Faith Schools: Why are they unsuitable for religious education?

July 27th, 2006 - 15:18 | 16 comments

There are good reasons to think that any faith school, be it Christian, Muslim or even humanist (if such a thing existed), would fail to provide a suitable environment for children to make informed and fair decisions about religious belief. Some existing Foundation schools make no pretense at impartial religious education. The Emmanuel Schools Foundation, set up by millionaire evangelist Peter Vardy, goes so far as to teach creationism. I think everybody reasonable can agree this is clearly wrong. The objections must be aimed at the concept of a faith school which claims to be impartial and open to the idea of other faiths.

Faith schools would only employ teachers of the school’s particular faith. It is not disputed that teachers are powerful role-models, and children surrounded by teachers with identical beliefs would undoubtedly be influenced in that direction. While it is unreasonable to expect teachers to have no beliefs, a non-specific-faith school would offer teachers with differing viewpoints, so the influence would clearly be much reduced. As much as we may wish otherwise, there will also be strong influence from parents who have sent their children to a particular faith school because of their own convictions, and this would create a massive peer-pressure amongst the children hardly conducive to informed thought.

Some claim that it is healthy to teach children a viewpoint and then allow them to become critical of it. This seems to be very much counter to child psychology. Evolution has resulted in children believing and trusting what they are told, at least to a certain extent. Such information was and is necessary for survival - it’s not evolutionarily sound for a child to test for him/herself whether the cliff-edge is a dangerous place to walk. The ideas we pick up in childhood are powerful and difficult to reject. A common argument I’ve read is that that people can and have changed faiths after leaving faith schools, so what’s the problem with faith schools? But leaving a religion in such circumstances is hardly an easy process. Deciding to disagree with everybody around you is not something done lightly, and in many cases results in strong feelings of guilt and self-loathing. There are atheists who, despite having rejected the notions of any religion, still shudder at the concept of hell, so great is the influence of childhood indoctrination. It is also argued that many children will be subject to religious instruction at home, and this is undoubtedly true, but the purpose of state-funded education is not to simply obey parental wishes. The Humanist Philosophers again: “it should not be the task of educational institutions to make it more difficult for people to make up their own minds about the truth or falsity of religious beliefs.”

Even though the concept of an inclusive faith school has its problems, there are serious reasons to be concerned as to whether such inclusive schools would ever practically exist.

The 2001 Archbishops’ Council report remit was “to review the achievements of Church of England schools and to make proposals for their future development”.

The Church today still wishes to offer education for its own sake as a reflection of God’s love for humanity. But the justification for retaining and aspiring to extend its provision, as recommended in this report, cannot be simply this, when the state is willing to provide as never before and when there are so many calls on the Church’s limited resources. It is, and must be, because that engagement with children and young people in schools will, in the words of the late Lord Runcie when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, enable the Church to:

Nourish those of the faith;

Encourage those of other faiths;

Challenge those who have no faith.

As well as being ambiguous - ‘nourish’, ‘encourage’ and ‘challenge’ are all extremely broad terms - there is a clear imbalance in the list. If the Church wishes to provide for the autonomy of children it cannot be so skewed toward faith. The report also recommends, as a minimum ethos, that schools should:

ensure that the school is led by a headteacher who is committed, with the help of staff, to establish and maintain the Christian character of the school in its day to day activities and in the curriculum;
engage meaningfully in a real act of Christian worship every day;
offer a school life that incorporates the values of the Christian faith…[this refers to:

In particular, it will be reflected in the everyday life of the school, quietly respectful of the beliefs of others and of other faiths, but confident in its own faith. Church schools will not actively seek to convert children from the faith of their parents, but pupils will experience what it is to live in a community that celebrates the Christian faith; to work within a framework of discipline and yet to be confident of forgiveness; to begin to share the Christian’s hope and the Christian experience that the greatest power in life and beyond it is selfless love.
ensure that religious education is given at least 5 per cent of school time and that the character and quality of religious education are a particular concern of the headteacher and the governing body;
observe the major Christian festivals and in schools in which other faiths are present ensure that those faiths are able and encouraged to mark their major festivals with integrity;
maintain and develop an active and affirming relationship with a parish church;
proclaim that it is a Church of England school on its external signboard and on its stationery and make appropriate use of Christian symbols
inside and outside the school.

Even though it is claimed there will be no direct attempt to convert, the 'values of the Christian faith' statement suggests that pupils will come to Christianity as a result of being in a Christian environment. While not overtly evangelical, expressing it as an aim in this way suggests that open and informed education is not the primary goal of the school.

Church of England Bishops recently tabled an amendment to the Education Bill asking for the removal of the ban on discrimination in employment of non-teaching staff by reason of the staff’s “religious opinions or of [their] attending or omitting to attend religious worship”. If the school will not even hire non-Christians as staff, is it reasonable to expect fair treatment to non-Christian students? The General Secretary of the Church of England Board of Education said: “the Church intends that its schools offer distinctively Christian education and are open and inclusive of all who seek such education”. That’s very different from being inclusive of all.

While a benign interpretation of all these statements is possible, it’s something of a stretch. It’s easy to see why a Christian school would want to specify the above, but it would take heroic effort for it not to turn into indoctrination, especially if all of the staff genuinely believe that all the children should be Christian. There is no suggestion that non-Christians would have the option to abstain from prayer, for example. The report even suggests that Church schools be ‘quietly respectful of the beliefs of others and of other faiths, but confident in its own faith’. It is far from clear what form this would take. It is easy to get the impression that the Church is eager to take a privileged position when it comes to influencing the beliefs of students. While not necessarily typical, there have been examples of Church schools overtly discriminating against non-Christian pupils, one justifying its stance with the above report’s recommendation that “all Church schools must be distinctively and recognizably Christian
institutions”.

I’m not suggesting any insidious plot amongst the religious to indoctrinate children; the vast majority of the time, the intentions are honourable. But is it reasonable to expect people utterly convinced of one viewpoint to provide a truly balanced environment in which children can be autonomous? The Christian report provides a good insight into the ‘ethos’ behind church schools, and there is no reason to suspect that other religions would be any more likely to provide an impartial, fair environment.

Furthermore, there are strong arguments against the very concept of separating people of different faiths or non-faiths: next post.

#3 of 6

-----

16 Responses to “Faith Schools: Why are they unsuitable for religious education?”

1 Lola Jul 27th, 2006 at 3:28 pm

NB - most faith schools don’t only employ teachers of the faith of the school, it’s usually a bit of a mix
2 Andrew Jul 27th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

Hmm, that’s not what I’d read. I’ll try to find some stats.
3 Lola Jul 27th, 2006 at 4:45 pm

I don’t know what the numbers are like, but in my experience it’s definitely true… particularly at secondary schools, where both ensuring that all subjects are covered and the fact that only RE teachers have to teach religion makes it much less important that the teachers are of the religion.

For example, the RC boys secondary school in my mum’s town has a diverse mix of teachers, although I think the head and deputy head have to be practising.

Primaries are different - often becuase they’re full of teachers whose kids go to the school! Plus there’s more actual teaching of RE by classroom teachers. Although i can confirm there’s a handful of non-RC teachers at the primary school I went to and my mum taught at.

I guess the numbers will be squewed in the sense that there’s a natural selection about it - ie, some people of other faiths and none won’t want to teach at faith schools, but I’m fairly sure that most schools are quite open to it!
4 Nod Jul 27th, 2006 at 5:58 pm

There’s no disputing that parents are responsible for a child until the child is of an age to take responsibility for themselves. If the common practice was for schools to give out guns to 13 year old children to practice the commonly held belief that attempted suicide resulted in a better life lived, then I would be all for sending my children to a school which opted out of this practice. Thats because i dont agree with the commonly held belief, and its within my rights as a parent to decide the future for my child.

Clearly this is an exhaggerated example to emphasise the clear need for something due to the strength of the beliefs to require such seperatism, religion is something that both religious and non-religous people will have a strong belief either way on. What I am trying to illustrate is that I believe that anyone should have the right to send the child to any school i damn well pleased, but if the child protection agency was to decide my decision was neglecting the welfare of the child then I also positively believe they can take me to court. Does that make my opinion clear?

I will confess now to not being religous, instead believing in giving options at every opportunity possible. From my experience extremely religously-brought-up children, often later in life make the concious choice to reflect on their beliefs and choose to reject their parents beliefs or carry on their own beliefs, just as with any other information they have been taught. It is also in the nature of society that these beliefs are passed through family and tradition.

Faith Schools ? So long as its never compulsory i dont have a problem with it… my taxes being spent on catering for all manner of religious groups as per the humanist plan would be in the same book as positive discrimination in my opinion at least.
5 Nod Jul 27th, 2006 at 6:04 pm

errata:

“…school *they* damn well pleased, but if the child protection agency was to decide *their*decision was neglecting the welfare of the child then I also positively believe they can take *them* to court.”
6 Andrew Jul 27th, 2006 at 6:39 pm

Lola - fair enough. Even if it’s true, however, I don’t think that diminishes the point that the environment of a religious school will inevitably discriminate toward its own faith to the detriment of the child’s education.

Nod - all due respect, did you read the first argument? This is about providing children with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to religion, just as you would expect a school to do when it comes to politics, say. You do not own your children and your rights as a parent in no way supercede theirs as individuals. It is immoral to suggest that you get to treat them any way you ‘damned well please’ just because you happen to have spawned them, and I think there’s a strong case that to choose to indoctrinate them into any religion by way of their education is also immoral. Your responsibility, surely, is to bring them up to be capable of independent survival in the modern world. I don’t care that religious belief is traditionally transmitted through family and tradition - you don’t get to force your kids to think any particular way. You *do* get to send them to any school you want if you’re happy to pay for independent education, and although I have issues with this it’s not what we’re discussing. This is state-funded education, and the state’s responsibility in a complex, pluralist society such as ours must be to provide open and clear information on questions of religion so that children can autonomously make decisions. Btw, your objection to your taxes being spent on different religions is *exactly* what the government is planning to do with publicly-funded faith schools.
7 Nod Jul 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pm

To respond and to clarify:

1. “This is about providing children with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to religion, just as you would expect a school to do when it comes to politics, say.”
I agree with this sentiment of your post and comments - thus I did and do not feel I need comment.

2. “You do not own your children and your rights as a parent in no way supercede theirs as individuals. It is immoral to suggest that you get to treat them any way you ‘damned well please’…”
I was quite clear I was talking about the schooling of the child. Raising a child is certainly problematic where religion is concerned - my parents chose a C of E school for me, but chose not to christen or raise me in any religon. However someone who is deeply religous would believe that raising their child in a religious way would be in the child’s best interests - and who are you or I to actively infringe on the parents beliefs, causing them distress, by preventing them from raising their child? Compare the distress to someone telling me i can’t prevent my child taking the gun in my example..

3. “…just because you happen to have spawned them, and I think there’s a strong case that to choose to indoctrinate them into any religion by way of their education is also immoral.”
The parents have the firm belief they have their child’s best interests at heart, and I fail to see how, whilst respecting their beliefs, you can claim that sending their child to a school which happens to focus on faith is immorral, especially when morals themselves are inherently drawn from religion. (You and i know we disagree on this point : I believe there is no universal right or wrong : just infinite shades of grey.)

4. “Your responsibility, surely, is to bring them up to be capable of independent survival in the modern world. I don’t care that religious belief is traditionally transmitted through family and tradition - you don’t get to force your kids to think any particular way.”
You are assuming faith schools fail to teach the children about any other religion. You also seem to think children will not have exposure to, and awareness of people who aren’t religious outside of school, let alone inside school? I fail to see a problem in faith schools if they uphold the value of teaching. The world is a multicultural diverse place to which no child is sheltered or unaware, and for a faith school not to have provided for the child to live in such a place would be a failure in one of its primary purposes. If a particular faith school was to fail in this regard then you and I would agree that this particular faith school requires more varied thought, but I have hope that the schools will make the more learned choice.

5. “You *do* get to send them to any school you want if you’re happy to pay for independent education, and although I have issues with this it’s not what we’re discussing.”
See now I do see the ability to “send [your children] to any school you want” as the MOST important issue here, and deserving of discussion! However its the public need triggering the public provision of services that highlights our difference of opinions, on the single issue of free choice we are agreed. My thinking is that having free choice and having to pay for free choice aren’t inherently compatible…

6. “This is state-funded education, and the state’s responsibility in a complex, pluralist society such as ours must be to provide open and clear information on questions of religion so that children can autonomously make decisions.”
A significant need for a provision of a faith school in an area should result in the establishment of a publicly funded school to provide for the communities needs. I presume there has to be some working guidelines for the establishment and funding of publicly funded faith schools, otherwise “Nod’s Public School” adopting the faith of “Provision of a High Income” would be doing rather well with its single teacher and pupil (coincidentally one and the same).

I think having the ability to send your kid to any school should always be within your right - regardless of whether its a faith school or not.

7. “Btw, your objection to your taxes being spent on different religions is *exactly* what the government is planning to do with publicly-funded faith schools.”
Well, I’d point out that my taxes could easily be going to a non-faith based school, and equally the taxes, of people whose children are going to these faith schools, could also be going to either one. It’s called public funding for a reason and I am definately not arguing that my taxes should not be spent on teaching on Religious Education - It clearly did a good job of “providing children with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to religion” when we were at school.

The reason I mentioned “my taxes” was confusingly in response to the presentation of the humanist proposal as in my opinion its always going to be more expensive and generally discriminatory / segregative to have to seperate classes or assemblies into faith groups for prayer / study - such as is presented by the humanist proposal.

I see no problem with establishing public faith schools, with the caveat that there is a public need for the school, and as long as the child is taught to be respectful of other schools of thought, such as other religions. A failure on either of these two points would result in my preffering the old/current system, and still strongly disliking the humanist proposals.
8 Nod Jul 28th, 2006 at 4:53 pm

I really had intended to spell check that monster of a comment. Anyway im done commenting on the topic, but will read your evisceration of my comment with great interest
9 Andrew Jul 28th, 2006 at 6:02 pm

Oh, a fisking we will go…

1. “I was quite clear I was talking about the schooling of the child. Raising a child is certainly problematic where religion is concerned - my parents chose a C of E school for me, but chose not to christen or raise me in any religon. However someone who is deeply religous would believe that raising their child in a religious way would be in the child’s best interests - and who are you or I to actively infringe on the parents beliefs, causing them distress, by preventing them from raising their child? Compare the distress to someone telling me i can’t prevent my child taking the gun in my example..”

The beliefs of the parent are inconsequential compared to the rights of the child. It is not reasonable to say that ‘distress’ to parents outweighs the rights of their child to make their own decisions. If the parent was demanding their child be taught creationism and no evolution in a public school, would you agree with that? I actually think that most parents would agree that children should make their own decisions when it comes to their faith or non-faith. Even if you’re devout, surely it’s better for your child to actively come to Christ (say) than to simply never be shown any other options.

2. “The parents have the firm belief they have their child’s best interests at heart, and I fail to see how, whilst respecting their beliefs, you can claim that sending their child to a school which happens to focus on faith is immorral, especially when morals themselves are inherently drawn from religion. (You and i know we disagree on this point : I believe there is no universal right or wrong : just infinite shades of grey.)”

I don’t think I necessarily believe in moral absolutes, but that’s entirely separate from the idea that morals are drawn from religion, which is clearly nonsense (as you well know). Neither you or I are religious - do we go around stealing from shops and killing people who annoy us? We do not, but not because we thinking of the ten commandments. It’s horrific to say that morals cannot exist without religion. See this if you need convincing.

It is immoral because the child has the right to a free and informed religious education. Would you consider it completely ok to bring a child up as a Liberal Democrat, or a strong adherent of capitalism? This is closely linked to the idea of whether faith schools can provide such an fair education, whch is coming up next.

3. “You are assuming faith schools fail to teach the children about any other religion. You also seem to think children will not have exposure to, and awareness of people who aren’t religious outside of school, let alone inside school? I fail to see a problem in faith schools if they uphold the value of teaching. The world is a multicultural diverse place to which no child is sheltered or unaware, and for a faith school not to have provided for the child to live in such a place would be a failure in one of its primary purposes. If a particular faith school was to fail in this regard then you and I would agree that this particular faith school requires more varied thought, but I have hope that the schools will make the more learned choice.”

The very post you’re commenting on (and the following) demonstrate exactly why I don’t think faith schools are capable, in theory or (particularly) in practice of providing a reasonable and informed religious education. I’d like to hear arguments against the points I raise, rather than straw men

4. “See now I do see the ability to “send [your children] to any school you want” as the MOST important issue here, and deserving of discussion! However its the public need triggering the public provision of services that highlights our difference of opinions, on the single issue of free choice we are agreed. My thinking is that having free choice and having to pay for free choice aren’t inherently compatible…”

I think your desire for choice in schooling is overriding the big picture, here. Parents would still be able to choose a school for their child based on teaching standards or whatever other criteria they liked. But the problems of separating children by their religion are detailed in my numerous posts, and that’s why I think every publicly-funded school should be open to everybody, with a reasonable and fair standard of religious education that everybody reasonable can agree on.

5. “A significant need for a provision of a faith school in an area should result in the establishment of a publicly funded school to provide for the communities needs. I presume there has to be some working guidelines for the establishment and funding of publicly funded faith schools, otherwise “Nod’s Public School” adopting the faith of “Provision of a High Income” would be doing rather well with its single teacher and pupil (coincidentally one and the same).

I think having the ability to send your kid to any school should always be within your right - regardless of whether its a faith school or not.”

My argument is that there is no ‘need for a provision of a faith school in an area’. I’ve argued why I think they are inherently flawed. In the alternative there would be all sorts of different schools - sports academies, language colleges etc. - with all types of attractions / disadvantages. We are not faced with a choice between faith schools or a mass of identical cookie-cutter schools.

I know you’re very concerned about individual rights, but you seem to always forget the child’s rights. By sending children to faith schools, as it stands currently, the parents are denying their children the right to an fair, informed education that allows them to behave autonomously.

6. “Well, I’d point out that my taxes could easily be going to a non-faith based school, and equally the taxes, of people whose children are going to these faith schools, could also be going to either one. It’s called public funding for a reason and I am definately not arguing that my taxes should not be spent on teaching on Religious Education - It clearly did a good job of “providing children with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to religion” when we were at school.

The reason I mentioned “my taxes” was confusingly in response to the presentation of the humanist proposal as in my opinion its always going to be more expensive and generally discriminatory / segregative to have to seperate classes or assemblies into faith groups for prayer / study - such as is presented by the humanist proposal.

I see no problem with establishing public faith schools, with the caveat that there is a public need for the school, and as long as the child is taught to be respectful of other schools of thought, such as other religions. A failure on either of these two points would result in my preffering the old/current system, and still strongly disliking the humanist proposals.”

Although I’d disagree and say that our religious education was utter crap, that’s irrelevant.

It’s discriminatory / segregative to have separate groups for religion? You realise that the alternative is completely different schools, right? It’s better to have all Christians in one place and all Muslims in another than to have a school which mixes the two together but gives each group a space to practice its own religion? This is pretty much what our (state-funded) sixth-form college was like - the christian union, whatever the Muslim group was called etc. all happened extra-curriculum. Was that awfully unfair? I don’t see how it would be any more expensive, either, given that by your standards faith schools would have to provide exactly the same thing.

That there is a public need for state-funded education is the very highest priority in this discussion - nobody is disputing that. I have argued in the various posts why I think faith schools would do a unsatisfactory job of educating children when it comes to religious belief, and if you have disagreements with my arguments I’d like to hear them.
10 Nod Aug 2nd, 2006 at 5:14 pm

I am not sure that faith schools will give a worse religious education - is there anything other than conjecture or opinion, such as only faith school raised children going on to commit religous genocide?

What more RE would you have preffered, it at least exposed us to varying beliefs, religions and practices, and taught us to be respectful of the views around us? There is a clear problem of assigning balanced amounts of time to the subjects in the curriculum…

“…denying their children the right to an fair, informed education that allows them to behave autonomously.”
I certainly understand your thoughts on parents vs childs rights, there are obviously competence issues inherent in these relationships, and before the child is able to think about these decisions the child’s welfare has to be the state and parent’s responsibility. Its unfortunate that religions dont give children born into the respective religion the right not to be brought into the religion until the child is of a competent age, but many parents do this anyway. As you say, to actively choose to turn to the religion would be the greater choice - rather than have it as the assumed thought. For the few parents that don’t, the children often challenge these beliefs as they become older as you have mentioned in your posts. I guess the only way to not assist parents is to remove public funding from all faith schools… something labour’s policy is the opposite.

Moral from the latin moralis from mos meaning “custom”. I guess i was saying the thought of black and white morals derive from religion. You know i do not believe that morals are exclusive to religion, but there is no arguing that religion helped define the levels of socially acceptability and hence morality. Promiscuity was popular with the romans until that bloody christianity took over Religion has a lot to answer for
11 Andrew Aug 2nd, 2006 at 5:51 pm

I think there is reason to believe that faith schools would be unsuitable for a responsile religious education. Even in a theoretical school in which the teachers are perfectly unbiased, there will be large numbers of children given religious instruction by their parents. Peer pressure is incredibly powerful, and we can imagine what would happen to children who stood out from the crowd in this respect. Even if the children keep their thoughts to themselves, there are valid psychological reasons that faking obedience itself exerts an influence, aside from being extremely unfair to the child. There’s also the very strong influence of teachers, who necessarily become authority figures and often role models for children. I would expect that many faith schools would hire teachers only of their specific religion (there are even requests to remove the prohibition on religious discrimination against non-teaching staff). In any case, the senior staff will always be of the specific religion, and when the school is then run according to the ways of the religion it’s unreasonable to expect children not to be influenced. Plus, there’s the massive anomaly of school assemblies which contain acts of worship - no faith school is going to remove these, and it’s actually up to parents to opt their children out.

In practice the situation is far worse. As detailed above, reading over the plans for Christian faith schools gives the clear impression that the aim is to produce Christians. That’s entirely what you’d expect - people who genuinely think that children should be raised as Christians are going to be incapable of creating unbiased schools. And Christianity is relatively benign in this regard - can you imagine a truly unbiased Muslim school? Or a Jehovah’s Witness school?

Some children do indeed challenge their beliefs as they get older, but many do not. Those who do often suffer greatly - it’s far from easy to reject what everybody around you thinks is true. You and I rejected organised religion, but our families aren’t religious - I can’t imagine how difficult it would be for somebody under that kind of pressure at home as well as school. Also, even if you’re right and plenty of children did question their beliefs it’s still unfair on them to start with, and the autonomy argument says that’s not an appropriate way to treat somebody.

I think that the humanist approach does a reasonable job. There would be some state-funding of religious instruction, but on a purely optional basis and entirely extra-curricular. Compared to Labour’s suggested system it’s incredibly minor. The other way not to assist parents, of course, would be to remove faith from all publicly-funded schools entirely, but this simply isn’t practical (or, it pains me to say, reasonable).

I’d pick you up on linking social acceptability and morality. If it’s socially acceptable to stone a woman to death for adultery, does that make it morally acceptable? I’d also say that it was the Enlightenment that has driven most of the characteristically religious ideas from society, leaving us with the shared human values we generally have (in this country) today - it’s against the law to kill somebody because that’s clearly wrong, not because the Bible says so; it’s no longer illegal to be a homosexual because there’s no reason to think it should be that makes any sense. I think that reason and compassion have defined the latter part of 20th century society, not religion. As for promiscuity - witness the 70s
12 Nod Aug 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 pm

im not sure where i am on this topic anymore - so your evil plan worked
im against publicly funded faith schools on the principle that children are inevitably exposed to a doctrine. Im not in the belief that a faith school automatically means they couldn’t teach r.e. as good if not better than other schools. Im definately against giving schools the authority to tweak the national curriculum.

i think the humanist approach lacks the sublties which could make it a good idea (in my book anyway) - if religious teaching is extra curricular are they:
a) saying no more r.e. in general for students - clearly not helpful… exposure to all cultures and customs is important to make you aware of the world around you… if it was done in a more scientific manner like in geography (why not!) perhaps it’d be easier on the humanists ears.
b) saying it has no place in schools - thus why the heck not leave it to the church.. if the shoe fits… why reinvent the wheel… yada yada…
13 Andrew Aug 2nd, 2006 at 10:25 pm

You don’t think that being surrounded by people/children all of one religion would affect your religious education?

Ah, now I see why you’re anti the humanist proposals! Possibly my fault - maybe I haven’t been clear enough on the difference between religious education and religious instruction. Religious education is overhauled from the current system but is a very much part of the curriculum. Children are taught about a wide range of faiths (and non-faiths) in an unbiased manner (or at least as much as that is possible). Religious instruction is the process of teaching a faith as true, with the intention that the child accept it as true. It’s this would be entirely extra-curricular.
14 nod Aug 2nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm

education not instruction
well, i didnt present all my arguments against the humanist proposals i kind of guessed they cant be talking about scrapping r.e. but - why instruct on faith at all - that is the churches job? And is WWNAS (what would nods accountant say) a valid religion for public funding of extra curricular instruction? what is? etc..
15 Andrew Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:38 pm

Here’s how the BHA put it:

We also suggest provision for additional optional faith-based religious instruction classes on school premises, subject to demand. These confessional classes could be after school hours or as part of an options system (which should be outside the core curriculum, and could include options on the humanist worldview and/or philosophy and ethics), as long as they did not interfere with students’ educational entitlements, and could be taught by visiting religious teachers or clerics. Having such classes on school premises would improve relationships with some groups of parents and permit proper vetting, regulation and inspection, so that they conformed to minimum educational and other standards

I can certainly see the arguments against. I do think this would prevent a fair number of people from sending their children to an independent faith-school, which I’d say is better for the child, for not that much cost. And, quite frankly, I’d rather religious instruction happened under a controlled environment like a school than in a church. I don’t know how you’d decide on standards, but if some extremist teacher started telling people that all gay people were evil, for example, he’d quickly be removed from a school.
16 Andrew Aug 2nd, 2006 at 11:43 pm

Regarding your point as to what are valid religions - I brought that up on the alternative approach page. I don’t know how you’d even start, to be honest, but that’s a problem that has to be faced regardless of education policy, and I guess is handled by a different branch of government.

-----

Commenting Policy: Thoughts, observations, argument, debate and all other conversational wonderments are encouraged, but personal attacks or general trolling will result in your comment being deleted and your account/IP banned. If you're nice, however, you get strawberries.