Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 91 of 161 (206413)
05-09-2005 10:00 AM


In the UK Religious Studies is compulsory for 4 years, it is a core subject.
The biggest problem with trying to teach it as a compulsory subject is that many pupils have a very negative conception of what the subject is. For too long Religious Education was seen as nothing more than an extension of Sunday School lessons and that all RE teachers were bible thumpin Christians. Nowadays, since RE has now opened up a little to teach about other faiths, there is some change in attitude. However, if a school is located in a deprived area, the chances are that RE will be a subject that the pupils will not see any value in.
World Faiths are extremely interesting for many adults, but for most 11-16 year olds it isn't their favourite subject.
To illustrate how little the average pupil knows about RE, whenever I tell a class that I am an atheist the usual response is '"how can you be an RE teacher if you are an atheist?"
Brian.

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 92 of 161 (206415)
05-09-2005 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by ProfessorR
05-09-2005 9:50 AM


ProfessorR writes:
I don't think that religious *indoctrination* has its legitimate place in any school, public or private.
I can't argue with that. However, from my perspective, it seems like what a lot of parents want and are willing to pay for - at least in our part of the world (US bible belt).
ProfessorR writes:
I do not think that "broad public tax support base" justifies "making education completely secular" - if the latter means not teaching kids anything about religion
But then where do we draw the line between religous education and indoctrination? I think Brian over in Scotland can do it, but I don't trust the religious right in this country to do it.
From my perspective all forms of 'religious education' are adequately available (and eminently well funded) in the church system. I don't object to a detached treatment of religious doctrines in the public school, only to religious values influencing the currciulum. The problem is to distinquish between those 'teaching *about* religion' and those trying to instill the values and moralities of their particular religion (= brainwashing). It is the insidious agenda of the religious right in this country that forces me to demand a completely secular education for my kids, but I think I would have the same demand in an islamic country.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-09-2005 10:12 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ProfessorR, posted 05-09-2005 9:50 AM ProfessorR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Brian, posted 05-09-2005 10:19 AM EZscience has not replied
 Message 94 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 11:20 AM EZscience has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 93 of 161 (206420)
05-09-2005 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by EZscience
05-09-2005 10:08 AM


Hi EZ,
This is a very good point:
The problem is to distinquish between those 'teaching *about* religion' and those trying to instill the values and moralities of their particular religion
In Scotland we teach ABOUT world religions, normally 5 different faiths. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism. When you are on teaching training it is emphasised that there is to be no conversional teaching. If you are caught promoting one faith as being more reliable or 'truthful' than another, you will be warned about it, and, if it continues, you will be out of a job.
It is a good point because if the educators don't respect all faiths then how do we expect the pupils to respect them?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 10:08 AM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ProfessorR, posted 05-09-2005 11:43 AM Brian has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 94 of 161 (206445)
05-09-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by EZscience
05-09-2005 10:08 AM


Two possible solutions to your concerns are to design a broad curriculum and to design OBJECTIVE as opposed to subjective tests.
But a third alternative is to challenge kids to think. Teach them how to think. Teach them how to test, temper and fine what they believe.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 10:08 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 11:43 AM jar has replied

  
ProfessorR
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 161 (206458)
05-09-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Brian
05-09-2005 10:19 AM


Of course, teaching religion in schools (public or private) should ALWAYS mean teaching "about" religion. Preaching, fostering a particular faith is not a function of a school, but of a church or other strictly religious organization.
EZ, I understand very well what you mean - I live in the Bible Belt of Bible Belts (east-central Mississippi). That really is a horrible problem and I don't know how to fix it. I think the STATE, the government must simply close schools where kids are taught literal 6-day creation in science classes, etc. Parents' will should not be taken into consideration at all, IMHO. That's one element of governmental dictatorship that I would support. After all, the US government will close down a school that teaches its kids that the earth is flat or that all Jews are evil monsters. Pretty much by the same token, it should not give accreditation to schools that substitute narrow-minded literalistic interpretation of certain religious texts for education.
Richard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Brian, posted 05-09-2005 10:19 AM Brian has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 96 of 161 (206459)
05-09-2005 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by jar
05-09-2005 11:20 AM


jar writes:
Two possible solutions to your concerns are to design a broad curriculum and to design OBJECTIVE as opposed to subjective tests.
I would think that everything taught in school in the disciplines of science, philosphy and history should be taught and tested for objectively. Art is a different matter.
But where are we going to make space for this course ?
If you want to broaden the curriculum, what are we going to drop from it to make a place for this religious studies course?
Consider the already pathetic levels of general literacy, math, and science education our public school system is currently achieving. Wouldn't it be better to devote resources to improving the curriculum of these, dare I say, more important subjects?
jar writes:
a third alternative is to challenge kids to think. Teach them how to think.
I don't think you will get an argument there.
Most educators would probably assume a priori that that is what they are doing, regardless of what they teach.
There is just a wide range of variation in the degree to which they are successful. I don't agree theat adding a sacred studies course would necessarily help kids learn to think any better. I would favor more emphasis on logic, deductive reasoning, and creative writing to achieve this goal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 11:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 11:54 AM EZscience has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 161 (206463)
05-09-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by EZscience
05-09-2005 11:43 AM


But where are we going to make space for this course ?
Again, let me ask you to examine the curriculum from St. Paul's School (it's not the only example but it's the one I have knowledge of and access to).
Curriculum can be found here
I believe you will find that the other subjects of concern, history, language, chemistry, mathematics, physics, arts, PE, are adequately covered.
If it can be done there why can't it be done anywhere?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 11:43 AM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 12:14 PM jar has replied

  
Rosie Cotton
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 161 (206464)
05-09-2005 11:55 AM


I think that that Religious Studies should be part of schools because the children need to get an understanding, an unbiased one mind you, of the world's different religions. If some atheist gets offended that religion is being taught, tell them "c'est la vive."

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 11:59 AM Rosie Cotton has replied
 Message 100 by Brian, posted 05-09-2005 12:03 PM Rosie Cotton has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 99 of 161 (206467)
05-09-2005 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Rosie Cotton
05-09-2005 11:55 AM


But those students who are theistic also need to understand the point of view of Agnostics or Atheists.
Would you agree?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Rosie Cotton, posted 05-09-2005 11:55 AM Rosie Cotton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Rosie Cotton, posted 05-09-2005 8:52 PM jar has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 100 of 161 (206469)
05-09-2005 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Rosie Cotton
05-09-2005 11:55 AM


Atheists are more tolerable than any other group!
Hi Rosie,
This is a somewhat strange statement:
If some atheist gets offended that religion is being taught, tell them "c'est la vive."
It isnt atheists who are upset at religions being taught, we are all for studying the world's religions. The peole who get upset are normally various different flavours of Christians,. They get upset because they want only Christianity taught in schools.
The only pupils that I have ever seen withdrawn from religious studies are two children who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I have heard of other Christians asking the school to excuse their children from Religious Studies, but in my direct experience no athiest parent has asked for their child to be withdrawn from RME.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Rosie Cotton, posted 05-09-2005 11:55 AM Rosie Cotton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Rosie Cotton, posted 05-09-2005 8:54 PM Brian has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 101 of 161 (206474)
05-09-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
05-09-2005 11:54 AM


I had a problem with the school's mission statement before I got to the curriculum.
St. Paul's writes:
St. Paul's School's mission is firmly rooted in the belief in the inestimable worth and dignity of each individual and that each individual is made in the image of God.
That, alone, is a sufficient deterrent in my view to prevent me from ever considering sending my kids there.
Also here:
ST. Paul's writes:
The founding philosophy of the school called for a "Christian education,"
Sorry, but I don't want any form of "Chrisitan education" for my kids.
I want them to reason and use logical inference effectively, not buy in to some dogmatic belief structure, whether it be overtly promoted or concealed in thinly-veiled subtexts of their course materials.
But that's just me - the atheist, if you hadn't gathered as much.
Now this isn't to say that the school doesn't probably do a good job teaching all the other subjects you mention. But they are also a century-old, well-established school, with likely excellent financial support in a very wealthy state.
Is it reasonable to expect the same depth from a public school with a shoe-string budget in a poorer state? The reason I oppose adding sacred studies in these cases, is they don't seem to have the resources they need to teach (what I consider to be) the important courses as it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 11:54 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 12:22 PM EZscience has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 102 of 161 (206475)
05-09-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by EZscience
05-09-2005 12:14 PM


Did you read through the curriculum?
Also, you seem to be switching rapidly between objections.
So far you've presented three:
  • You dislike the mission statement. That's certainly valid, but has nothing to do with the curriculum. The Mission Statement is for St. Paul's. You may well and rightly disagree with it. A different school would have a different Mission Statement.
  • There's not enough hours in the day. Well, the fact that ST. Paul's can fit Sacred Studies in and still do an excellent job of teaching the other subjects proves that it's not an impossible task to fit it all in, so that, I believe is refuted.
  • It would cost too much. That is a valid economic question. It is NOT cheap. But we as a people need to decide how much educating the populus is worth. Cost is an obstacle to be overcome.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 12:14 PM EZscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 1:18 PM jar has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 103 of 161 (206490)
05-09-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by jar
05-09-2005 12:22 PM


Yes, but I am still going through it.
I finished the sections on religious studies and biology.
Couldn't help but notice the word 'evolution' is never mentioned.
Do they want to de-empahsize that this is taught, or is it not taught?
jar writes:
you seem to be switching rapidly between objections.
True, because I have many.
jar writes:
the fact that ST. Paul's can fit Sacred Studies in and still do an excellent job of teaching the other subjects proves that it's not an impossible task to fit it all in
No, I wouldn't say that it is impossible.
But I am not yet convinced that the level of 'excellence' in education that you claim for this school is in fact the case.
jar writes:
Cost is an obstacle to be overcome.
True enough. But given a limited pool of resources for public schools, I would rather see better allocations, to science, math, English and history, than to see a slice cut out of the pie for religious studies. But then I obviously don't place the value on religion that others do.
By the way, isn't St. Paul's a *private* school.
Sure looks like one, although they don't say so explicitly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 12:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 05-09-2005 1:41 PM EZscience has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 104 of 161 (206500)
05-09-2005 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mick
05-08-2005 6:53 PM


Re: A question for exeryone who responded so far
quote:
General Krull,
do you have to teach that stuff?
Mick
Well I'm not a teacher anymore but....
Religious Education should be taught by a someone who is a expert in that area (I was an Economics and IT Teacher).
however they can be rare on the ground, so generally a teacher who is an expert in a different area may do it (Generally a history teacher in my experience).
I did it for a bit but frankly was never that interested. I used to get people to come in and talk about their beliefs or I'd take the kids to a church. Many of the children used to give talks about their own beliefs and that could be quite eye-opening (Hey YOU have Jesus too!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mick, posted 05-08-2005 6:53 PM mick has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 105 of 161 (206502)
05-09-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by EZscience
05-09-2005 1:18 PM


Yes, St. Paul's is a Private School.
Yes, evolution was most certainly taught when I was there, which was 40+ years ago I must admit. In fact, the Creation Myths from Genesis only came up in some of our bull sessions. I would certainly expect that it's still taught since the TOE is accepted by the Episcopal Church as the best explanation of evolution available so far. My guess is that the ommission of any mention is simply the fact that it's a given rather than any attempt to conceal.
As to cost and other subjects, I don't see it as limiting one or the other. We need to do a better job in ALL areas of education.
But I am not yet convinced that the level of 'excellence' in education that you claim for this school is in fact the case.
But I'm not holding St. Paul's up as "a level of Excellence" but rather as a minimum goal to strive for. It is not the ultimate, but rather a minimal acceptable level.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by EZscience, posted 05-09-2005 1:18 PM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by mick, posted 05-09-2005 7:40 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024