What to tell kids when they ask?

Kenny Bania

Hi all,

I have a kid in her first year in a catholic primary school. She has been opted out of religion class amicably with the teacher & principal - no issues. She does not do the religion book - she does a colouring book instead. So all agreeable there.

However, she is obviously picking up some things through osmosis. I'm not worried about her being indoctrinated, as it's simply not a part of her life or her world outside of overhearing a few things in school - but when she makes (what she considers) throwaway comments to me like "god made all of us" - what exactly should I respond with?
I don't want to get technical, and say we're all star dust, etc - but I do want to correct her as much as appropriate. At the same time, I don't want her shouting out in class that "my daddy says there is no god", etc.

Suggestions? It's a delicate balance. I want to correct any misconceptions she may pick up, but also don't want her correcting other people in the classroom environment.

Thanks in advance.

ElleEm

"Some people believe...". It will clarify that it is not true or untrue, it is just what someone thinks. She may ask you what you believe, and that will give you an opening to discuss the other belief systems. I grew up as part of a minority faith, and remember being taught about respecting other's beliefs. My parents told me "We are all different and that is what makes the world a brilliant, interesting place to live".

looksee

I would not make too much of a production of it at this stage. After all, her day by day life is in school and it is the same person who is telling her that two and two makes four, and Dublin is the capital city of Ireland is telling her about god. It is difficult enough at her age to separate one piece of information from another.

Sooner or later she will ask why she is colouring and the others are doing a class, and at that stage you can say that different people think different things about what is being taught in religion class. If she is in a Catholic school it is inevitable that she is going to pick up some ideas that you do not agree with, but if you teach her to think and rationalise as she is old enough to cope with it, the religious ideas will fade from significance.

This is the whole problem about religion in school, it would be easier for religious parents to teach their children out of school time about the religion they want to pass on, than it is to unteach something that is disseminated with other, factual, teaching.

Kenny Bania

Thanks guys.

It's frustrating, because in a class of 26, only her and 1 other boy opt out of religion class. Yet I'd be willing to bet significant money that over 80% of the rest of the parents are not practicing catholics. It confuses me as to why they're happy for their kids to be taught something they don't even practice. It's their children, FFS! Do they just not care? Such hypocrisy. I'd love to see how many of them actually continued to teach it at home if it was removed from the school curriculum.

The indifference & hypocrisy of the majority about their child's education, makes it more difficult for those of us who do care.

ElleEm

Having been a primary school student in a catholic school in the 80's and 90's, it annoys me at how much of my school week was wasted colouring because of religion! The week before easter, the month of December and half of the communion and confirmation years were wasted for me due to religious education, trips to the church, religious art and crafts, etc.

Nervous Wreck

ElleEm wrote: »

Having been a primary school student in a catholic school in the 80's and 90's, it annoys me at how much of my school week was wasted colouring because of religion! The week before easter, the month of December and half of the communion and confirmation years were wasted for me due to religious education, trips to the church, religious art and crafts, etc.

At least you got decent at colouring. Think of the poor schmucks who didn't opt out...!

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

I would not make too much of a production of it at this stage. After all, her day by day life is in school and it is the same person who is telling her that two and two makes four, and Dublin is the capital city of Ireland is telling her about god. It is difficult enough at her age to separate one piece of information from another.

Sooner or later she will ask why she is colouring and the others are doing a class, and at that stage you can say that different people think different things about what is being taught in religion class. If she is in a Catholic school it is inevitable that she is going to pick up some ideas that you do not agree with, but if you teach her to think and rationalise as she is old enough to cope with it, the religious ideas will fade from significance.

I think the above advice is solid OP - teach your child yourself to think for themselves and examine ideas for themselves from an early age, and then you won't have to continue to worry about what they're hearing or being exposed to in school (I'm sure you're aware in an RC ethos school, the ethos is all-encompassing, and not simply restricted to the classroom).

That way, rather than you correcting them on every little thing, they'll learn to instinctively examine ideas for themselves - a far more valuable skill that will stand to them throughout their lives.

This is the whole problem about religion in school, it would be easier for religious parents to teach their children out of school time about the religion they want to pass on, than it is to unteach something that is disseminated with other, factual, teaching.

Why would religious parents want to "unteach" something that they want their children taught though? I mean, the reason I send my child to a Catholic ethos school is because it is in line with what I believe myself, and in line with the ethos I want to instill in my child. He also goes to mosque with his friends, and on Sunday we go to mass in the morning, and Pentecostal services in the afternoon.

You can't "unteach" something, you can only teach someone something else, and that would go for an adult as much as a child. If the OP makes a point of correcting their child on every last little thing, I think it's making a lot of unnecessary work for themselves tbh.

ElleEm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

At least you got decent at colouring. Think of the poor schmucks who didn't opt out...!

It definitely is a transferable skill, alright!

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why would religious parents want to "unteach" something that they want their children taught though? I mean, the reason I send my child to a Catholic ethos school is because it is in line with what I believe myself, and in line with the ethos I want to instill in my child. He also goes to mosque with his friends, and on Sunday we go to mass in the morning, and Pentecostal services in the afternoon.

You can't "unteach" something, you can only teach someone something else, and that would go for an adult as much as a child. If the OP makes a point of correcting their child on every last little thing, I think it's making a lot of unnecessary work for themselves tbh.

I think you took me up wrongly there OEJ. I was not suggesting that religious parents would want to 'unteach' their children, I was referring to non-religious parents, and parents of different faiths than Catholicism. I was using the term 'unteach' very loosely in the sense of parents having to replace a set of ideas learned at school with the ideas that they wish to pass to their children.

robindch

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I want to correct any misconceptions she may pick up, but also don't want her correcting other people in the classroom environment.

As ElleEm suggests, the form "Some people believe X, some people believe Y, I believe Z" is accurate and it's non-judgmental. With a bit of luck, the teacher won't be pushing any particular line with your child (as opposed to the rest of the class), so she won't end up trying to resolve an irreconcilable "my teacher said..." versus "you said..." bun-fight.

It might be worth having a chat with the teacher, just so you can outline how you're approaching the issue - it would be good to had him/her onside. And with some more luck, he/she might also decide to tone it down with the rest of the class as well - a balanced, peaceful approach will benefit everybody.

Kenny Bania wrote: »

It's their children, FFS! Do they just not care? Such hypocrisy.

No, most parents don't seem to care - either about the hypocrisy, or about the dishonesty, or the social control. It's as frustrating as hell, but there's little one can do about it - pointing it out certainly doesn't work.

One eyed Jack

robindch wrote: »

As ElleEm suggests, the form "Some people believe X, some people believe Y, I believe Z" is accurate and it's non-judgmental.

The above is great, in theory. It is indeed accurate and non-judgemental, and that's a great message to give other people. The reality though, is that we can sometimes fall short of the mark ourselves -

No, most parents don't seem to care - either about the hypocrisy, or about the dishonesty, or the social control. It's as frustrating as hell, but there's little one can do about it - pointing it out certainly doesn't work.

Just how accurate and non-judgemental is the above? You're right that pointing out what you believe other people do or don't care about doesn't seem to work, but I think that has more to do with the fact that people may not see your judgement as accurate. Hence when you try to point out what you see as their hypocrisy, they're likely to point out that you're passing judgement on them while you're promoting a message of non-judgement?

I may be picking you up wrong, but it seems very contradictory to promote a message of being non-judgemental and striving for accuracy, when a statement like "most parents don't seem to care", is at least questionable, if not wholly inaccurate and based solely upon your own individual judgement of other people who don't appear to share your perspective on how best to raise their own children and the type of education they believe is of benefit for their own children.

Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania wrote: »

......... throwaway comments to me like "god made all of us" - .......

Could be the early signs of a deep faith developing, she might have a vocation even.

One eyed Jack

Augeo wrote: »

Could be the early signs of a deep faith developing, she might have a vocation even.

I doubt it tbh, and these are the sort of knee-jerk conclusions that should be avoided. They come across as scaremongering and trying to make the OP doubt their own abilities as a parent. The OP already stated that religion simply isn't part of the child's life or their world outside school, and so how you could possibly see throwaway comments as the development of deep faith and a possible vocation, in a child, is quite frankly bizarre!

My child comes out with plenty of 'eyebrow raisers' I call them, but it's usually because he knows they're likely to get my attention, as opposed to having me think he truly believes that he can fly. When he starts leaping off buildings without a parachute, I might be more inclined to think he truly believes what he's saying!

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I doubt it tbh, and these are the sort of knee-jerk conclusions that should be avoided. They come across as scaremongering and trying to make the OP doubt their own abilities as a parent........

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

TheQuietFella

Do all those who do not want their children to partake in a religion class tell their children that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

What indeed has Santa got to do with religion you might ask!

robindch

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I may be picking you up wrong [...]

I think you might be - I'm saying that the majority of parents are being splendidly insincere in saying (for example) that they want their kids to think for themselves, then at the same time, allowing the church to indoctrinate them with all manner of religious hogwash.

Kenny Bania

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Do all those who do not want their children to partake in a religion class tell their children that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

No, because it's a bit of fun for a few years & an exciting time for a kid. They make no religious connection to it. A guy called Santa just comes & brings toys to good boys & girls because he's nice. It's harmless. Unlike systematic & compulsory indoctrination they receive in national schools for 14 years.

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

No, because it's a bit of fun for a few years & an exciting time for a kid. They make no religious connection to it. A guy called Santa just comes & brings toys to good boys & girls because he's nice. It's harmless. Unlike systematic & compulsory indoctrination they receive in national schools for 14 years.

It may not have occurred to you, but have you considered the possibility that those people you were earlier giving out about, may view religion for their children in the same way as you view Santa for children?

Perhaps that's why they're not too bothered about whether their children participate in the idea because hey, it's a bit of fun for a few years and exciting for a kid - they get a few stories and they get a few days out and a nice wedge of cash while they play along with the charade even though they know it's a crock, and then they get to adulthood and they have another day out with another wedge of cash, and the cycle perpetuates when they have children themselves and they do the whole day out to get their children into schools, and they aren't particularly interested in whether other parents are wagging their fingers at them for being one of that 80% you talked about earlier, because as far as they're concerned - it's completely harmless...

Possible?

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It may not have occurred to you, but have you considered the possibility that those people you were earlier giving out about, may view religion for their children in the same way as you view Santa for children?

Perhaps that's why they're not too bothered about whether their children participate in the idea because hey, it's a bit of fun for a few years and exciting for a kid - they get a few stories and they get a few days out and a nice wedge of cash while they play along with the charade even though they know it's a crock, and then they get to adulthood and they have another day out with another wedge of cash, and the cycle perpetuates when they have children themselves and they do the whole day out to get their children into schools, and they aren't particularly interested in whether other parents are wagging their fingers at them for being one of that 80% you talked about earlier, because as far as they're concerned - it's completely harmless...

Possible?

Hm, I know who you have been talking to.

Kenny Bania

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It may not have occurred to you, but have you considered the possibility that those people you were earlier giving out about, may view religion for their children in the same way as you view Santa for children?

Perhaps that's why they're not too bothered about whether their children participate in the idea because hey, it's a bit of fun for a few years and exciting for a kid - they get a few stories and they get a few days out and a nice wedge of cash while they play along with the charade even though they know it's a crock, and then they get to adulthood and they have another day out with another wedge of cash, and the cycle perpetuates when they have children themselves and they do the whole day out to get their children into schools, and they aren't particularly interested in whether other parents are wagging their fingers at them for being one of that 80% you talked about earlier, because as far as they're concerned - it's completely harmless...

Possible?

Not the same at all, because you're not comparing like with like. Us celebrating a non-religious Xmas affects nobody else. We decorate a tree & exchange gifts - all pagan traditions before it was hijacked by Christians. And we eat a nice meal & meet up with family & friends you may not see very often - that's all.
And most importantly, it affects nobody else - it's done in private. Whereas non-practicing Catholics in schools who are are happy to have their kids take religion classes & be indoctrinated, affects other people who don't want to participate in it. I resent it because it affects me & others.
And to be clear - I only resent it because they're hypocrites - I wouldn't complain if they were all actually practicing catholic parents.

they play along with the charade even though they know it's a crock

What charade? My kids know of no religions connection to Xmas. So what are they playing along with exactly? They receive presents once a year from a fat guy in a red suit and get excited the night before. It's not a cult-like occasion with a story about a messiah to go along with it. It's harmless fun that has literally zero impact on anyone else. By the time the start asking "why" this guy gives them presents (around 8 or 9, I assume), they'll have stopped believing in it anyway. Which is about the age all people should have common sense kick in and stop believing in all nonsense, TBH.

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Not the same at all, because you're not comparing like with like. Us celebrating a non-religious Xmas affects nobody else. We decorate a tree & exchange gifts - all pagan traditions before it was hijacked by Christians. And we eat a nice meal & meet up with family & friends you may not see very often - that's all.

And most importantly, it affects nobody else - it's done in private. Whereas non-practicing Catholics in schools who are are happy to have their kids take religion classes & be indoctrinated, affects other people who don't want to participate in it. I resent it because it affects me & others.
And to be clear - I only resent it because they're hypocrites - I wouldn't complain if they were all actually practicing catholic parents.

To be just as clear though Kenny - other parents don't really care what you do or don't resent, nor whether you pass judgement upon them as hypocrites or otherwise. They're doing what they see is in the best interests of their own children, just as you're doing what you see is in the best interests of your own children.

In order to change that, you're going to have to either come up with a better argument than "hypocrites!"... or offer a bigger carrot than the wedges of cash and the nice days out.

What charade? My kids know of no religions connection to Xmas. So what are they playing along with exactly? They receive presents once a year from a fat guy in a red suit and get excited the night before. It's not a cult-like occasion with a story about a messiah to go along with it. It's harmless fun that has literally zero impact on anyone else. By the time the start asking "why" this guy gives them presents (around 8 or 9, I assume), they'll have stopped believing in it anyway. Which is about the age all people should have common sense kick in and stop believing in all nonsense, TBH.

You started this thread because you wondered about how to explain things to your child when they come out with throwaway comments like the one you mentioned in your opening post that they picked up in school. Now, using your own logic - you really don't have a whole lot to worry about because once your child gets to about 8 or 9, common sense will kick in and they won't believe in any of that nonsense anyway.

Happy days then, no?

Kenny Bania

Sorry if 'hypocrites' is not a good enough argument for you. What else do they need to be for it to be a problem for you? I certainly take issues with hypocrites dictating my kids' options for a state education.

They're doing what they see is in the best interests of their own children

I disagree - they're doing whats easiest for themselves. It's called being lazy - taking the path of least resistance. Because if they're not practicing Catholics, then why are they happy with their children taking religion classes? Because it's easy; that's why.

And I feel sorry for you if you genuinely can't discern between telling a kid there's a nice jolly fat man who brings them presents once a year for a few years of their excitable youth, and the systematic indoctrination of young children in a state facility that tells them blatant lies about the origin of our species & planet, and that they are born into sin & are literally owned by a petty & insecure "god" whom they must worship & be thankful to...

Yeah, it's the exact same, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Shrap

Kenny Bania wrote: »

By the time the start asking "why" this guy gives them presents (around 8 or 9, I assume), they'll have stopped believing in it anyway. Which is about the age all people should have common sense kick in and stop believing in all nonsense, TBH.

And this is the interesting difference. At the age most kids start to question the existence of Santa, or at least ask thoroughly awkward questions like "Does Santa like Thomás better than me, cos he got an Xbox and I only got a game?", parents will maybe try their best to play it out for another year by lying through their teeth (I did, to my youngest disgust!) or explain that he's a makey uppey person who parents go along with so that kids get a great kick out of the notion and the extra presents, and that we shouldn't spoil the other little kids' fun. Ok, grand. No harm done, and most kids are happy to play along after knowing the truth.

On the other hand, this is the very same age when kids who might question "God made the flowers, the trees, the sky and everything and we must give thanks for it all, and Jesus died for your sins ()" are plámásed even further by parents continuing to play along through the coming of age rituals in their church for traditions sake. If there are parents who think (similar to the Santa effect) "Well, it did me no harm sure" without looking at the broader picture of how this playing along affects policy in our country and causes state-wide discrimination, then it's rather different to Santa.

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Sorry if 'hypocrites' is not a good enough argument for you. What else do they need to be for it to be a problem for you? I certainly take issues with hypocrites dictating my kids' options for a state education.

I take issue with hypocrites dictating anyone's options for their children's education too, and they don't come more hypocritical than politicians, who are actually the real people who dictate our children's options for education. You're aiming your ire at the wrong target IMO.

I disagree - they're doing whats easiest for themselves. It's called being lazy - taking the path of least resistance. Because if they're not practicing Catholics, then why are they happy with their children taking religion classes? Because it's easy; that's why.

We'll have to agree to differ then, as I don't know any parents motives any better than you do, nor am I prepared to assume the veracity of their religious beliefs. That comes across as judgemental finger wagging IMO and as has been pointed out already - it's pointless, and achieves nothing.

They could easily ask the same question as to why you chose to place your child in a religious ethos school, and while you might claim you had no choice, they're as likely to claim you took the path of least resistance because it suited you... and where does that get anyone?

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

If there are parents who think (similar to the Santa effect) "Well, it did me no harm sure" without looking at the broader picture of how this playing along affects policy in our country and causes state-wide discrimination, then it's rather different to Santa.

How likely though Shrap do you think people are to look at the bigger picture if according to Kenny they're as lazy as Kenny says they are that they just take the path of least resistance because it suits them?

People don't look at the bigger picture, the vast majority of people are only thinking of their own children. Pointing fingers at parents doesn't get them to change. Change has to come from politicians, and they could easily change the patronage system in this country if they wanted to, and build more schools, and fund a proper education system, but they don't do this because most parents don't see the current education system as harmful.

They care about their children's education, and they want to have their child receive the best education they can afford, and most of the time that just happens to be an education provided by a school with a religious ethos - most people are going to stick with the devil they know (pardon the pun!).

Kenny Bania

One eyed Jack wrote: »

nor am I prepared to assume the veracity of their religious beliefs.

I already said I'd put significant money on my assumption. If we followed the parents of every kid in my daughters class from Saturday evening for 24hrs, I'd be surprised if any more than 15% went to mass.

So while it is an assumption unless we can actually conduct the experiment, I do feel confident in my assumed stats. I know 7 of them FSS (it's a local school - with kids my daughters age, so naturally we know a few) - and NONE of them that I know go to mass. So that's a start already. Based on the 25% I do know of, 0% of them go to mass. So take that partial stat for what it's worth.

That comes across as judgemental finger wagging IMO and as has been pointed out already - it's pointless, and achieves nothing.

I agree it achieves nothing. But if everyone was honest with themselves & not hypocrites (which is all I'm asking here), and if those who don't go to mass opted their kids out of religion class too, then maybe we'd have a secular society by now. Because it'd mean the teacher would be teaching religion to just 5 or 6 kids. And if that happened nationally, it couldn't be ignored or sustained. But we don't get that - we get lazy hypocrites going with the flow.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How likely though Shrap do you think people are to look at the bigger picture if according to Kenny they're as lazy as Kenny says they are that they just take the path of least resistance because it suits them?

Not in the slightest bit likely Jack! I think you and Kenny are both correct in that regard. I suppose I was just pointing out an essential difference between what kids are taught about Santa and God, in cases where the parents may well believe in neither.

The school patronage thread (and the other train-wreck one) is elsewhere on the forum!

To answer the OP though, I always took the "people believe different things, and in our family this is what we believe and why" route with my kids, combined with "We all are allowed to believe different things, so that's why we don't take the p1ss out of other people's beliefs", or similar. If it's any help, my kids were the first in their school not to make the two C's or to participate in religion class. The school aced it, as far as I'm concerned, and did their level best to be inclusive (as far as they could do under the ethos they have to follow).

One eyed Jack

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I already said I'd put significant money on my assumption. If we followed the parents of every kid in my daughters class from Saturday evening for 24hrs, I'd be surprised if any more than 15% went to mass.

So while it is an assumption unless we can actually conduct the experiment, I do feel confident in my assumed stats. I know 7 of them FSS (it's a local school - with kids my daughters age, so naturally we know a few) - and NONE of them that I know go to mass. So that's a start already. Based on the 25% I do know of, 0% of them go to mass. So take that partial stat for what it's worth.

Partial stats about mass attendance and so on are completely irrelevant though. That's the point that seems to be consistently missed in threads like these (and there's a lot of threads like these in this forum!). If people choose to send their children to schools with a religious ethos, that is what is keeping the school open, because the State has to provide funding for those children's education, and so Kenny when you place your child in a religious ethos school, you're supporting the school by placing your child in the school.

For you then to turn around and claim that other parents are lazy hypocrites, well, it's a bit awkward.

I agree it achieves nothing. But if everyone was honest with themselves & not hypocrites (which is all I'm asking here), and if those who don't go to mass opted their kids out of religion class too, then maybe we'd have a secular society by now. Because it'd mean the teacher would be teaching religion to just 5 or 6 kids. And if that happened nationally, it couldn't be ignored or sustained. But we don't get that - we get lazy hypocrites going with the flow.

They wouldn't just have to opt their children out of religion class, as the ethos of the school would remain the same regardless. They would have to completely remove their children from the school so that another school would get the funding for their children's education. The Catholic ethos school would remain in place, but with less children there would be less funding for the school.

That would require us to be a secular society before we get a secular education system though.

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would require us to be a secular society before we get a secular education system though.

No, not really. In the USA the education system is secular, but the average level of religiosity within society is probably higher than here.

Also third level education is largely secular in Ireland, and it seems to work OK.

Samaris

recedite wrote: »

No, not really. In the USA the education system is secular, but the average level of religiosity within society is probably higher than here.

Also third level education is largely secular in Ireland, and it seems to work OK.

It's -technically- secular anyway, but there's still a strong influence. It doesn't take much poking at the stories coming out of the US about squabbles over teaching evolution as "just a theory" on the same level as "intelligent design" (hell, George Bush supported the teaching of creationism in schools!) or religiously-influenced sex ed., despite that Abstinence Only -famously- does not work. Not to mention the media pouncing upon any cases of students attempting to pray publicly and being told to shut up, followed by a massive kerfuffle about freedom of speech. I've only seen that happening when it's Christian kids, mind you, the freedom of speech for Jewish or Muslim kids to pray in school doesn't seem to attract as much attention!

I know quite a lot of people that believe there's -something-, but they don't believe in the Catholic Church. I'm a bit that way myself, insofar as I'm certainly willing to accept the possibility that there's more that I can see but I don't approve of the weaponisation of religion and I really don't approve of the "humanisation" of a godlike figure to take on the suspiciously similar attributes and prejudices of the person doing the instructing.

I'd keep an ear on what the kid's spouting, particularly if she seems upset or worried about what she's hearing. (If she's a happy-go-lucky sort, she's probably fine, if she's a worrier and inclined to think a lot about things, it's worth keeping an eye on it all.) I remember the first time my faith was seriously shaken, when I was told aged ...hell, somewhere between 8-10 that my (non-Catholic) mother was going to hell* and, being a sprog inclined to internalising and over-thinking things, I got really upset over the concept that my family was going to be split between the "religious" ones (my dad) and the "non-religious ones" (mother and siblings) and what direction I should take. I'd say it caused me a bit of resentment towards the whole situation, including my (entirely innocent) parents, and it took me years to entirely figure out.

Nine is really a bit too young for existential crises.

*Yes, from school.

One eyed Jack

recedite wrote: »

No, not really. In the USA the education system is secular, but the average level of religiosity within society is probably higher than here.

Also third level education is largely secular in Ireland, and it seems to work OK.

That's what secularism is though - the separation of Church and State, and they've been a secular society in the States since Thomas Jefferson had it written into the US Constitution over 200 years earlier. Here in Ireland, we went the opposite direction - our Irish Constitution had to have the approval of Rome (quite a turn-around from 100 years earlier when Catholics couldn't even own property!).

The reason, as I understand it, why TJ had freedom of religion and freedom from religion written into the Constitution was because in the States they had many different religions, as opposed to here in Ireland where Christianity is the predominant religion and the RC Hierarchy had gained enough of a foothold in society to make sure it stayed that way.

That's why even though third level education may be largely secular, the third level institutes which educate our future teachers, aren't.