Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by Freddie92, Feb 13, 2012.
He's getting slack in his old age
I feel a bit sad about this thread and the way it has progressed.
My experience in RC schools is fairly limited, a student placement and a few months of supply, but it was some of the happiest times I've ever had in a school, present job excepted. I worked alongside Catholics and non-Catholics, and I taught Catholics and non-Catholics. I now work in an authority which doesn't have any denominational school and we all get along fine. I would always respect a parent's right to send their child to a denominational school but I don't think their existence helps the issues of ignorant parents bringing up ignorant children and sending their son or daughter to a school in tune with their 'belief' (i.e. Catholic or the non-dom), however deep or shallow that belief may be. It is *the* West of Scotland problem and I don't think bigotry, a two-way street, will ever go away while they exist.
I hope your post means that you concede that many of them cannot be trusted.
Definitely not to be trusted - teachers are dreadful liars when it comes to washing up mugs and stealing doughnuts.
I am obviously not saying that. All I would like to see is a level playing field for all teachers, irrespective of what supernatural beliefs they may or may not profess to hold.
Is it unreasonable to expect that all schools inform all children objectively about a wide range of beliefs and let them decide what is "repugnant" or not?
I tend to believe the French model is the best - no religion in schools whatsoever. It mustbe worth a try to help get rid of bigotry - kids play with each other right through nursery school and then they are segregated by P1. Bonkers.
I find it hard to believe that RE is one of the few compulsory subjects within the curriulcum. Schools should not be ramming religion down pupils throats. If they want to go and explore religion, scientology, jedi knight or any other system of beliefs, do it on your own time.
Think of the discipline probelms that would be reduced in schools as most kids hate RE/RMPS
Note - I was brought up a Catholic and had a good education, although I have long since lapsed and have no intention to return. Perhaps I'm bitter because I refused to go and get a Catholic certificate when a permanent job came up in an Catholic school when I started out, although was "encouraged to do so". Needless to say I didn't get the job.
In France, there are Catholic schools - which teach Catholicism. And they do receive some funding from the State.
If you had rejected Catholicism, why did you apply for a job in a Catholic school?
Agree, but religious education is not compulsory unlike here. State and church are separate.
Quite simply because I needed a full time permanent job. There were no jobs in my subject so not applying wasn't an option. Didn't get the job anyway!
Apartheid in education would be unthinkable on grounds of e.g. race or politics. And yet somehow some people (increasingly fewer perhaps) think it's justifiable to separate children on the basis of the supernatural beliefs of their parents.
The main argument we hear from faith school apologists is based around "parental rights" and they never address the point about the rights of the child to receive information and ideas of all kinds. These rights at least counter-balance parental "rights" in my view. And anyway, not all "parents of faith" have their "own" state schools so surely a level playing field for all is the fairest way forward.
When you add in the social cohesion angle and the de facto employment discrimination against "non-believing" teachers, then the sooner denominational schools are phased out, the better.
Your argument is utterly logical, almost scientific . . . . . .but of the mind and therefore is idealistic in nature. The mind imagines and is creative.
Aber's arguments are relentlessly logical, but fundamentally driven by emotion and come from an understanding of persecution and the desire to protect the persecuted and are therefore, even if in his mind only, realistic (though there is no doubt that they are reactionary) in nature.
And imo, within that dichotomy lies the root of many, if not most, of our ancient and modern micro and macro issues. Our idealism mostly wants to pursue idealistic goals of fairness and equality, justice etc, because they are viewed as worthy/progressive. Our emotional nature rarely cares for such lofty ideals. Two different beasts.
Can anyone be truly correct holding such polarised views?
I don't know. If I did I'd be ruling the world along with Pinky and Perky.
Having read through a lot of this thread I am astounded by people who think it is their right to decide whether Catholic parents should send their children to Catholic schools or not. Religious belief is truly under tattack in this country when a parent is castigated for giving their child an education which espouses Gospel values.
You don't like it, don't choose it. But respect the rights of those who do.
The debate is about whether the state should continue to support denominational schools or phase them out (as around 66% of SNP members want to do, apparently).
Again, a lot of emphasis above on the "rights" of parents. Who says that "right" is absolute? Smokers' "rights" were compromised for the greater good of society, weren't they?
And what about the rights of children to be given a range of views? Ignored once more.
As for the rather vague and dubious concept of "Gospel values", parents are perfectly free to pass these on in the home or in their chosen place of worship. But expecting the state to do it, is another matter entirely.
Wow. That's pretty profound for a Monday evening.
Mine isn't. I was brought up in them. My wonderful teachers used to tell kids of "mixed marriages" (delightful term) to pray extra hard each morning and night, because the protestant parent would go to hell if they didn't convert.
They told me I'd go to hell if I went to a service in a protestant church, no matter who it was that was getting buried christened or married.
They told me this **** like it was true. Oh! thank goodness times have changed.
Irony button fully depressed by the way - times haven't changed a bit. If I teach in a Scottish school, I'm pretty well prepared to address the CfE outcome in Numeracy and Maths Second level MNU 2-11C "I can explain how different methods can be used to to find the perimeter and area of a simple 2D shape." No problem. Done and dusted.
But if I teach in a catholic school, I'm expected to give the same weight to RERC 2-10a, "I can reflect on the Holy Spirit's prophetic influence."
The former is provable. The latter is not.
People believe that the paraclete moves in prophetically mysterious ways. Fine. But is it right that our taxes should be spent inculcating such mystical visions into the heads of impressionable 10 year olds?
Or on pictures of the pope in the vestibule? Or on crucifixes on every vertical surface capable of holding a nail?
Or on the time spent by the pupils rehearsing next Sunday's hymns, when they could be learning something useful?
Religion is personal. There is no place for it in school, in council, court or parliament.
I recognise the catholic chappie in this debate - and his arguments. I heard them all before, and they were true. Rangers wouldn't sign a catholic. You couldn't get a job in a couple of banks if you kicked with the left foot. Go down a mine wearing a crucifix, you ain't going to make deputy or shot firer. Don't even think about studying law in one of our ancient universities if your name is Patrick. Yeah, we've heard it all. It was all true. Then.
Now - no mines. Banks scuppered. Ancient universities take anybody with the dosh. Rangers still looking for the dosh.
Now - grow up. It's gone. Done. Old days.
New enemies - new world. Choose your battle ground in the future (energy, global warming, pirates, drought, tories, lawlessness, the internet, the dumbing down of radio 3) you choose...
but move forward. Yesterday's gone.
Well said Sam, totally agree
A very good post Sam.
In my opinion, it is totally incongruent for state schools to teach children the values of equality and fairness and at the same time promote a faith, the leaders of which clearly, and vociferously, advocate discrimination against gay people.
These people are not good role models for young people in a modern democracy.
If you were teaching the children of Catholics, would you tell them that their church is wrong when it opposes homosexuality?
Should a person of your anti-Catholic outlook be in charge of the children of Catholics?
samvimes"But is it right that our taxes should be spent inculcating such mystical visions into the heads of impressionable 10 year olds?"
Our taxes. Aethists are not the only people who pay tax.
"Or on pictures of the pope in the vestibule? Or on crucifixes on every vertical surface capable of holding a nail?"
Please mind your manners. Please leave it to Catholics to decide what pictures adorn a Catholic school.
"Or on the time spent by the pupils rehearsing next Sunday's hymns, when they could be learning something useful?"
Please leave it to Catholics to decide what is taught in a Catholic school.
"Religion is personal. There is no place for it in school, in council, court or parliament."
Please leave it to Catholics to decide what there is place for in a Catholic school.
Aber, I really don't know how many times I can say that, unlike you, I have no wish whatsoever to impose religious beliefs (or in my case, humanist views) on children. I would not want to teach RE but if I had to, I would do it in a totally objective way and offer no personal opinion. I do appreciate that parents "of faith" would not want their kids to hear a teacher negating their particular religious beliefs and I totally respect their rights in that regard.
Furthermore, I don't accept your "anti" label. As a Catholic, you must be anti-Allah, anti-Zeus, anti-Hermes, anti-Hades, anti-Hera, anti-Aphrodite, anti-Ra, anti-Isis, anti-Anubis, anti-Osiris, anti-Jupiter, anti-Mars, anti-Terra, anti-Odin, anti-Thor, anti-Loki, anti-Njordr, anti-Krishna, anti-Vishnu, anti-Kali, anti-Ishvara, anti-Shangdi, anti-Mazu, anti-Shou Xing, anti-Tu Di Gong, etc etc ...
I just go one God more than you.
But I stand by what I say above - state schools should not be promoting a faith which tells young people that (for some of them) their innate sexual orientation is "wrong" and advocates discrimination on that basis. Parents can do that if they wish but I'd like to think, as a society, we now have better values than that.