AIBU to think we need more ^inclusive^ education?

[LoveFoolMe]

AIBU to think we need more inclusive education? If children in a multicultural society such as the UK are educated together surely this promotes more tolerance and better mutual understanding.

So these proposals worry me:

Call to end limit on religious free schools

Considering how divisive and rigid religious attitudes can be, I think it's time to bring children from faith schools into mainstream schools and to encourage these children to mix with more diverse cultures.

Secular schools can still provide fact-based religious education in the classroom and would probably teach their students about a greater range of religions than a faith school would. Parents could, of course, provide a more personal approach to religion for their children outside of school hours if they wanted to.

Let's not further segregate our children by religion.

AIBU to think that reducing (rather than increasing) the number of faith schools in the UK would be far better for our children and far better for our society?

There's no pleasing you Jassy!

I'm confused? I haut wasn't sure what the relevance was (except to the original thread topic, I guess...)

It's hard to discuss because people of no faith often don't have a deep understanding of any faith

I think that's pretty debatable (as you've allowed). Very many of the atheists I know are, like myself, formerly people who had faith or were heavily involved in certain religious traditions.

I get depressed when people dismiss religion as having nothing to offer or being wrong therefore having nothing to offer.

I've not seen anyone saying that. Clearly it has much to offer some people, who find great joy and comfort in it. But the question you posed was whether it enables people to be more moral than without religion, and whether therefore religious schools should form part of the state education system.

My argument is that no, there's no evidence that religion enables more moral behaviour than the absence of religion, and that while many people derive great joy, comfort and fulfilment from religion, that's not really an adequate reason to enable one particular religion to occupy such a privileged role in our society and in our education system.

My strong view remains that people without faith behave just as morally and ethically as people without faith, and therefore the idea that faith schools must inherently be more 'moral' (as opposed to simply reflecting the values of a different socioeconomic intake) doesn't follow. And therefore I think the state education system should be informative but neutral on issues of faith to provide a level playing field for all children.

Not that she's impeding human progress of course and it's better for the environment to be a vegetarian or vegan.

Hers may in fact be the more progressive and rational argument! We're all on a spectrum of conservatism to progressiveness. I eat meat but I know it's not really the best option.

Historically most people were religious! Engineers, scientists, medics.....

That doesn't mean they did the things they did because of religion, rather than because they were clever and curious people, any more than the reason I'm good at my job is because I'm a shit-hot knitter. (NB: my job does not involve handcrafts.)

the thing is we do not actually know how morally and ethically people behave without religion because the state and its security apparatus has largely taken over the role of religion as a regulatory force and mediator.
not without great cost - the all seeing, all knowing, all powerful deity in the sky is now replaced by 5/6 million CCTV cameras - but certainly in the UK its all pervasive. theyre everywhere, thats what people put their trust in rather than each other.

the welfare state is funded by taxation not charitable or philanthropic giving, HMRC having large powers to acquire any unpaid monies due - otherwise many wouldnt bother. wasnt that the difference between tax collection in Greece compared to the UK? would people pay their council or income tax even knowing its going to a good cause if it wasnt for that coercion or risk of prison? let alone if contribution was optional. thus we dont know how much is by choice.

millions of people pay their bills and debts on time not for their own honour but so as not to decrease their credit score, that they may be able to obtain further 'credit' later on. because the credit reference agencies will retain your records back 6 years and provide to whoever asks. people and businesses place their trust in that whereas before it was someone to vouch for them.

id understand if someone said a Deity to watch over and punish was now defunct or obsolete within the modern secular society because of technology and huge advancements in surveillance as antimatter said. that smoothes over in many spheres just how individualistic society is, and maybe thats whats needed in modern school classrooms rather than 'what would Jesus do' on a plaque. watched people are good people after all.

I'm more optimistic about people than you are, I think, moonstruck.

Perhaps you are jassy, We intervene to teach a child to behave altruistically and unselfishly- somewhere around the toddler years is when they start to go away from me me me me to some insight into how others feel. some learn that faster than others. Some need constant reinforcement. Some never learn it or feel it but socially we teach them to inhibit their own selfishness. the levels that we teach altruism to are to do with wider culture and our own upbringing. Belief in the NHS and welfare state is deliberately and socially constructed, to the normal Briton it's reasonable, just, fair. Most Western Europeans also have a belief in such institutions even the politically conservative. But To an American it may seem very unjust, very unreasonable, burdensome, etc. So human progress and salvation through reason as the humanist mission statement read that you posted would depend on which human's reasoning. It's very subjective, and those are variations between western liberal minds. Let alone the african mind or the far eastern mind....

www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135

an interesting article about how culture shapes cognition and morality - not the other way around.

I went to a funeral today. (I didn't know him well, no need for condolences)

He was 25. A submariner. The funeral party included his parents, all 4 of his grandparents and his wife.

If I had the slightest inclination to believe in God, that would have knocked it on the head...

Im very sorry to hear that russell, my condolences. it would be crass to continue debating in the face of your grief. i bid everyone goodnight.

As I said, it wasn't any more my grief than yours- I barely knew them. That was not my point. My point was simply that for me this was a horrible tragedy. How could any believer in God as a loving omnipotent father be OK with him letting something like this happen?

Very sorry to hear about the loss of such a young life Bertrand. How sad.

Perhaps some people would take comfort in the belief that this young man is now in a better place.

I'm off to bed too. Goodnight everybody.

, We intervene to teach a child to behave altruistically and unselfishly- somewhere around the toddler years is when they start to go away from me me me me to some insight into how others feel. some learn that faster than others. Some need constant reinforcement. Some never learn it or feel it but socially we teach them to inhibit their own selfishness. the levels that we teach altruism to are to do with wider culture and our own upbringing

I think the interesting question here is how much of altruism / sharing behaviour it taught, and how much is innate (or perhaps the ability to be taught it is innate to a degree that doesn't exist in other species).

It's a really interesting question. From the point that empathy develops, after the toddler years, how much of what we do that is 'moral' is because we are hard wired to derive some fulfilment in making others happier?

I'm neither American nor Western European originally so your comparator was interesting to me - and I agree there is a huge overlay of culture at play in moral limits. And none of us knows the interplay between the innate and the cultural. It's clear that culture can play a massive role in establishing norms for what is deserving of empathy and what is not, and in establishing narratives that override the idea of caring for each other - whether through trauma, or desperate poverty, or teaching.

I found this statement interesting:

So human progress and salvation through reason as the humanist mission statement read that you posted would depend on which human's reasoning

First, what do you mean by 'salvation' in this context?

Second, I think (and this is just me) that the interplay between reason and humanity is important - cherry picking one part of the sentence misrepresents the humanist viewpoint, I think. The reason is the enlightenment idea, that has grown and blossomed, that belief in things, concepts, ideas should be rooted in evidence - and thus a rejection of the supernatural. But humans aren't machines and reason is rightly not the only driver of behaviour - empathy, and our ability to feel love, kindness, compassion and concern for others also drives and influences the way we act.

I feel awful when I hear stories of suffering; I feel compelled to do something about it. I worry about having the right mix of public services to support our society and the people and issues I worry about; I vote accordingly even if HMRC aren't my favourites. I cry watching Call the Midwife and hearing about babies in terrible circumstances today; I resolve to donate my children's clothes and toys to where they can do the most good. These are acts driven as much by empathy than by anything else, and something in our brains is wired to give us a sense of fulfilment when we have acted in a way that benefits others.

I'm not sure I define myself as a humanist; I don't feel the need for a particular label but humanism is a school of thought that offers a counterpoint to the 'more good derives from religion' argument.

.

Great posts - I'll reread them later.

Bertrand is it worth asking why it feels better? Is it culture or innate? Does it matter? Or is it more important to act with your feeling, actively 'keep in touch' with how you're feeling etc. I realise that might sound pretentious but I really think we often don't recognise how or what we're feeling. The Buddhists are brilliant for this!

This is a really interesting evolutionary perspective.

The language in this one seems relevant - it talks about the emotional stake we have in each others' welfare, which supports empathy-based altruism.

And then of course there's the episode of Friends where Phoebe tries to do a truly unselfish act (ie doing something good, without the emotional payoff of feeling good for having done good).

"Bertrand is it worth asking why it feels better? "

It feels better because we are social animals and looking after each other helps the species continue. It's evolutionary.

Jassy Sorry for not making myself clear earlier re my suggestion in answer to your question asking if religions have specifically helped human progress in any way. I meant that the original 19th century schools were often(usually?) started by churches. In general religions encourage education so in that respect they have been supportive of human progress.

It does feel like a concern that religions tend to be conservative and behind the times. Not always and I did give examples of religious practices which have been recently studied and taken up by health professionals (meditation for example). I totally get why people feel religion should have no part in 'the state' given that many people feel religious beliefs are incorrect, but purely out of respect to people of faith for whom religion is a central part of their life it feels 'wrong' to take faith schools away.

To counter the problem of religion holding up legal reforms to things like technological advances and issues such as abortion, I suppose you could say that philosophy and the arts in general don't advance human progress in any specific, measurable way either. But presumably we don't object to specialist music schools or think that the arts in general are less important than science. They're probably needed more in order to make best use of complex new technologies and help people cope with the new pressures of modern living.

I think religions have the advantage over humanism in having evolved many practices/icons/art/ that support the endeavour to live ethically. Perhaps humanism could invent some new ones.

This thread has inspired me to read some humanist literature now. Thank you.

I think religions have the advantage over humanism in having evolved many practices/icons/art/ that support the endeavour to live ethically. Perhaps humanism could invent some new ones

I think where we mainly differ is on whether humans need these external reminders to behave decently.

purely out of respect to people of faith for whom religion is a central part of their life it feels 'wrong' to take faith schools away

But that respect isn't reciprocated? It's not a neutral system for children whose parents aren't religious, or who don't share the majority faith - it's a system in which one belief system is elevated and promoted above all others and none. The privilege of having a faith school, with or without priority admissions, affects children who aren't of that group.

Education should be a central part of every child's life. And the provision of faith schools is way out of proportion to the number of people who attend church regularly. As a first step, we certainly shouldn't be funding more faith schools.

If I were religious, though, I'd wonder what was driving our low levels of church attendance, relative to similar countries with secular education systems. Perhaps faith schools actually put kids off for life - who knows.

I'd also disagree that the arts and philosophy can't further human progress. We are thinking, feeling beings. But I think eg specialist music schools are (a) a pisspoor way of fostering musical talent, especially in the piecemeal and unplanned way they exist in our education system and (b) unacceptable if they prevent children getting a reasonably local education of an equal quality, and particularly if they use musical talent rather than aptitude as a selection criterion, because that's a proxy for class and particularly wealth.

the original 19th century schools were often(usually?) started by churches. In general religions encourage education so in that respect they have been supportive of human progress

hmmm seriously? Where and how did churches get all their money/land/cathedrals/churches/school buildings from. Blackmail, anyone for hell? Even in the 21st century they dont pay tax.

What better way to entrench the churches dominance than only to teach facts that support the churches teachings. Who cares about the actual facts?

What better way to indoctrinate children than to get them all in a room and teach them what the church believes. Child abuse.

How better off education would have been if it hadn't been subverted by religion.

Ooh harsh! Thing is if you believe something, for you it is a fact. Evangelism is for the good of the people you're teaching. If you believe what you're teaching.

Why should your belief that religion is 'wrong' be allowed to determine what someone who is religious teaches? Don't you think that's intolerant.

I agree that the privileges given to Christianity are unfair. It no longer represents Britain as far as I can see, but to take faith schools away from those families who practice a faith seems unkind to me.

I agree that classical music in particular is becoming a privilege of the rich, but specialist music schools admit based on the potential they see and they take very careful note of the opportunities available to their auditionees - how many lessons for how long in a group or privately, etc etc. A specialist music school was a fantastic way to foster my DC's talent. One of them described her decision to go as "the best decision" she "ever made".

It seems like you want to take away all those opportunities that are beneficial for those children who can use them. Travel is a great experience - would you say that no-one should take their children abroad because it's not fair on those children who don't have the opportunity?

Why should your belief that religion is 'wrong' be allowed to determine what someone who is religious teaches? Don't you think that's intolerant.

Why is it intolerant to say 'do not evangelise when you teach' but it isn't intolerant to say 'while being educated, you must be willing to be evangelised to, regardless of whether it conflicts with your own beliefs or lack thereof'?

It's that problem. The teacher evangelising while teaching isn't neutral on others. It has an impact on the recipient. I'd strongly argue that in education, the rights and needs of the recipients of the education should be paramount. Unfortunately we've got this arse about.

I studied music at university and beyond. I maintain that specialist music schools, especially in the piecemeal way we have them, are an incredibly ineffective and inefficient way to foster talent. Maybe ok if you live close enough to one of the tiny pockets where a school that matches your talent exists. But without a more comprehensive national approach, it's always going to be unfair and inefficient, and with the potential to displace local kids from a decent local education.

Travel isn't analogous - the state doesn't have a duty to provide travel for all children.

Why is is intolerant to say 'do not evangelise when you teach'? because parents who have a faith are sending their children to faith schools because they want the child 'to be evangelised to'. It's not a problem for them. So let them be!

specialist music schools....... are an incredibly ineffective and inefficient way to foster talent ! Worked for my DC who is now at a conservatoire. S/he already gives back some of her good fortune by voluntarily helping a music group btw. The specialist pupils at her school are considered to be an asset to that school as they are usually more than averagely driven and/ore energetic. And it takes some pupils who would otherwise have gone to a junior conservatoire had they been able to afford it so its demographic is mixed.

Does the state have a duty to provide an education in religious studies/ethics/morals? (I know that RS is compulsory.) Is this justifiable? If it is, how about taking RS out of schools, shortening the hours and making it compulsory for pupils to attend somewhere else certified to provide RS? That would give parents more choice about RS - in theory anyway. I know all schools have an ethos so there is no thing as a completely morally 'neutral' school but just a thought experiment.

Why is is intolerant to say 'do not evangelise when you teach'? because parents who have a faith are sending their children to faith schools because they want the child 'to be evangelised to'. It's not a problem for them. So let them be

I totally would, if they were letting everyone else be. But they're not. It's not a neutral provison of a state service. The state can allocate a faith school to and have fulfilled their obligation to provide your kid with a state education; you may not reject it on the basis on incompatibility with your beliefs.

I don't get your point about taking religious education out of the state sector. I don't know anyone who proposes that. It's important for kids to know about major world religions - builds understanding and tolerance.

Religious instruction - 'here's the right religion, the real truth, all the others are wrong' is another thing entirely.

My point about music education is- brilliant for those who can access it, who have the right school nearby, already had the right parents and the right training, etc etc. Those kids probably would have gone on to do well, but it's a nice environment for them.

What about the equally talented kids who don't have provision nearby? What about the local kid who can't get a spot at a local
school because it's suddenly selective?

Specialist music schools try very hard to assess potential. The selection process for the music school my DC attended lasted more than two days, much fairer than standard applications to state schools.

The state can allocate a faith school to a child who doesn't want to go to a faith school?!!! I did not know that!! Shocking. No-one should have to go to a faith school. Really? I thought the problem was that faith schools are oversubscribed

Thought experiment - state schools close on Wednesday afternoons. All pupils must be educated in RS at a place of their choice, which might or might not be secular. Would be complicated but then there would be no religion in any state school. Unless you continued to allow faith schools.