are Christian parents, you will have no option - in order to provide catholic education to your kids - but to send them to private school, some with the name "catholic" in it, but without the soul. Proper catholic education is only taught in private and "hors contrat" establishments - without contract with the State and so without funding. This is why those schools are expensive and reserved to families who can afford it.
The official education system reckons that the Freemason French Revolution was great. In philosophy, my favourite subject, the great Christian thinkers, as Pascal or Bossuet, are avoided but Sartres is considered an example and genius. So is Kant, Descartes, Hegel. The "philosophie of Lumiere", Diderot, Rousseau and of course the anti-cleric Voltaire, are praised (and MUST be praised by the students). And most recently Marx and Engel. Regarding teaching of French, the left wing and anti-pope "Le Monde" is always, always considered as THE reference, so is the socialist "Liberation". French education is a disaster, and it seems that the Irish is not that bad.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Apr 25, 2009 13:21:27 GMT
The teaching of languages is generally bad in Ireland, not just in Irish, With obvious reason. We have no cause or requirement to use the languages being taught.
Like every person I have ever talked to, I did Irish from age 4 and like all kids picked it up really fast at the time. Kids always do with language. However I knew more Irish by age 8 that I did by age 12 and I struggled to pass any exam in it from then until I left school.
The only real way to learn a language is to use it. I am currently relocated to Germany and have been learning German so I know this first hand too. You can sit in front of books and audio tapes and the radio all you like, until you have to get out there and use it and formulate your own sentences you will never really learn it.
As a case in point kids living in Irish speaking areas of Ireland speak irish well. They use it, so they have to. During my time going to college in Cork and having girlfriends from Sligo I met many people from Irish speaking areas, of my age and younger, who spoke it fluently.
Added to this my experience of living in Germany where not only can they speak their own language but its very rare to find anyone who does not speak english to a competant level, (although i live in the sticks and do come accross some older people who can not speak it) AND on top of this have some basic competency in French, italian or spanish.
The entire method of teaching languages needs to be overhalled in Ireland. It is just not being done well at all. I did German in school, like most, through english. I have learned more german in 6 months living here than did in 6 years of school. The main reason for this is that I learn it THROUGH GERMAN. Not a word of english is spoken from the very first second the teacher points at herself and says "I am Mrs. Smith" in german and you work up from there.
There is a lot very good about the Irish edcation system, especially in the sciences. But it is far from a perfect system and it needs work. It also needs protecting and watching as even right on our own borders, up in the north of ireland, the DUP are already attempting to get "equal time" for "creationism" in the schools there. How long before it start to happen down here, especially with people like Mary Kenny writing in our national papers?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 27, 2009 12:29:49 GMT
I don't remember Mary Kenny advocating creationism in the sort of sense put forward by the DUP fundamentalists (or on this board in the past by Redmond). Has she gone in for "intelligent design"?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 27, 2009 12:48:58 GMT
One point that might be addressed here is the movement of the religious orders out of education, which has certainy contributed to some of the points noted by Guillaume. Part of the point of having teaching orders was that by their presence in the classroom they provided a daily example to the pupils and an encorgement to consider the religious vocation (at least in theory). Religious orders also provided institutional continuity which is important in preserving the ethos of the school. (One interesting quote in Cooney's biography of John Charles McQuaid was a letter in which McQuaid discusses the situation of the Church in Latin America. He urges that more emphasis should be placed on setting up schools run by religious orders to teach the upper and middle classes on the grounds that this will allow priestly vocations to emerge in these classes, whereas a church which recruits its clergy exclusively from poor boys, many of whom may have, or be perceived as having, ulterior motives, will be severely hindered in its mission.) That said: (1) There were quite a few problems associated with the ways teaching orders operated in Ireland in the past. Aside from the obvious points about excessive corporal punishment, sexual abuse etc which may not have been unique to religious-run schools but were exacerbated by the prestige of religious orders and very often by their treating any criticism of them or of individual teachers as an attack on the whole Church, there was a tendency to see lay-run Catholic schools as inferior and unreliable (I know of instances in the 1950s where when a lay-run school was established in a town bishops deliberately tried to crush it by bringing in teaching orders to set up rival schools, often supported by quite aggressive pressure on parents) and there was also a tendency to see order members as machines who could be set to teach without full qualification, without regard to their interests or abilities &c. How far was the orders' move out of the schools due to falling vocations? How far did it reflect the orders deliberately reallocating resources to what they thought were more relevant areas? How far did it simply reflect individual members being given more scope for choice and deciding they didn't want to teach children, with all the attendant troubel and frustration, when they could be doing soemthign else? Can or shoudl this be reversed? Do we need new Edmund Ignatius Rices and John Baptist de la Salles and Peter Calasanctiuses in Ireland today? (Given the way Peter Calasanctius mishandled the presence of paedophiles in his order - see Karen Liebreigch's FALLEN ORDER for details - perhpas we have already had too many).
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Apr 28, 2009 9:13:01 GMT
Hibernicus,
I did not mean to indicate a direct correlation between what MK says and what the DUP want. What I meant is that with writers like her out there, a platform for such things to happen does exist. Her style is to write shrilly about anything even remotely against religion, right down to recently writing an article suggesting that the current financial crisis is the fault of atheism and people of that ilk. When the same “equal time” rubbish comes down south, you can be sure she will provide a platform for it.
On the note of your second post, the University of London recently released a study suggesting “faith schools” (for example) do not add to education in any way.
You may, of course, suggest that moving religious orders out of education may have been detrimental. However without establishing some causal relationship, a suggestion is _all_ it is. I do not accept saying it “certainly contributed” without some kind of established causality. Maybe you can clarify your reasons for thinking so a little more?
On the other hand there is a WEALTH of reasons for the decline in our education standards, from increasing class sizes to decreased funding, to the decline in education standards in the home. Longer hours in more stressful jobs have reduced the parental role in child education supervision in the home. My experience of having my parents sit with me when I was young working on my homework with me has been replaced with my siblings coming home from work and asking their kids “Is your homework done yet?” Increased distractions from computer games and other modern outlets for attention are also to blame (both on the parents and on the students)
I could go on for hours.
I can see no reason why specifically the removal of “religious” orders out of education has added or removed anything in terms of education quality therefore.
Exactly what is it that you think religious orders add that is not present in secular schools? Exactly how would their reintroduction improve the quality of our countries education in ways that more funds, smaller classes and a secularised central global education curriculum and teaching methodology would not?
In essence to be convinced by the need to have religious orders involved in education I would need to be convinced that there is something they provide that no one else can.
Education is always the first to suffer in economic crisis. Governments go for the quick fix, things that will solve the problem NOW. Because the effect of reducing money for education will not be seen for many years, it tends to be the first to suffer.
|
|