Faith Schools

[Jack Burton]

Good post from XBL. There are number of the new schools built which house both the Catholic and non-religious schools in the same building but with different playgrounds etc. for each. You are creating division from an early age.

[Mushroom]

Ban them.

There is no such thing as a christian child or a muslim child or a jewish child in the same way there is no such thing as a communist child or a socialist child or a fascist child.

[centralparker]

If a religious order wants to fund their own school and it meets all the relevant educational standards then good luck to them.

[vikingTON]

7000 eh? Does that include the 'Protestant in everything but name' "non-denomination" schools in this country?

[H_B]

7000 eh? Does that include the 'Protestant in everything but name' "non-denomination" schools in this country?

Yes, I was just reading this thinking the same. 7,000 eh?

Why the Protestant sky fairy schools are excluded from this moniker I have no idea.

[Law Stud]

Faith schools are fine by me as long as they are privately run.

Me too Reynard. It's grossly inefficient to have a Catholic school running at half capacity in a town where there are non denominational schools running at half capacity. It's a stupid waste of taxpayers money to pander to religion in this way.

Running the schools on a private basis is the perfect solution. If you want your child brought up in an exclusively Muslim / Catholic / Wee Free then school pay for it.

Of course the problem wouldn't exist if we did away with state funded education but that's been discussed to death by me already.

[xbl]

Running the schools on a private basis is the perfect solution. If you want your child brought up in an exclusively Muslim / Catholic / Wee Free then school pay for it.

Ah. So you would put money before the long term welfare of children? If some rich guy came in and set up a Catholic school that was subtly teaching religious fundamentalism, that would be fine? Indoctrinating kids into religious fundamentalism is fine, just so long as it isn't state funded? I don't think so. That is not fair on the kids.

[H_B]

Ah. So you would put money before the long term welfare of children? If some rich guy came in and set up a Catholic school that was subtly teaching religious fundamentalism, that would be fine? Indoctrinating kids into religious fundamentalism is fine, just so long as it isn't state funded? I don't think so. That is not fair on the kids.

I agree with you

[Ad Lib]

Ah. So you would put money before the long term welfare of children? If some rich guy came in and set up a Catholic school that was subtly teaching religious fundamentalism, that would be fine? Indoctrinating kids into religious fundamentalism is fine, just so long as it isn't state funded? I don't think so. That is not fair on the kids.

What gives the state the authority to monopoly of compulsory child education (since you pillory private education as well as state faith based)?

Education is ultimately a responsibility of parents, which they then delegate to others if they see fit. That is why rather than monopolist state dictation as to what a child can and cannot be taught, choice is ultimately the best way to improve standards of education: the best teaching, in content and in style will ultimately win out.

You may personally think that faith based education is a poor one that indoctrinates and is counterproductive to a child's education - indeed I agree - but I don't see why the state should be telling parents what they can and cannot have their children taught supplementary to a base curriculum.

[xbl]

What gives the state the authority to monopoly of compulsory child education (since you pillory private education as well as state faith based)?

You may personally think that faith based education is a poor one that indoctrinates and is counterproductive to a child's education - indeed I agree - but I don't see why the state should be telling parents what they can and cannot have their children taught supplementary to a base curriculum.

If a parent wants to teach their child "supplementary to a base curriculum", then they can do that in their own time. But I believe in achieving as much equality as possible. No child should be hindered or unfairly privileged because of the situation of their parents. I think this is one area where it is appropriate for the state to take control. What parents do with their children in their own time is their problem, but when it comes to school, everyone deserves a fair shot. As I said in a previous post, it is impossible to get truly equal education, too many variables, but we should try and get as close as possible.

[Ad Lib]

If a parent wants to teach their child "supplementary to a base curriculum", then they can do that in their own time. But I believe in achieving as much equality as possible. No child should be hindered or unfairly privileged because of the situation of their parents. I think this is one area where it is appropriate for the state to take control. What parents do with their children in their own time is their problem, but when it comes to school, everyone deserves a fair shot. As I said in a previous post, it is impossible to get truly equal education, too many variables, but we should try and get as close as possible.

Why is the state any better an arbiter as to what can and cannot be taught supplementary to a basic curriculum within the confines of school education? Further, as long as the schools are satisfying the minimum curricular requirements, why shouldn't they have the freedom to teach supplementary material subject to the acquiescence of the parents?

Moving to an all-state solution doesn't give everyone a fair shot at all. As things stand the state sector fails thousands of pupils, and centralising education in a one-size fits all manner not only would do a massive disservice to many children in the state sector already, but would also place more pressure on state budgets and staffing and building, meaning that the new intake would also suffer needlessly.

That is why there is no point in trying to have an equal world, or even a "fair" world (whatever that means). The whole philosophy about state involvement in anything at all should always be a basic provision to which all are entitled, but to which none are obliged to restrict themselves.

In general terms, the idea of the state having a monopoly on what is good for children, or what is a fair education has no more basis in principle than private education. We only accept it because it has become the norm. The one thing that competition and choice bring is accountability: if the state schools are shite then people don't send their children there, at least if there are cost effective independent alternatives.

[Law Stud]

If a parent wants to teach their child "supplementary to a base curriculum", then they can do that in their own time. But I believe in achieving as much equality as possible. No child should be hindered or unfairly privileged because of the situation of their parents. I think this is one area where it is appropriate for the state to take control. What parents do with their children in their own time is their problem, but when it comes to school, everyone deserves a fair shot. As I said in a previous post, it is impossible to get truly equal education, too many variables, but we should try and get as close as possible.

So it's ok for a parent to indoctrinate their children with religious fundamentalism?

[Growl3th]

No child should be hindered or unfairly privileged because of the situation of their parents.

In what possible way is a child hindered or unfairly privileged by going to a faith school? And why shouldn't people of faith have the same rights as people of no faith to have their children taught in accordance with their beliefs? They do pay taxes as well.

[Swampy]

I can see why some parents might want their child to be educated in a faith based environment, so I'm generally reluctant to go for an all-out ban (choice in education is a fundamentally good thing), but certainly any school funded in whole or part by state should be secular.

I agree totally with this. A ban would be illiberal. But state schooling should not favour any one sect over another. In Scotland the CoS is given massive preference in the so-called "non-denominational" arena - or at least it did when I was in school - while the RCC also has its own schools. This is a historical relic from the time when all education was parochial. It's time to take it out back and shoot it, and switch to teaching based on evidence and reason.

[xbl]

So it's ok for a parent to indoctrinate their children with religious fundamentalism?

Obviously I don't agree with that, but we can't control the way people think and act in their own homes (with the obvious exceptions). However, when it comes to education, this is something that we CAN do something about.

Why is the state any better an arbiter as to what can and cannot be taught supplementary to a basic curriculum within the confines of school education? Further, as long as the schools are satisfying the minimum curricular requirements, why shouldn't they have the freedom to teach supplementary material subject to the acquiescence of the parents?

Fairness. I think its a simple enough concept to grasp.

In what possible way is a child hindered or unfairly privileged by going to a faith school? And why shouldn't people of faith have the same rights as people of no faith to have their children taught in accordance with their beliefs? They do pay taxes as well.

God.

[Ad Lib]

I agree totally with this. A ban would be illiberal. But state schooling should not favour any one sect over another. In Scotland the CoS is given massive preference in the so-called "non-denominational" arena - or at least it did when I was in school - while the RCC also has its own schools. This is a historical relic from the time when all education was parochial. It's time to take it out back and shoot it, and switch to teaching based on evidence and reason.

Absolutely. Spot on.

[Swampy]

Ah. So you would put money before the long term welfare of children? If some rich guy came in and set up a Catholic school that was subtly teaching religious fundamentalism, that would be fine? Indoctrinating kids into religious fundamentalism is fine, just so long as it isn't state funded? I don't think so. That is not fair on the kids.

But the supposition that the state is the only arbiter of what children should be taught isn't fair, either.

FWIW I regard indoctrinating a child into a faith as a form of emotional and mental abuse, but I can't square that circle around stopping the state from having a monopoly that could be even more damaging in a different way. Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part but I regard secular state schooling with private alternatives as the least evil of the options.

[Swampy]

In what possible way is a child hindered or unfairly privileged by going to a faith school? And why shouldn't people of faith have the same rights as people of no faith to have their children taught in accordance with their beliefs? They do pay taxes as well.

Children are indoctrinated with ludicrous beliefs that they are too young to resist when they go to faith school. For a very young child, "Don't run out into the road, it's dangerous" and "Be good or you'll spend eternity in a lake of fire" are not qualitatively different: they cannot process the latter as a metaphor, or take a skeptical view of it. Plus faith schools, by virtue of the name, tend to prize at least in some lessons faith and dogma over reason and experience, which is a completely backwards way to educate someone.

I would like to raise my child to worship Baal. Will there be a school for me? What about the Scientologists? The Mormons? The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Surely these people pay taxes as well?

Why draw the line with schooling? Surely "people of faith" have the right to be judged by their own legal systems? Jews and Christians who read the Old Testament will be able to own slaves and stone people for adultery. Muslims can impose severe penalties - ranging up to death - for apostasy. After all, they pay their taxes!

[Growl3th]

God.

What about Him?

[Swampy]

7000 eh? Does that include the 'Protestant in everything but name' "non-denomination" schools in this country?

Yes, I was just reading this thinking the same. 7,000 eh?

Why the Protestant sky fairy schools are excluded from this moniker I have no idea.

Now, now. In my "non-denominational" high school we had CoS and Episcopalian ministers speak at assembley. Diversity r us!

I agree, in seriousness. It is ridiculous how priveleged a position certain sects enjoy within a supposedly non-denom system. It's an open secret but it's one that nobody will challenge.