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

AudreyHepburn

gvn wrote: »

No, no I didn't. I actually said the complete opposite. I said:



I explicitly said I wouldn't like to see such schools banned. (The bolded part above.)

I did say, however, that I'd wish faith schools didn't exist in the first place. Not because I'd like to see them banned, but because parents wouldn't wish to send their children to such a school.

Some do, some don't, that's the point.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Some do, some don't, that's the point.

I know they do. That's why we're having this debate... If they didn't then we wouldn't have faith schools. My saying that I wish parents wouldn't want to send their children to a faith school is just an idealistic notion of mine.

Anyway, you've actually agreed with us. I hope you can see that our secularist views aren't as unreasonable as others would make them appear to be.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

As I've already said. It works already in a number of countries.

Despite all objections raised on this thread. Ofsted reports show that second level faith schools score higher than secular schools on social cohesion and equality in Britain. Is that just fiction or is that because they are good schools?

And the teachers union not agreeing with that either. The union said that faith schools don't promote equality.

liamw

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes, so long as faith schools remain too. I just feel, as I said, that many here would rather they were gotten rid of.

Can you help me understand why you need faith schools? A school's purpose is to educate a child, not to reinforce a particular faith.

philologos

Dades wrote: »

philologos - clearly you can't have choice in the way you talk about as that won't work for people who only have one school nearby.

I've dealt with this point earlier in the thread.

Dades wrote: »

On the other hand people who want to teach their kids about faith have the choice to do it any other time of the day.

I'm saying that 30% - 40% of schools should facilitate this choice. The other 60% - 70% should be secular. I think that the education system is better with diversity of choice. This is why I wouldn't vote for someone who wished to deny choice from the education system on either side. I would say the same for Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and anyone else who would wish to set up a faith school given demand. The interesting part of this argument is that it doesn't require me to argue only from the Christian perspective. It is about faith in general in society.

Dades wrote: »

Also, you are starting to sound like a politician.

This is a political issue

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I'm saying that 30% - 40% of schools should facilitate this choice. The other 60% - 70% should be secular. I think that the education system is better with diversity of choice. This is why I wouldn't vote for someone who wished to deny choice from the education system on either side. I would say the same for Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and anyone else who would wish to set up a faith school given demand. The interesting part of this argument is that it doesn't require me to argue only from the Christian perspective. It is about faith in general in society.

Thats not what you've been saying. You said the government should set up a school and staff it if enough of a religious group demand it.

philologos

koth wrote: »

Thats not what you've been saying. You said the government should set up a school and staff it if enough of a religious group demand it.

No. I said based on the demand of the people for faith schools in a given area that they should be provided or given the means to set up either actually if they are suitably qualified to. One of the moves the Tories brought in following the 2010 Westminster Election was the idea of free schools where teachers and responsible parents could set up new schools. There is some food for thought in that.

koth wrote: »

And the teachers union not agreeing with that either. The union said that faith schools don't promote equality.

Ofsted are the Government authority into schools. They are the ones who do the inspections. What reason do you have to question their figures? I question both Richard Dawkins and the particular teachers union in that the State figures clearly disagree with them in general.

AudreyHepburn

liamw wrote: »

Can you help me understand why you need faith schools? A school's purpose is to educate a child, not to reinforce a particular faith.

I personally don't need them, but I like that I have a choice.

For others they might feel they need them though.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

No. I said based on the demand of the people for faith schools in a given area that they should be provided or given the means to set up either actually if they are suitably qualified to.

exactly what I said,just reworded.

Ofsted are the Government authority into schools. They are the ones who do the inspections. What reason do you have to question their figures? I question both Richard Dawkins and the particular teachers union in that the State figures clearly disagree with them in general.

I'm not questioning their figures about exam results. I'm just adding that the teachers see a problem that is particular to faith schools.

philologos

koth wrote: »

I'm not questioning their figures about exam results. I'm just adding that the teachers see a problem that is particular to faith schools.

Their figures about equality and social cohesion present secondary faith schools as outperforming their secular counterparts as well.

liamw

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I personally don't need them, but I like that I have a choice.

For others they might feel they need them though.

Right, so you'll agree that this unnecessary promotion of a particular faith in a school comes at the cost of excluding all those children who do not subscribe to your belief system.

This is why state funded faith schools are unnecessary and a waste of a state's resources - dumb frankly.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Their figures about equality and social cohesion present secondary faith schools as outperforming their secular counterparts as well.

well then there at odds with the views of the teachers in the schools.

so, aside from "god loves you and has a plan for you", what other reasons are there for insisting that religious instruction remains in the class?

pH

What about us militant atheists who want an atheistic school?

Darwin's Learning Academy needs to be set up, it should have an explicit anti-faith agenda.

- Morning readings from any of the holy books of atheism, Darwin, Dawkins, Harris' Letters etc.

- Children learn several mindless chants about "there is no god" - these are said every morning. Kids are expected to learn to kneel and bow and pay respect to history's greatest atheists.

- At various times in their education, children undergo atheistic rituals, announcing their rejection of God and the fools that serve him. Little girls dress up as brides to "marry" their atheistic ideals in a ritual.

- Pictures of Dawkins adorn every classroom. Every time you say his name (which would be quite a bit) you must say "the great and wonderfully enlightened thinker". A gruesome execution scene of an atheist being killed by believers is also on display everywhere, to remind us all of atheist suffering.

Obviously the curriculum would be pretty much the standard one, with the following exceptions:

• The only thing taught in biology would be evolution.
• The standard comparative religion course would be taught, except there would be a mandatory laughter track played at all times.
• The only sexual education provided would be 'teh gay' one.

I guess phillylogos fully supports the state providing all of the above, even if 99% of atheists postiing in this forum don't.

philologos

koth wrote: »

well then there at odds with the views of the teachers in the schools.

Which teachers union? How many teachers are there in Britain? How many are in this union? Important questions which are relevant to determining why or how they disagree with Ofsted figures.

koth wrote: »

so, aside from "god loves you and has a plan for you", what other reasons are there for insisting that religious instruction remains in the class?

I gave you a whole list of reasons why a Christian ethos would differ from a secular one.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Which teachers union? How many teachers are there in Britain? How many are in this union? Important questions which are relevant to determining why or how they disagree with Ofsted figures.

National Union of Teachers, which has 295,000 members and is the largest teachers union in the UK

I gave you a whole list of reasons why a Christian ethos would differ from a secular one.

I read it. All can be provided by a secular eduation, if you leave out the "god loves you + has a plan for you" component.

philologos

koth wrote: »

I read it. All can be provided by a secular eduation, if you leave out the "god loves you + has a plan for you" component.

You've clearly ignored the post I made which bolded out all that would be based on God's existence. If "all" means a small fragment then yeah sure you're right. But if all, means all a Christian ethos clearly differs to a secular one and clearly offers a different moral and spiritual basis than a secular one would. This is clearly why many Christians prefer faith schools to secular schools. By the by, it must also be said that some Christians would actually prefer to bring their children to a faith school. Some atheists send their children to faith schools because they prefer that (there were a number of columns in the Guardian discussing this).

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

You've clearly ignored the post I made which bolded out all that would be based on God's existence. If "all" means a small fragment then yeah sure you're right. But if all, means all a Christian ethos clearly differs to a secular one and clearly offers a different moral and spiritual basis than a secular one would. This is clearly why many Christians prefer faith schools to secular schools.

Your post:

I believe that Christian values promote certain things that non-Christian values don't. Self-sacrifice for others, the idea that love is about giving rather than taking (arguably this one in that Jesus is the exemplar of self-sacrifice), the idea that people are created with a purpose, the idea that each person has a plan, the idea that there is a guiding principle to all things, the idea that no matter what people say to you you ultimately have an intrinsic value in that you are created in God's image, the idea of accountability - doing what is right is something in and of itself.

The only part that I see being unique to a faith school.
You honestly think that not being Christian precludes people from self-sacrifice or feeling love just as a Christian does?

You will always be accountable even if things can go by unnoticed to the human eye what is evil has ultimate consequences. Morality isn't just you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it involves doing what is right and good even when it isn't to any benefit. New life. Show mercy and grace to others because God has shown grace to you. The idea that God loves us even when we do what is evil, the idea that God came as a human being, lived among us and died among us to save us from what we've clearly done wrong. That the earth is His and everything in it, and that our talents, what we have, our friends, our family are all gifts from Him.

The bolded bits are unique to faith schooling as it is making assumptions/statements based on religious belief.

By the by, it must also be said that some Christians would actually prefer to bring their children to a faith school. Some atheists send their children to faith schools because they prefer that (there were a number of columns in the Guardian discussing this).

So what? An atheist wants a child receiving religious instruction.

Still doesn't answer why the religious instruction must happen during the school day.

philologos

koth wrote: »

The only part that I see being unique to a faith school.
You honestly think that not being Christian precludes people from self-sacrifice or feeling love just as a Christian does?

Both can look upon self-sacrifice and love. Christianity looks on it in a unique way in that we have the example of Jesus.

koth wrote: »

The bolded bits are unique to faith schooling as it is making assumptions/statements based on religious belief.

Irrespective of whether or not you feel they are assumptions one cannot deny that they bring a different perspective to human living. One can't argue that a secular ethos does the same as a Christian one if the secular system doesn't fulfil much of what a Christian ethos does. You can argue that this is all useless, but one can't really argue that a secular ethos does the same thing.

koth wrote: »

So what? An atheist wants a child receiving religious instruction.

Still doesn't answer why the religious instruction must happen during the school day.

I've answered this numerous times on this thread. It isn't about necessity, it's about what is best. Ultimately choice of ethos in the education system as far as I see it is best and that's why I support it and it is one of the issues that I would look into when voting for party X or Y in an election.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Both can look upon self-sacrifice and love. Christianity looks on it in a unique way in that we have the example of Jesus.

wonderful. let the kids hear about it in church.

Irrespective of whether or not you feel they are assumptions one cannot deny that they bring a different perspective to human living. One can't argue that a secular ethos does the same as a Christian one if the secular system doesn't fulfil much of what a Christian ethos does. You can argue that this is all useless, but one can't really argue that a secular ethos does the same thing.

Of course it doesn't,because it doesn't promote one religion over the other.

If you want the kids to be educated as Christians, see a priest.

I've answered this numerous times on this thread. It isn't about necessity, it's about what is best. Ultimately choice of ethos in the education system as far as I see it is best and that's why I support it and it is one of the issues that I would look into when voting for party X or Y in an election.

building two, three or four times more schools just so the religious groups can preach in a classroom is crazy.

anyways, I shall ask the question, would you be happy sending your child to a muslim school to be instructed in muslim beliefs. To be told that Jesus was a muslim? To spend a portion of the day reciting from the koran?

Mistress 69

As this thread is already long I have not read every post, so if this has already been answered...... apologies etc

Who knows what will come out of the forum. Just imagine any of you were in a positon to influence said forum. What would you suggest to solve the issue amicably?

Delirium

Article I found in the Economist about the faith schools in the UK, which had problems which were highlighted as far back as 2006.

It highlights the concerns I have about faith schools.

It is conference time for the teachers' unions, and complaints about badly behaved children, badly treated teachers and an unsympathetic government are rife as always. But this year the teachers have alighted on an important subject: how much influence mainstream churches and more esoteric sects should have over state-funded schools. The Association of Teachers and Lecturers voted on April 11th in favour of banning state funds for new religious schools by 2020. Over the Easter weekend, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) is to debate calling for an eventual end to state money for all such schools.

Religious schools sprang up in the sixth century, attached to cathedrals and monasteries. There are 7,000 in England and Wales now—600 secondary schools and 6,400 primary schools, most of them Christian. Over 100 new ones have been approved since 1997, including the first Sikh, Greek Orthodox and Muslim state schools. They are flourishing under Tony Blair, who is a practising Christian—as are his education secretary, Ruth Kelly, and his junior education minister, Andrew Adonis. And their role will expand after the prime minister's education reforms are passed and religious groups, charities and companies are allowed to run new, state-funded “trust” schools.

Trust schools are unpopular with most teachers' unions, but the NUT also opposes the government's plan to establish 200 city academies in poor areas by 2010. It dislikes the idea of outside sponsors, often from religious backgrounds, and their ability to influence the curriculum. One evangelical Christian businessman, Sir Peter Vardy, sponsors three state schools where Biblical creation myths are taught along with evolutionary theory.

Critics argue that as faith-based schools increase in numbers, racial and ethnic mixing will dwindle. A report on race riots in Bradford five years ago found that the existence of religious schools had increased segregation and contributed to racial tension. The government believes, to the contrary, that funding—and inspecting—Muslim schools, for example, will reduce extremist influences.

Another criticism is that religious schools may screen out “problem” children. The Department for Education says that they admit fewer children with special educational needs than community schools. A recent study by the Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies, a think-tank, found that religious primary schools take fewer children from low-income families than nearby local-authority schools. And the London School of Economics discovered this year that religious schools give lower priority to children in care than their secular counterparts do. Though they achieve better results than ordinary state schools (they account for 18% of all secondary schools but 42% of the top 200 comprehensives), critics claim they do so through selecting by stealth.

The churches defend their record, saying they only select on religious grounds and then only in what are called voluntary-aided schools, rather than the voluntary-controlled ones where local authorities have power to control admissions. Defenders of the faith say that devout parents want their children to enjoy a religious education and argue that it is parental commitment, rather than selection, which improves results. But polls show that the public is unsympathetic to the expansion of religious schools, especially as a fair number are likely to be Muslim.

Yet this expansion is unlikely to be rolled back, supported as it is by both the main political parties. Secularists complain that their choices will be further reduced as a result. Some people move house. Others pay for private education. But those who can afford neither are faced instead with “choosing” to send their children to community schools that admit more than their share of disadvantaged children. Religious compassion, it seems, goes only so far.

Source

Dades

philologos wrote: »

I'm saying that 30% - 40% of schools should facilitate this choice. The other 60% - 70% should be secular. I think that the education system is better with diversity of choice.

Remind me again what it is that children learn in catholic "faith schools" that they won't learn from a few hours a week outside of school?

Because unless there's some point to maintaining single-faith instruction within school hours there is no point in keeping them when clearly a no-single faith system is the obvious answer.

expectationlost

seems ruairi quinn has announced a thunderdome type battle between different faith communities over the 40 news schools planned, the whole concept of patronage and parental choice is just a way of letting churches continue to dominate

philologos

Dades wrote: »

Because unless there's some point to maintaining single-faith instruction within school hours there is no point in keeping them when clearly a no-single faith system is the obvious answer.

How is it the obvious answer? I can't see any benefit for anyone in making all schools secular. Thankfully neither does the Government right now. I'm arguing that faith schools can be and are beneficial to many students and that some students are better suited to faith schools than secular schools.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

How is it the obvious answer? I can't see any benefit for anyone in making all schools secular. Thankfully neither does the Government right now. I'm arguing that faith schools can be and are beneficial to many students and that some students are better suited to faith schools than secular schools.

Definition of Argument: A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

You're not arguing at all you're just repeating yourself over and over again in the face of much stronger opposition. The solutions is simple in terms of equality, value for money and ease of admin. It seems you just want faith in schools because it suits your agenda. All the people in here want are schools where kids get the education they need and deserve.

philologos

I'm asking Dades a question. I think faith schools are nonetheless valid. You don't. I get that much. Your claim that I'm repeating myself could be about as applicable to you

Mistress 69

Dades wrote: »

Remind me again what it is that children learn in catholic "faith schools" that they won't learn from a few hours a week outside of school?

Because unless there's some point to maintaining single-faith instruction within school hours there is no point in keeping them when clearly a no-single faith system is the obvious answer.

Extract from the Irish Times Article
In his responses to questions from the advisory group Paul Rowe, chief executive of Educate Together, said that “in our experience very, very few people in Ireland want their children educated in an environment without a belief system.''
“Our experience is that it is an absolutely minimal demand in the Irish context.”

Conclusion
By all means provision should be made for those who want a different system, which looks like it will happen. However it would be ludicrous for the existing schooling system to be abolished as it seems that the huge majority of parents want it. I could say it would be the minority pushing their views but it's more a case of the tail wagging the dog!

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

I'm asking Dades a question. I think faith schools are nonetheless valid. You don't. I get that much. Your claim that I'm repeating myself could be about as applicable to you

That's because you're not listening to the truth. Faith schools are valid for those who want education in faith, this sort of education is not necessary but a desire, and it is not the mandate of a secular government of a republic to provide such education. It is however it's responsibility to provide kids with access to education which will give them a high standard of literacy, numeracy, and scientific skills after that the respective faiths can do as they please.

philologos

That's a good article actually:

In his responses to questions from the advisory group Paul Rowe, chief executive of Educate Together, said that “in our experience very, very few people in Ireland want their children educated in an environment without a belief system.

“Our experience is that it is an absolutely minimal demand in the Irish context.”

However what parents wanted for their children “had to be heard”, he suggested, adding that such preference “has never been measured properly in the Irish context”. Such a survey of pre-school children would allow the State plan accordingly.

Where Educate Together was concerned, he said, parental demand was such that, as an example, in the Portobello area of Dublin 300 children were now seeking places where only 60 were available in their schools.

He agreed with Dr Hussey that an independent preference body, with a CAO-type role, “could address the question of enrolment”.

It could operate under a local authority but would have to be independent of any patron of a school, he said.

“All parents in receipt of child benefit could receive a second form for children under three years” on which they “could mark their preference 1,2,3...”

The key dynamic in the sector was “parental choice”, he said. He also believed that “as a policy the State should own the schools and allocate leasing arrangements according to demand”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0624/breaking14.html

CerebralCortex

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Extract from the Irish Times Article
In his responses to questions from the advisory group Paul Rowe, chief executive of Educate Together, said that “in our experience very, very few people in Ireland want their children educated in an environment without a belief system.''
“Our experience is that it is an absolutely minimal demand in the Irish context.”

Conclusion
By all means provision should be made for those who want a different system, which looks like it will happen. However it would be ludicrous for the existing schooling system to be abolished as it seems that the huge majority of parents want it. I could say it would be the minority pushing their views but it's more a case of the tail wagging the dog!

I'd say it's more like parents don't want to foot the extra cost of communion and confirmation! They'd rather have me(someone who has no desire to have kids) pay for their unverifiable nonsense. Unfortunately majority rules where rationality should.