NO NO NO Schools have to include religion classes, forum told

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

How is it? Base the system on demand. As I've said already I think the UK system is an acceptable compromise in that 60% of schools are secular and 30% are faith schools. Why is that so wrong? The percentages should reflect the demand.

Because I don't think the state should be involved in religious instruction.

why do you think it's so wrong for parents to be held responsible for their childrens religious instruction?

I think there should be secular schools. I don't think all should be. It's the polar opposite of the OP. I think parents should be able to decide for their own child.

but you have said it yourself that if it came down to one or the other, you'd pick the secular school.

The only reason I can see for faith schools is that religious parents can't be bothered doing the religious instruction themselves.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Because I don't think the state should be involved in religious instruction.

Fantastic, but there are people of other religious beliefs in this country apart from you. As such it seems way better to come to an amicable middle road.

koth wrote: »

why do you think it's so wrong for parents to be held responsible for their childrens religious instruction?

I don't think it is wrong. I think there should be a diversity of schools for parents to choose from rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. I guess that's because I don't regard faith schools as institutionalised child abuse.

koth wrote: »

but you have said it yourself that if it came down to one or the other, you'd pick the secular school.

What do you mean? - I said if there was only one school in an area it makes better sense for it to be secular. If there are more than one there should be a diversity based on demand.

koth wrote: »

The only reason I can see for faith schools is that religious parents can't be bothered doing the religious instruction themselves.

Or that parents think that going to a school with a certain ethos will benefit their child spiritually and in discerning ethical principles.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Fantastic, but there are people of other religious beliefs in this country apart from you. As such it seems way better to come to an amicable middle road.

it's not. If anything, it'll be a nightmare for the department of education. Especially considering that the demands for schools of a certain type could change on an annual basis.

I don't think it is wrong. I think there should be a diversity of schools for parents to choose from rather than a one-size-fits-all solution. I guess that's because I don't regard faith schools as institutionalised child abuse.

I don't either. I just don't think it's the place of the state to give religious instruction.

What do you mean? - I said if there was only one school in an area it makes better sense for it to be secular. If there are more than one there should be a diversity based on demand.

It's all well and good saying it here, but it's hardly practical in the real world.

Or that parents think that going to a school with a certain ethos will benefit their child spiritually and in discerning ethical principles.

That's for the parents to get involved in at home. How does a religious school teach history/english/maths differently? we're making the system more complex because parents want to have the school responsible for religious instruction.

Why not have all secular schools with early or late class outside of the normal school day for religious instruction? much like the educate together concept?

philologos

koth wrote: »

it's not. If anything, it'll be a nightmare for the department of education. Especially considering that the demands for schools of a certain type on an annual basis.

How come the education system is doing just fine in the UK with faith schools actually performing very well?

koth wrote: »

I don't either. I just don't think it's the place of the state to give religious instruction.

The State isn't. The State is allowing for a diversity of schools to set up and funds them for teaching the curriculum.

koth wrote: »

It's all well and good saying it here, but it's hardly practical in the real world.

Again, it's working fine in the real world already.

koth wrote: »

That's for the parents to get involved in at home. How does a religious school teach history/english/maths differently? we're making the system more complex because parents want to have the school responsible for religious instruction.

It doesn't. What it does do is give children an experience of a moral and spiritual framework which they can later accept or reject for themselves.

koth wrote: »

Why not have all secular schools with early or late class outside of the normal school day for religious instruction? much like the educate together concept?

We could do that, but I don't see the problem with having faith schools. I don't see the point of saying all schools should be secular when we can provide faith schools rather easily. What's the big problem with faith schools other than you have a strong dislike of religious belief? Your dislike shouldn't dictate how things are done in the State.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

How come the education system is doing just fine in the UK with faith schools actually performing very well?

thats debatable. The faith schools that were on the dawkins program were a disaster in education terms. And it was down to the school being given free reign to teach religion as fact.

The State isn't. The State is allowing for a diversity of schools to set up and funds them for teaching the curriculum.

I disagree with that. They are public schools with public servants (teachers) teaching the subjects. Are you saying that if the standards of education took a nosedive tomorrow that the state wouldn't be accountable?

Again, it's working fine in the real world already.

Again, I'd disagree.

It doesn't. What it does do is give children an experience of a moral and spiritual framework which they can later accept or reject for themselves.

you can do that with the need for a faith school.

We could do that, but I don't see the problem with having faith schools. I don't see the point of saying all schools should be secular when we can provide faith schools rather easily. What's the big problem with faith schools other than you have a strong dislike of religious belief? Your dislike shouldn't dictate how things are done in the State.

First of all, that's twice today you've made assumptions about me that aren't true. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop doing that.

For the record, I've not said I dislike religion. Each to their own, but don't expect me to be happy when asked to allow the local church to run the school. I'm looking for what I think to be the best education model we have in the country to be the norm for all schools.

philologos

koth wrote: »

thats debatable. The faith schools that were on the dawkins program were a disaster in education terms. And it was down to the school being given free reign to teach religion as fact.

Is it? Statistically in Britain faith schools perform better than their secular counterparts. That is precisely why I dispute the objectivity of the examples used in Richard Dawkins' documentary. I could have easily gone to some of the worst secular schools in Britain and drawn similar conclusions about the quality of their teaching.

koth wrote: »

I disagree with that. They are public schools with public servants (teachers) teaching the subjects. Are you saying that if the standards of education took a nosedive tomorrow that the state wouldn't be accountable?

The State would hold the school to account. That's the purpose of school inspections.

koth wrote: »

Again, I'd disagree.

You can disagree as much as you'd like but the facts disagree with you.

koth wrote: »

First of all, that's twice today you've made assumptions about me that aren't true. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop doing that.

I don't see any basis as to why one would say that people shouldn't have the choice unless there is something insidious about faith schools and what they teach.

koth wrote: »

For the record, I've not said I dislike religion. Each to their own, but don't expect me to be happy when asked to allow the local church to run the school. I'm looking for what I think to be the best education model we have in the country to be the norm for all schools.

See above.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Is it? Statistically in Britain faith schools perform better than their secular counterparts. That is precisely why I dispute the objectivity of the examples used in Richard Dawkins' documentary. I could have easily gone to some of the worst secular schools in Britain and drawn similar conclusions about the quality of their teaching.

But the point was that they're still operating within the frame of being a faith school. The UK government have exposed themselves to more problems by trying to have schools for various faiths.

The State would hold the school to account. That's the purpose of school inspections.

But you do realise that secular and faith schools would be held to two different standards just by the nature of each school.

You can disagree as much as you'd like but the facts disagree with you.

no they don't as there as some schools that are giving a poor standard education purely because they are faith schools.

I don't see how a secular school can have the equivalent poor standard of syllabus because they won't be teaching religion as science.

I don't see any basis as to why one would say that people shouldn't have the choice unless there is something insidious about faith schools and what they teach.

See above.

of course, someone doesn't share your opinion on public education and they're relegated to the anti-religion camp :rolleyes:

Just more false assumptions about my motivations.

Pygmalion

philologos wrote: »

I don't see any basis as to why one would say that people shouldn't have the choice unless there is something insidious about faith schools and what they teach.

Giving childrens' parents the choice adds some amount of complexity to a system funded by public money (how much complexity depends on how well it's implemented of course).
You can believe that it's an inefficient use of resources while not being opposed to the schools themselves and what they "teach".

If the schools in question were entirely private-funded this argument would of course be negated.

the culture of deference

philologos wrote: »

This isn't an argument against faith schools. It is an argument against adequate alternatives in the education system. I agree with Ruairí Quinn's current efforts but it is far from an adequate argument to get rid of faith schools.

Faith schools should be illegal. Every child should do the exact same curriculum.

philologos

the culture of deference wrote: »

Faith schools should be illegal. Every child should do the exact same curriculum.

They do do the same curriculum. Just that faith schools use the 30 minutes a day that they get in the curriculum by the State for faith formation.

pH

philologos wrote: »

I don't see any basis as to why one would say that people shouldn't have the choice unless there is something insidious about faith schools and what they teach.

I still think it's a shame to segregate children on the basis of religion for their schooling, creating "them and us" situations with the "other" kids in the different uniforms.

Also it means teachers, state employees have to be these so called "faith formationers", and I guess these too have to be chosen on the basis on their faith.

I know you're not a massive proponent of the current situation, but if someone feels they'd make a good primary school teacher, but can't bring themselves to indoctrinate kids in a faith, they pretty much can't work in 99% of schools in Ireland.

Faith schools (as in the UK) are shameful, rich people with agendas (such as Peter Vardy) can stump up a tiny fraction of the cost of building/running a school, and yet have their own narrow minded curriculum forced down the throats of kids.

coffee_cake

philologos wrote: »

Is it? Statistically in Britain faith schools perform better than their secular counterparts.

Yeah because they're so choosy about who they let in

Delirium

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah because they're so choosy about who they let in

Plus the faith schools have been heavily criticized for failing to promote tolerance and equality.

Motion 54 passed yesterday at the spring conference of the NUT (National Union of Teachers), stated that the conference ‘notes the continued discrimination faced by our members in faith schools, on the grounds of sexuality, not to mention marital status, transgender status and even race or nationality. Some religious schools believe they are above the law and can do anything that they believe is in line with their religious beliefs.’

Source

So the UK education system essentially created some of the problems that we're hoping to get rid of in our education system.

getz

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah because they're so choosy about who they let in

faith schools in britain, any faith school in britain that has state funding,has to have a certain number of students from other religions,quite often you will see adverts in the local papers from ,catholic all girls schools for protestants pupils,they get many applications from islamic girls,because of the all girl catholic policy.

CerebralCortex

I don't know why there is even a debate on this. It's simple as far as I can see copy the Finns.

robindch

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't know why there is even a debate on this. It's simple as far as I can see copy the Finns.

There you go again thinking that the education should be the aim of, er, a system of education

Where on earth will the next generation of church-sponsoring catholics come from if the church can't use spend 14 years indoctrinating each child?

Mistress 69

robindch wrote: »

There you go again thinking that the education should be the aim of, er, a system of education

Where on earth will the next generation of church-sponsoring catholics come from if the church can't use spend 14 years indoctrinating each child?

I think we are agreed that provision has to be made for all attending school in Ireland. However I have just one question:

How many of you felt indoctrinated against your, or your parents wishes, by the RCC during your primary school years?

magicbastarder

Mistress 69 wrote: »

How many of you felt indoctrinated against your, or your parents wishes, by the RCC during your primary school years?

during my primary school years my biggest beef with my parents was not letting me stay up late.
i think i might have learned how to spell 'indoctrinate' in fourth class though.

robindch

Mistress 69 wrote: »

How many of you felt indoctrinated against your, or your parents wishes, by the RCC during your primary school years?

While I was in primary school, I was an innocent child who trusted adults and what they told me -- especially the words of big, important men who talked with authority and sincerity from the pulpits of vast buildings filled to overflowing with the people I lived with.

In retrospect, I am disgusted that these pious clowns took advantage of this innocence. They should be ashamed of themselves, though of course, almost certainly they are not.

CerebralCortex

Mistress 69 wrote: »

I think we are agreed that provision has to be made for all attending school in Ireland. However I have just one question:

How many of you felt indoctrinated against your, or your parents wishes, by the RCC during your primary school years?

I did. Instead of teaching me useful stuff, they just wasted my time. I'm an atheist engineer/aspiring scientist. I can assure you that Zachayus the greedy little man never helped me in anyway that common courtesy and sense couldn't have easily done!

Delirium

I didn't feel indoctrinated, as I was only a kid.

But I was very confused why greek/roman myths were treated as myths and yet god creating the universe was a fact.

Mostly I was bored/annoyed with the religious instruction as I'm a curious person and "thats just the way it is" excuse didn't do anything for me.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

While I was in primary school, I was an innocent child who trusted adults and what they told me -- especially the words of big, important men who talked with authority and sincerity from the pulpits of vast buildings filled to overflowing with the people I lived with.

In retrospect, I am disgusted that these pious clowns took advantage of this innocence. They should be ashamed of themselves, though of course, almost certainly they are not.

Ahh now Rob they had your best intentions at heart.

When I was a kiddo, my parents, the local PP and teacher would indulge me with praises. Although my parents didn't like the idea that others had which was that I would become a great spiritual leader or priest, I prided myself into thinking I was holy and could achieve that goal if I wanted to but more importantly if God wanted me to. In reality, I was a digusting arrogant git, yet somehow, one of the jewels of the community. Here's just a snippet:
I thought atheists had fallen for the devil and not known it, I could not fathom how silly and stupid they must be not to believe in God. Idiots! A perfect fast during Lent was crucial. (Although, by tradition, everyone broke it on St Paddy's day, but that was Ok.) Gays were just queer and they had corrupted the beautiful word used by Enid Blyton's characters.
But you know what? As much as an asshole as I was back then that's what we were taught the almost perfect Catholic should be. As, I was strictly disciplined into following rules I achieved that goal, or at least others kept telling me I had. Model scholar, model sport player, what a good little boy! So, I felt it was my almost divine like right to freely criticise others that didn't make it to that standard. An arrogant snob.Sure I was mocked by some kids, but I held my nose above them and just looked down on them as if they were only half the human I was and I was encouraged by other adults to do this! The most amazing thing is I still haven't lost the holy, peaceful,spiritul, never puts a foot wrong, image in my local community. (Hence another reason why admitting to being an atheist could be detrimental.) I just hope that the majority who I don't really speak to anymore still don't think I'm also that righteous acting either. Nothing terrifies me more than the thought I could be some sort of devoutly spiritual person in a traditionalist type role with no real awareness of the grander universe, logical fallacies and most importantly of all rational skepticism. I was brought up in a world that is black and white, my parents and indeed, most of those in my locality, still believe in that world. Either something is right or it is wrong; a viewpoint that completely misunderstands human beings. It f**king scares the sh1t out of me when I think that is how my younger cousins are being "educated".

Sorry for the rant.:o

philologos

getz wrote: »

faith schools in britain, any faith school in britain that has state funding,has to have a certain number of students from other religions,quite often you will see adverts in the local papers from ,catholic all girls schools for protestants pupils,they get many applications from islamic girls,because of the all girl catholic policy.

I think the CofE published figures suggest at least 30% of places in CofE schools should be for non-church members.

The CofE is committed to reserving at least 25 per cent of places in new CofE schools for pupils from the local neighbourhood regardless of faith background or none. In practice most new CofE schools reserve less than 50 per cent for Christian applicants, and almost all CofE Academies have 100 per cent neighbourhood admissions.

I think the reservation in any form should be gone from schools but at least in terms of CofE schools they encourage diversity.

As for cherry picking of certain classes of students:

Do the admission procedures for 'faith' places help CofE schools 'cherry pick' middle-class children?

No, national and diocesan guidance on admissions to Voluntary Aided schools stress the importance of simple, clear criteria, which (for 'faith' places) focus solely on attendance at worship, either on Sunday or another day of the week. There is nothing inherently 'middle class' about going to church (and if parents are opposed to attending worship it is difficult to see why they would be seeking a place at a school because of its Christian foundation and ethos).

The CofE has always supported the ban on interviews, additional tests or the seeking of other information about the family.

The Church's own analysis shows that, across the whole school stock (secondary and primary), the CofE has an almost identical proportion of schools labelled as having 'severe' disadvantage (over 30% eligible for free school meals) as the rest of the state sector.

Link here.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I think the CofE published figures suggest at least 30% of places in CofE schools should be for non-church members.



I think the reservation in any form should be gone from schools but at least in terms of CofE schools they encourage diversity.

As for cherry picking of certain classes of students:

Link here.

Meh, still unnecessary and complicated.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

The Church's own analysis shows that [...] over 30% eligible for free school meals [...]

Analysis by people other than the CofE show that schools controlled by the CofE in London have only 17% (versus 25% for the state average) on free lunches, and that they educate only 20% of the lowest achievers versus 31% for state-controlled schools. Schools controlled by the religious also disproportionally admit kids whose entrance exam marks are higher and also admit kids with brown and black skin far less frequently, even if they're in places where brown and black skinned children are known to live.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/16/religion.faithschools

.

philologos

^^ This study focuses only on London. The CofE study focuses on the whole of Britain. As the article you've cited suggests:

A spokesman for the Church of England said the research did not reflect the true picture across the country as a whole. 'The LSE study focuses purely on London, which has a very different demographic to the rest of the country,' the spokesman said. 'The Church always has, and always will be, committed to serving the communities within which our schools are located.'

Although now that you've brought up this. This quote is also interesting food for thought in respect to discussion that we're having:

Yesterday, ministers strongly denied the government was planning more faith schools. 'The government has no policy to increase the number,' said Ed Balls, secretary of state for Children, Schools and Families. 'It is up to local communities to decide the kind of schools they want.'

On social cohesion:

Research published in November 2009 showed that the average grade awarded by OFSTED to secondary-level faith schools for promoting community cohesion was "substantially and significantly" better than the average grade awarded to community schools. Similar differences were found in relation to the grades given for promoting equality of opportunity among students. At primary level, schools with and without a faith foundation received the same average grades for these two areas of school life.

Is there something wrong with Ofsted? Or is this the truth?

autonomy

Yeah I think schools should teach children about the easter bunny and the tooth fairy too

Delirium

so does the government go to every area and record the religious make up of every place that requires a school?

how frequently does the government review the needs of every community with regards to the type of school?

what if the teachers refuse to teach in a religious school?

philologos

^^ I presume it is primarily done by community consultation. If a teacher refuses to teach in a school it is much the same as if I refuse to do my job. I won't get paid. It's no more valid an question than asking that if I am a believer and I refuse to teach in a secular school what happens?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

^^ I presume it is primarily done by community consultation.

You realise that will be a massive increase in the cost of getting schools built.

If a teacher refuses to teach in a school it is much the same as if I refuse to do my job. I won't get paid. It's no more valid an question than asking that if I am a believer and I refuse to teach in a secular school what happens?

But it's not the same. I'd imagine there are quite a few teachers that are unhappy with schools having religious instruction as part of the school day.

Can you honestly say that there is the same number of teachers that would be opposed to the removal of religious instruction?