I’m a teacher, and a member of the Irish National Teachers Organisation, and, like other teachers who attended our annual conference this week, I was shocked to see the spin RTÉ has put on the debate around religion in schools.
The fact that the most-debated motion section at the conference – one which sought to remove single-faith religious education from the school day – was comprehensively defeated by a significant margin was almost lost in the subsequent reporting.
Instead, the focus was mostly on aspects of an INTO survey with a low 20% response rate – with the number of responses, in fact, only representing one in 50 of the INTO teacher membership, and on other parts of motions which sought reasonable change.
To me, the RTÉ report not only buried the outcome of the most important debate and vote at Congress on religion in schools, but seemed to have a particular focus on opposing faith classes and seeking radical change.
Surveys and taskforces are important, but surely the most significant insight into how teachers feel about religion in schools comes from the debate, and the vote, on a motion actually put to Congress.
So what was the controversial motion section which led to a robust debate at the primary teachers’ Congress?
It read: “Congress resolves that the CEC will: (d) work with the Department of Education to remove single-faith religious education from the school day in state-funded schools, beginning by ending the requirement for teachers to conduct sacramental preparation.”
That was rejected by a significant margin of teachers, with 285 opposing, while 196 supported the proposal.
I imagine that, given general media reporting on this issue, the average listener would think that almost all teachers want rid of religion in schools as per the motion above. Yet when it came to actually debating and voting on that issue, teachers opposed the removal of religion by a 60% majority.
I spoke with RTÉ reporter, Emma O’Kelly, twice after the debate and clearly explained that I had spoken against part (d) of the motion, and that we had been successful in having this demand to remove religion completely for state schools rejected.
I also spoke to the lack of demand for Religious Education’s complete removal based on the recently launched INTO Taskforce survey results, with only 19.5% of teachers saying they’d prefer not to teach religion and 3% saying they would prefer to opt out. Indeed, 33% of teachers reported liking teaching Religion!
I also told Ms O’Kelly that I felt the current Catholic Religion Curriculum should be reviewed, to be less focused on faith development and include representation of other faiths.
Furthermore, I added, parents should also have the right to choose a faith-based school, or to choose to opt out.
Our education system needs to be more accommodating of those from other faiths and none, with better accommodation for children who do not want to take part in sacramental preparation.
There needs to be flexibility in the system we currently have – indeed many schools endeavour to provide this flexibility, despite a lack of guidance from the State. Indeed, I heard stories from teachers reporting how happy Muslim parents were in their schools!
I felt my contribution was hollowed out by quoting me simply as saying: “On the whole I was in support of most of the motion. I do think sacramental preparation should be removed, that that should be something that should be done outside the school, but there should still be the choice for parents to choose to send their child to a school of their faith”.
Where was the inclusion of my welcome – and that of many others – for the rejection of a bid to remove religious education from state-funded schools? Surely that was the key story of the day given RTÉ’s framing of the INTO Congress as being particularly about the role of the Catholic Church and religion in schools.
To me and to other teachers who attended Congress, RTÉ’s report seemed disingenuous and constructed to support the removal of religion from schools – even though teachers had just voted that bid down!
We’d appreciate less bias and more clarity in reporting. That’s a teachable moment perhaps for all of us.
Emma O’Kelly was contacted for a response to this article.
Caroline Moore