LGBT in schools vs religious parents

[Spymaster]

Agree with most of that thoughtful post, but I remain deeply troubled by the notion of 'faith schools'. I really don't think that a secular state should use public money to facilitate schooling where the pupils are selected exclusively on the basis of their parents' professed supernatural belief system.

That's the other can of worms, isn't it. So do you force those kids into secular education contrary to their parent beliefs, exclude them from education, or tell them to go live in another country?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's the other can of worms, isn't it. So do you force those kids into secular education contrary to their parent beliefs, exclude them from education, or tell them to go live in another country?

How is secular education contrary to anyone's beliefs, though?

I think the French have this one about right - state schools are secular, but faith schools are not banned so parents can choose to pay for them if they so wish (although a lot of faith schools in France are really shit - there's no social capital to be gained from sending your kids there, it's not a way of getting ahead).

I'd flip that reasoning on its head. I absolutely do not want state money going to schools that, for instance, won't teach an inclusive attitude towards gay people. Fuck that.

 

[joustmaster]

I can't believe it's 2019 and we have faith schools. Ridiculous.

The parents shouldn't have a choice in terms of sex and relationship education. And I'm surprised that it's allowed to just decide to deprive a child of an education.

Some people I know took their 6 year old out of school last year. They said he didn't like it and they'd just do it themselves. Neither parent has any real gcse level qualifications. And the last I saw they'd posted on social media that they had just taught the kid about numaracy and money, accompanied with a picture of the kid recycling beer cans for pennies.

It shouldn't be allowed.

 

[mojo pixy]

We should allow faith schools but make them 100% privately funded - and (possibly) not let them administer national exams, so kids have to get their qualifications at secular state schools (if they want them). It's a really thorny issue.

 

[danny la rouge]

So do you force those kids into secular education contrary to their parent beliefs,

I think that's based on a misunderstanding of what secularism means.

Have a look here. What is Secularism?

 

[brogdale]

That's the other can of worms, isn't it. So do you force those kids into secular education contrary to their parent beliefs, exclude them from education, or tell them to go live in another country?

Denying 'faith schools' public money does not necessarily prevent such institutions from existing; the parents' supernatural beliefs would just have to be strong enough to fund the schooling independent of the state.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can't believe it's 2019 and we have faith schools. Ridiculous.

The parents shouldn't have a choice in terms of sex and relationship education. And I'm surprised that it's allowed to just decide to deprive a child of an education.

Some people I know took their 6 year old out of school last year. They said he didn't like it and they'd just do it themselves. Neither parent has any real gcse level qualifications. And the last I saw they'd posted on social media that they had just taught the kid about numaracy and money, accompanied with a picture of the kid recycling beer cans for pennies.

It shouldn't be allowed.

I'm kind of torn about that. There are pretty extensive support networks for home ed kids in the UK. Don't like the idea of compelling school attendance. It's banned in Germany - parents can and do go to jail there for refusing to send their kids to school.

 

[joustmaster]

We should allow faith schools but make them 100% privately funded - and (possibly) not let them administer national exams, so kids have to get their qualifications at secular state schools (if they want them). It's a really thorny issue.

It still denies a child of a proper sensible education.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It still denies a child of a proper sensible education.

Problem is that school isn't just about education. It's also about warehousing children so that parents can go out to work. Lots of kids spend much of their time at school bored out of their heads.

 

[joustmaster]

I'm kind of torn about that. There are pretty extensive support networks for home ed kids in the UK. Don't like the idea of compelling school attendance. It's banned in Germany - parents can and do go to jail there for refusing to send their kids to school.

I'm sure there is a great network and I'm sure that a child could have a far better education using it.

But then the parents might just not bother or believe in it.

The child's right to a proper education should far outweigh the parents wants.

 

[butchersapron]

I thought I that's based on a misunderstanding of what secularism means.

Have a look here. What is Secularism?

Yes, secularism actually defends the freedom of religious practice - this is different from french laicite which is more like demanding participation in state-mandated atheism despite it's PR. There's a good section in the new traverso book that talks about the the anglo view of secularism as freedom for religions and french style secularism as freedom from religions.

 

[joustmaster]

Problem is that school isn't just about education. It's also about warehousing children so that parents can go out to work. Lots of kids spend much of their time at school bored out of their heads.

Sure. But what's that got to do with faith schools?

 

[8ball]

We should allow faith schools but make them 100% privately funded - and (possibly) not let them administer national exams, so kids have to get their qualifications at secular state schools (if they want them). It's a really thorny issue.

My feeling (admittedly not exhaustively thought through), is yes to first point, no to the second.

 

[8ball]

Yes, secularism actually defends the freedom of religious practice - this is different from french laicite which is more like demanding participation in state-mandated atheism despite it's PR. There's a good section in the new traverso book that talks about the the anglo view of secularism as freedom for religions and french style secularism as freedom from religions.

Indeed, I had figured the PR was just the way it was up until that business with the Muslim woman on the beach.

Got set straight there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sure. But what's that got to do with faith schools?

It has to do with home ed. Is that not what you were referring to with 'it shouldn't be allowed?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My feeling (admittedly not exhaustively thought through), is yes to first point, no to the second.

yes, mine too. To exclude kids at religious schools from public exams is to punish them unduly for their parents' choices.

 

[joustmaster]

It has to do with home ed. Is that not what you were referring to with 'it shouldn't be allowed?

Ok.
You quoted my post that was in answer to a post about faith schools.

 

[Spymaster]

We should allow faith schools but make them 100% privately funded - and (possibly) not let them administer national exams, so kids have to get their qualifications at secular state schools (if they want them). It's a really thorny issue.

Why shouldn't they administer national exams? If they do it to the standard required by state schools what's the problem?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why shouldn't they administer national exams? If they do it to the standard required by state schools what's the problem?

one of the reasons I'm torn on this is that I dislike top-down state-diktat. So I think the UK has it right in its freedom for Home Ed, for instance (and anyone can pay to sit a national exam - why not?). I don't like the German compulsion to attend school. But I think the UK is in a hopeless muddle when it comes to state-funded faith schools, and religion in school in general, a muddle made much worse by successive governments, first Blair and now this lot, which have encouraged state faith schools.

 

[8ball]

Why shouldn't they administer national exams? If they do it to the standard required by state schools what's the problem?

Also, when it comes to national exams, lots of bodies can administer them (FE colleges, professional bodies etc.).

 

[brogdale]

Why shouldn't they administer national exams? If they do it to the standard required by state schools what's the problem?

I tend to agree; a school can hardly be considered on if it can't deliver nationally recognised standards. But the "if" in your post presupposes some monitoring/evaluation from the the state. Again, I would be uncomfortable with the notion of public money being devoted to enabling the perpetuation of exclusive supernatural views. So I would propose that, rather than being afforded Charitable status, such private, religious schools be taxed commensurate with the cost of their monitoring.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also, when it comes to national exams, lots of bodies can administer them (FE colleges, professional bodies etc.).

Indeed. The difference is that state school kids don't have to pay, others do.

 

[chilango]

There shouldn't be any fee paying schools. Nevermind more!

A couple of other points. The state has slashed the amount of regulation it imposes upon schools in many ways - look at the Academy stuff. Of course it'll still chuck a few whims down here and there, British Values being a relevant one. But the overall trend is away


As for faith schools, I doubt they're all the same. My daughter goes to one and the only thing of note thus far is she knows a few Jesus stories. When she's older she can decide to reject faith, like me or retain it, like her mum.

But that's her decision to make.

Finally all schools are involved in ideology (Althusser blah blah blah), being secular (either in the British or the French sense) doesn't touch this.

 

[Pickman's model]

There shouldn't be any fee paying schools. Nevermind more!

A couple of other points. The state has slashed the amount of regulation it imposes upon schools in many ways - look at the Academy stuff. Of course it'll still chuck a few whims down here and there, British Values being a relevant one. But the overall trend is away


As for faith schools, I doubt they're all the same. My daughter goes to one and the only thing of note thus far is she knows a few Jesus stories. When she's older she can decide to reject faith, like me or retain it, like her mum.

But that's her decision to make.

Finally all schools are involved in ideology (Althusser blah blah blah), being secular (either in the British or the French sense) doesn't touch this.

as any teacher will tell you, there's a fuck load of paperwork involved. the amount of regulation has by no means declined, it occupies a great volume of a teacher's time.

 

[tim]

Confounding Anton's view that this board is a hotbed of anarchism is the view seemingly common here, that the state is a benign ideology free institution. I really don't see that having the government directly control all schools is an objective to work towards. Do we want patriotic love of the state to replace religion? My own personal bugbear is the appalling level of militarisation in British schools, which goes beyond just the child soldiers of the cadets.

 

[chilango]

as any teacher will tell you, there's a fuck load of paperwork involved. the amount of regulation has by no means declined, it occupies a great volume of a teacher's time.

Yes. That's from management (or private companies), not the State though. By and large.

For example.

The government abolished KS3 attainment levels.

Schools have had to either design their own or buy a system in.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Confounding Anton's view that this board is a hotbed of anarchism is the view seemingly common here, that the state is a benign ideology free institution. I really don't see that having the government directly control all schools is an objective to work towards. Aside from all the handwriting about religt in school

Isn't that what so-called 'academies' are, though? Removing LEA control to place schools under central control. Devolved LEA control is the right way to go, imo - exactly the thing that successive governments have sought to undermine.

 

[Teaboy]

Not keen at all on faith schools, they are by their nature selective schools which isn't great. Also religion often forms down ethnic background lines so we basically end up with a level of race segregation from childhood, it normalises it.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

My own personal bugbear is the appalling level of militarisation in British schools, which goes beyond just the child soldiers of the cadets.

Could you expand on this? I don't understand what you mean.

 

[mojo pixy]

Why shouldn't they administer national exams? If they do it to the standard required by state schools what's the problem?

It gives the impression they're proper schools.

Also, when it comes to national exams, lots of bodies can administer them (FE colleges, professional bodies etc.).

Lots of secular, non-religious bodies administer exams. Religiously affiliated bodies should only be able to administer exams testing knowledge of whatever religion they're affiliated to. Not because people can't know stuff outside of their faith, but because it would take some prestige away from a ''religious'' education, and make sure kids had to attend somewhere secular in order to gain qualifications. It's about de-normalising the ''religious school'' experience and making it less appealing to more parents.

Frankly, where we are is a mess so any solution is bound to be messy too.