Sir, Help! Will someone please come clean on what is going on in Killarney's largest primary school, vis a vis the RSE programme. The situation as described by Andy Pollak (May 1st) is, to say the least, extraordinary.
A primary teacher myself, I welcome the introduction to the RSE programme. I have availed of the three training days and familiarised myself with the objectives, content, language, and methodology of the programme. I have come to the conclusion that there is little in the proposed programme that is not already on the informal agenda in most, if not all, classrooms in this country. What planet are my colleagues in Killarney teaching on? They do not believe it's possible to "inculcate the ethos of the school in the planning and implementation of the programme." I am now at a loss as to what the ethos of St Oliver's is. Shouldn't the ethos of any school foster the development of self respect for others and self esteem? Shouldn't all pupils be supported and facilitated in the exercise of relationship building? It is my professional and informed opinion that the RSE programme greatly supports teachers in the pursuit of these long term goals.
Am I to believe that the teachers of St. Oliver's are so profoundly offended by the naming of body parts in the context of a relationship and health education programme? They evidently confuse innocence and ignorance. Their reaction to the RSE programme is hysterical and deeply embarrassing.
Clearly, St. Oliver's is a school out of touch with the community which its responsibility is to serve. In their letter to Dr. Bill Murphy, Bishop of Kerry, the INTO and to every school is the diocese, they write: This programme is an invasion of the privacy of the child's family life." This is utter rubbish and an offensive display of arrogance towards the parents of St Oliver's.
In the very same article, Mrs Geraldine Rosney, a parents' representative on the school's board of management, reveals that the parents of the children in St Oliver's were not consulted about the RSE programme and were notified by circular of the school's decision. She also reveals that the school does not have a parent's council. If it were not for Mrs Rosney the parent's body would not be consulted at all. She is now, after 23 out of 25 teachers have gone public on not being prepared to teach the programme, trying to contact a cross section of parents to discuss the programme.
She is to be commended for this but this is no way to organise for education and the pupils and parents of St Oliver's are deserving of better. St Oliver's would have been better employed sending letters to the parents of the school, inviting them to take their rightful role in decisions affecting their children's education than shooting letters from the hip all over the place.
In conclusion, let me say that the RSE programme is not a prescriptive syllabus. All partners in education are to be consulted and each individual school will draw up its own policy document, following discussions with representatives of the different partners management, parents and teachers. Surely, as a professional body, we can rise to this challenge and respond appropriately and sensitively to the needs of the boys and girls we are fortunate to educate, not just for the next test but for the rest of their lives. Yours, etc.,
St Cronan's S.N.S.,
Swords,
Co Dublin.