07-14-2008, 12:06 PM
Thank you, Shadow. I do enjoy a post that makes me think and, whereas when I read your response last evening I thought I'd already said what I wanted to say, I have been awake for several hours overnight considering what you wrote. There are actually a number of points in your message with which I would want to take issue, but I hope it will prove more productive if I try to broaden the discussion a little.
Schools are, fundamentally, places of learning. Were it not for the fact that there is an overcrowded prescriptive curriculum in place in British schools and a finite number of hours in which to "deliver" this curriculum all areas of knowledge would be vying for attention. As a society we make choices about areas of learning we feel are most important. The National Curricula in the UK (no such thing as "a National Curriculum" since each country in the Kingdom has its own!) attempt to define the "knowledge, skills and understanding" required of pupils at each key stage of their school careers. In the main these deal with rational and empirical ideas. Even the arts, which stray into the affective, are taught mainly through the exploration of techniques and skill development. Religious education is, I believe, a legitimate area of academic study, insofar as it looks at the ways that beliefs shape individuals, families and societies.
Because schools have not always been exclusively funded through the taxation system we have a legacy of parties interested in the financial management of schools in the UK. By far the largest group of these parties are churches. In practice this has, until recently, meant almost exclusively the Church of England, although many towns will still have their Catholic schools. A smaller number of Jewish schools also fell under this funding system. No doubt mostly altruistic in nature church schools have performed an invaluable job in providing education for children who would otherwise have undoubtedly gone without. There has been a price, though, and that has been to accept that the churches will have freedom to indoctrinate children who, by definition, are of impressionable age.
Unlike schools, churches are organisations of institutionalised superstition. They do not deal fundamentally with rational truths, proven through research and observation. The domain of the church is faith, a belief in things that have never been proven and are almost certainly unlikely ever to pass the requirements of empirical research. In fact faith is frequently blind to the scientifically provable. The controversies in the USA concerning creationist ideas and the absurd notion of "intelligent design" are recent examples of the kind of muddle we can find ourselves in if we follow blindly the pope and the pastor.
What is missing in most of our schools is not the awe and wonder associated with religious belief, but rather an understanding of ideas. This void tends to become filled with belief, theory and, of course, superstition. One of the things the French do have in their schools, which I think is mostly missing here, is a study of philosophy, an academic appreciation of the development of ideas and the associated skills required to explore and present contrary points of view. In over thirty years of going into schools as an adult I can probably count on the fingers of one finger the number of times I have been asked, "Why are we doing this?" by a pupil. Asking that question in a secondary school is still more likely to earn a detention than a serious answer! What an indictment of our education system! The unquestioning obedience demanded by the twin tyrannies of the church and national service have long afflicted our education system, long after both have ceased to affect the daily lives of most of us. Just in case it appears otherwise, I do believe there should be opportunities for free association of pupils in schools for them to exercise the imagination and indulge in the rituals and games of childhood. All work and no play etc.
What is clear is that society is changing. We live and work in environments where people we rub alongside every day have experienced a wider variety of life experiences and upbringings than has been the case for many years, possibly ever. The privilege allowed the churches in being able to perpetuate their doctrines to school children is clearly unfair if that access is allowed only to the major Christian and Jewish players. Fairness demands that the game is played on a level playing field. I guess the choice has been either to separate church and education completely or allow a free-for-all. It doesn't take much imagination to see that governments interested in keeping a lid on spending would not take on willingly the financial commitments implicit in a wholly secular and rational education system. The only other "fair" option would be to open access to schools to all interested parties, which is what is happening.
I was disturbed by you interpreting part of my last message as meaning that I favour a "ban" on religious teaching and practice. I see it differently. Religious belief quite rightly should belong in the domain of the individual and the family. Religious instruction belongs in the churches, mosques, temples and synagogues. Schools should be havens of rational thinking and study and should offer an alternative to children who otherwise may have access to few alternate ideas about the world. Teachers should be free to help children learn without being required to temper the free exchange of ideas through religious filters. Section 28 was abhorrent, but what we are setting up for future generations of children is, I believe far worse.
I suspect there may not be many schools in the C.I. with over 50% pupils of otherwise ethnic minority origin. On the mainland, where those schools exist (and even in France, which makes much more of a feature of separating religious belief from state education) the pressure put upon, for example, Muslim girls to conform to the current fashions in dress and belief are intolerable. The bullying language and actions I have heard and seen used by boys and girls to enforce conformity is outrageous and absolutely unacceptable. Mostly, the girls cannot fight back and choose the path of least resistance. I don't call that freedom and I don't call that progress.
There may have been a time when it was appropriate for the local vicar to be the chair of governors and to run an assembly on a Tuesday morning, but we need to think more carefully about what this really means. I believe that the only fair option will prove in the longer term to put an end to institutionalised superstition as part of the education system.
As a final thought, I can't help wondering what kids get out of religious influence in schools. I imagine that, unless they have a strong family-based allegiance to a religious doctrine, most children come out of KS2 with a mixture of very confused ideas about Baby Jesus, Rama and Sita, Father Christmas, Henry VIII, Ronald Macdonald, Harry Potter and, if they are lucky, the odd ancient-Greek myth. There are plenty of more efficient ways to use valuable curriculum time.
Schools are, fundamentally, places of learning. Were it not for the fact that there is an overcrowded prescriptive curriculum in place in British schools and a finite number of hours in which to "deliver" this curriculum all areas of knowledge would be vying for attention. As a society we make choices about areas of learning we feel are most important. The National Curricula in the UK (no such thing as "a National Curriculum" since each country in the Kingdom has its own!) attempt to define the "knowledge, skills and understanding" required of pupils at each key stage of their school careers. In the main these deal with rational and empirical ideas. Even the arts, which stray into the affective, are taught mainly through the exploration of techniques and skill development. Religious education is, I believe, a legitimate area of academic study, insofar as it looks at the ways that beliefs shape individuals, families and societies.
Because schools have not always been exclusively funded through the taxation system we have a legacy of parties interested in the financial management of schools in the UK. By far the largest group of these parties are churches. In practice this has, until recently, meant almost exclusively the Church of England, although many towns will still have their Catholic schools. A smaller number of Jewish schools also fell under this funding system. No doubt mostly altruistic in nature church schools have performed an invaluable job in providing education for children who would otherwise have undoubtedly gone without. There has been a price, though, and that has been to accept that the churches will have freedom to indoctrinate children who, by definition, are of impressionable age.
Unlike schools, churches are organisations of institutionalised superstition. They do not deal fundamentally with rational truths, proven through research and observation. The domain of the church is faith, a belief in things that have never been proven and are almost certainly unlikely ever to pass the requirements of empirical research. In fact faith is frequently blind to the scientifically provable. The controversies in the USA concerning creationist ideas and the absurd notion of "intelligent design" are recent examples of the kind of muddle we can find ourselves in if we follow blindly the pope and the pastor.
What is missing in most of our schools is not the awe and wonder associated with religious belief, but rather an understanding of ideas. This void tends to become filled with belief, theory and, of course, superstition. One of the things the French do have in their schools, which I think is mostly missing here, is a study of philosophy, an academic appreciation of the development of ideas and the associated skills required to explore and present contrary points of view. In over thirty years of going into schools as an adult I can probably count on the fingers of one finger the number of times I have been asked, "Why are we doing this?" by a pupil. Asking that question in a secondary school is still more likely to earn a detention than a serious answer! What an indictment of our education system! The unquestioning obedience demanded by the twin tyrannies of the church and national service have long afflicted our education system, long after both have ceased to affect the daily lives of most of us. Just in case it appears otherwise, I do believe there should be opportunities for free association of pupils in schools for them to exercise the imagination and indulge in the rituals and games of childhood. All work and no play etc.
What is clear is that society is changing. We live and work in environments where people we rub alongside every day have experienced a wider variety of life experiences and upbringings than has been the case for many years, possibly ever. The privilege allowed the churches in being able to perpetuate their doctrines to school children is clearly unfair if that access is allowed only to the major Christian and Jewish players. Fairness demands that the game is played on a level playing field. I guess the choice has been either to separate church and education completely or allow a free-for-all. It doesn't take much imagination to see that governments interested in keeping a lid on spending would not take on willingly the financial commitments implicit in a wholly secular and rational education system. The only other "fair" option would be to open access to schools to all interested parties, which is what is happening.
I was disturbed by you interpreting part of my last message as meaning that I favour a "ban" on religious teaching and practice. I see it differently. Religious belief quite rightly should belong in the domain of the individual and the family. Religious instruction belongs in the churches, mosques, temples and synagogues. Schools should be havens of rational thinking and study and should offer an alternative to children who otherwise may have access to few alternate ideas about the world. Teachers should be free to help children learn without being required to temper the free exchange of ideas through religious filters. Section 28 was abhorrent, but what we are setting up for future generations of children is, I believe far worse.
I suspect there may not be many schools in the C.I. with over 50% pupils of otherwise ethnic minority origin. On the mainland, where those schools exist (and even in France, which makes much more of a feature of separating religious belief from state education) the pressure put upon, for example, Muslim girls to conform to the current fashions in dress and belief are intolerable. The bullying language and actions I have heard and seen used by boys and girls to enforce conformity is outrageous and absolutely unacceptable. Mostly, the girls cannot fight back and choose the path of least resistance. I don't call that freedom and I don't call that progress.
There may have been a time when it was appropriate for the local vicar to be the chair of governors and to run an assembly on a Tuesday morning, but we need to think more carefully about what this really means. I believe that the only fair option will prove in the longer term to put an end to institutionalised superstition as part of the education system.
As a final thought, I can't help wondering what kids get out of religious influence in schools. I imagine that, unless they have a strong family-based allegiance to a religious doctrine, most children come out of KS2 with a mixture of very confused ideas about Baby Jesus, Rama and Sita, Father Christmas, Henry VIII, Ronald Macdonald, Harry Potter and, if they are lucky, the odd ancient-Greek myth. There are plenty of more efficient ways to use valuable curriculum time.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
.
