To think schools shouldn't teach religion as absolute fact?

[PoesyCherish]

DSD is 6 and is learning about Christianity in school. They're teaching her Jesus is the Son of God rather than "some people believe he is". Everything about the religion is taught as fact. They've also failed to mention anything about any other religion.

AIBU to think they shouldn't be teaching it as absolute fact? How are children supposed to be understanding and tolerant of other people's beliefs if they're taught one world view as fact?

How far away are you suggesting the next nearest school was, that your DP couldn't have picked her up at home and drive her to school, then driven her home again?

@Pengggwn well considering her Mum moved 20 miles away the year before DSD started school, I'd say too far to pick her up and drop her off every day she's due to be at her Mum's - and that's her Mum's take on it, not ours.

But even if that were an option, that still doesn't change the fact a mother would then be completely cut out of her child's education because she wouldn't be able to get to the school for parents evenings, school plays, sports day etc which I hardly think is fair. It's not her mother's fault she is disabled and couldn't drive. I don't think it's unreasonable to want involvement in your child's education.

But I feel that's all going off on a tangent anyway.

The bottom line is if her parents are happy with the school they chose, and the child is happy there, then that’s all that matters isn’t it?

PoesyCherish

Well, I don't disagree. Options are definitely more limited for blended families. It doesn't change the fact that a faith school does what it says on the tin. It is unreasonable to send your child there for practical reasons and then complain about the nature of it.

I only put non-faith schools down as our choices, didn't get any of them. Council offered the only school that had a space and it was a faith one. School promised it didn't indoctrinate. But 'unofficially' they did, the world was made in 7 days, Noah's ark, evolution wasn't true etc. My DC was actually punished for telling the teacher she was factually incorrect. Where was the choice there?

In the 21st century, why is it acceptable for tax payers money to be used to indoctrinate children into religions?

Walkingdeadfangirl

I absolutely agree that you should have had the option to send your child to a non-faith school. 100%.

And the only way to achieve that is to either allow all schools to select by whatever criteria they choose or let none select.

Walkingdeadfangirl

I don't think either of those options is viable.

But it would be viable to say any parent could opt in or out of consideration for places at faith schools.

But it would be viable to say any parent could opt in or out of consideration for places at faith schools Which wouldn't work either because plenty of the country only has one school available.

But its definitely viable to just stop schools using selection as entrance criteria.

Its not ideal but I'd expect it in a religious school. I wasnt happy when DDs non religious school told her god was real but it took a very short conversation to explain that we don't believe it and other people believe in other gods and not that one. Depending on age and understanding you can explain why people used to believe it (not knowing science, needing a way of getting people to conform to rules) etc.

As long as you teach children basic facts from a young age then they'll realise themselves anyway.

What do you expect???

But its definitely viable to just stop schools using selection as entrance criteria.

True. But that would leave parents like me dissatisfied, and would only help parents like you, and I don't think that is reasonable.

Pengggwn It would not help me because I dont want to use faith schools, so even if they weren't selective I wouldn't choose to use one.

And how would it affect you? There are no guarantees anyone can get into any school. So you could still apply to get into the faith school of your choice just as you can now. The only difference would be that you would have an equal/as fair a chance as everybody else getting into it.

Ending selection doesn't get rid of faith schools it just makes them a tiny bit fairer to children.

I think all faith schools of any faith should be thrown into the scrap heap.

Teach and respect all religions but favour none. I can’t understabd why the governments fall over themselves to give money to new faith schools. It’s so decisive

Walkingdeadfangirl

Because a faith school that is not selective on the basis of faith isn't a faith school. Faith is a community, not just a process of transmission of information.

Because a faith school that is not selective on the basis of faith isn't a faith school

And therein lies the problem, you want special treatment for your 'group', at tax payers expense, even if it harms other communities. If the local church that runs the school really is a community then most of the families will go the local church school. It will be a community school, you just wont be able to exclude the people of the local community living near the school.

Its interesting that the actual churches themselves dont exclude people based on their religion, there is NO reason why schools shouldn't be the same.

And in the case of Catholic schools its not even about the children's religion, its only about their parents religion (who wont even be attending the school).

Walkingdeadfangirl

I want the support of my government to educate my child in her faith, as I believe I am entitled to do. I am not going to apologise for that, it is totally fair enough.

Pengggwn, yes its currently legal, but it definitely isn't fair to ask other people to pay for it. One might say immoral. No one is saying you cant teach your child about your faith its the inequality and injustices it creates, which is ironic given its a religion doing it.

There is also the hypocrisy of many people of faith who only support selection for their chosen cause but oppose it for anyone else.

"I want the support of my government to educate my child in her faith, as I believe I am entitled to do. I am not going to apologise for that, it is totally fair enough."

Given that by government support you mean legal exceptions and taxpayer money, it's more "incredibly entitled" than "totally fair enough".

BoomBoomsCousin

It costs no more taxpayer money to educate my child in a Catholic context than it does to educate them in a secular context. In fact, it costs less, because the government does not have to pay for the land, the building or for the portion of the maintenance cost that the Church pays.

I also do not want a legal exception. Anybody is entitled to send their child to a school which educates according to their faith, bar extremists.

Walkingdeadfangirl

See my post to BoomBoom. I am not asking anybody else to pay for it, and everyone has the same right I am asserting here. If they choose not to participate in any faith, that is up to them.

OP. I am with you all the way on this. It disturbs me that religion has got its talons into education. It’s wrong.

Now what can we all do about it?

Pengggwn Its not about the financial cost, its the cost to society. Would you be happy paying taxes for the NHS if you were only allowed to access your closest hospital dependant upon your parents being a member of the Conservative party when you were born?

Or would you support NHS being open to everyone?

Taxes should not be spent to deliberately create inequality. So your privilege has to be balanced with someones else's discrimination. But it seems you dont care about that.

Why do you feel unable to teach your children about your beliefs at home and at church?

Walkingdeadfangirl

If the Conservative party started its own medical trust for Conservatives on its own land, but the government picked up the cost of treatment because it would be the same or more expensive not to, I would have not a single thing to say about it other than bit weird, but their choice.

But it isn't quite the same as that. Education has been passed into law - I have to educate my child (not that I mind but the principle remains). The government has therefore left me considerable discretion in how I choose to do it, and rightly so, in my opinion.

Your last point seems quite silly. Faith doesn't work quite like that. It isn't an "education", as I said before. It is a way of living. Parents who choose a faith-based education want faith to extend into the different spheres of their child's life. They want it to be holistic, as is their right.

Pengggwn Faith schools have legal exceptions for what they can teach (the very subject of the OP!) and to allow them to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring and service provision. You were just arguing that a faith school that can't discriminate for entrance was no faith school at all!

As well as costs to society in terms of poorer provision for other children, the inefficiencies in transportation and the social costs of a more divided society, they also cost the state more because they tend to concentrate service on the children who are less expensive to educate (as do virtually all schools with restrictive selection criteria) thereby pushing costs on to other schools.

BoomBoomsCousin

I will answer you, but in the morning, Boom. I am shattered.