School forces girls to wear head scarves

[hatedbythemail]

well orangebird a big issue is how league tables etc have created a market for secondary education and schools competing for pupils - this year here many state schools have spent money marketing themselves because funding follows the pupil. add into that the middle classes who can afford to move into areas with "good" schools, the failure of lea's to enforce catchments and the un-level playing field created by the funding of voluntary aided schools and you have a right royal mess. instead of creating division within education which the government is doing, it should be ensuring every child has access to a good local school. they laughingly said "every child matters" but ive see first hand how that is not the case, that politicians will treat kids in existing schools as collateral damage in their pursuit of shiny new "super schools.". Capital funding structures are a stitch up, ringfenced for those new build super-schools at the expense of established, smaller local schools, and dependent upon matched funding from private sponsors, often religious ones. it stinks.

on the other point, i see where you are coming from but the issue of allowing religious expression within a secular state school, and dress codes within a faith school are different. if we didn't have faith schools the problem wouldnt arise - if pupils are alllowed freedom of religious expression within state schools. its a debate which will i'm sure rage on ;-)

---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 ----------

ps my kids go to the nearest primary and secondary schools. the primary does not do well in league tables but my child is doing brilliantly, as his brother befoee him did. its what schools do with the raw materials that counts and i really dont think even value added tables reflect that.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

<snip> dependent upon matched funding from private sponsors, often religious ones. it stinks.<snip>

I dislike the suggestion, implicit in your post, that 'religious' people or organisations are to be treated with suspicion should they wish to be school sponsors.

We have had threads on this in the past and I've pointed this out before - this country's education system is founded on the efforts of the Church.

Everybody has a world view, whether religious in the traditional sense or not, and it is strangely anti-libertarian of you to suggest - as you apparently do - that the only people who should be disbarred from influencing state education are those whose worldview is a traditional religious one.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I dislike the suggestion, implicit in your post, that 'religious' people or organisations are to be treated with suspicion should they wish to be school sponsors.

We have had threads on this in the past and I've pointed this out before - this country's education system is founded on the efforts of the Church.

Everybody has a world view, whether religious in the traditional sense or not, and it is strangely anti-libertarian of you to suggest - as you apparently do - that the only people who should be disbarred from influencing state education are those whose worldview is a traditional religious one.

chris, sorry, the it stinks comment referred to the whole set up, not specifically the sponsoring of schools by religious organisations (or others for that matter). running a school, albeit within the restraints of the system, is a little more than just influence. and faith schools are playing their part in the distortion of the education "market". faith groups have every right to be consulted and to provide input into the way education is provided, as should everyone else, but i remain opposed to schools where faith is intrinsically linked to their philosophy and teachings (again, albeit within systemic restraints). like i say secular comprehensives which teach understanding of andf respect for faiths is the option i would plump for.

as for the education system being founded by the church, i honestly dont know. but its the 21st century now. times change.


edit incidentally one church, i think the catholic, made the point that it puts money into schools for a reason. so yes i am suspicious. theyre looking for a return on their investment.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

chris, sorry, the it stinks comment referred to the whole set up, not specifically the sponsoring of schools by religious organisations (or others for that matter). running a school, albeit within the restraints of the system, is a little more than just influence. and faith schools are playing their part in the distortion of the education "market". faith groups have every right to be consulted and to provide input into the way education is provided, as should everyone else, but i remain opposed to schools where faith is intrinsically linked to their philosophy and teachings (again, albeit within systemic restraints). like i say secular comprehensives which teach understanding of andf respect for faiths is the option i would plump for.

as for the education system being founded by the church, i honestly dont know. but its the 21st century now. times change.


edit incidentally one church, i think the catholic, made the point that it puts money into schools for a reason. so yes i am suspicious. theyre looking for a return on their investment.

Thank you.

Follow-up question: What would be the ethos of your ideal primary or secondary school, what moral framework would you refer to in the creation of that ethos, and what is the justification for that moral framework?

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Thank you.

Follow-up question: What would be the ethos of your ideal primary or secondary school, what moral framework would you refer to in the creation of that ethos, and what is the justification for that moral framework?

interesting question ;-) clearly a difficult one to answer given its such a big ask. but i guess words such as "humanity" and "respect" would be high on the list along with "revolutionary socialism" (oh no, scrub that :-) )! My main aim would be to encourage independent thought.

Through your question though are you implying that only religion can provide a moral framework?

---------- Post added at 10:56 ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 ----------

back on the thread theme generally: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle1902197.ece

Originally Posted by Chris T

Thank you.

Follow-up question: What would be the ethos of your ideal primary or secondary school, what moral framework would you refer to in the creation of that ethos, and what is the justification for that moral framework?

Are you implying in your question that those of us without any religious beliefs have no morals?

Because I could point out countless cases of vicars,priests,imams etc that have been shown to have poor morality let alone other ordinary people of faith who too seem to lack morality.

[danielf]

Thirded...

[injuneer]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Are you implying in your question that those of us without any religious beliefs have no morals?

Because I could point out countless cases of vicars,priests,imams etc that have been shown to have poor morality let alone other ordinary people of faith who too seem to lack morality.

Too true

My, there's a lot of conclusion-jumping going on this afternoon.

The point of my question was not to imply the non-religious have no morals. That would be an insane suggestion, it is plainly not the case (truth be told I'm a little disappointed, I thought some of you knew me better than that).

My point is that it seems arbitrary to suggest that religion should play no role in school life, precisely because the non-religious *do* have a moral compass of their own. What you're doing is not, as appears on the face of it, removing moral assumptions and (dare I say it) prejudices from the classroom; all you are doing is substituting one, readily identifiable set with another, possibly less obvious set (less obvious because outside of the framework of a religion, a personal moral direction can be harder to define and pin down).

The follow-on question from that is, who are you (aimed at no-one in particular) to say that your personal morality should be favoured over that of someone who is comfortable to claim their morality is derived from an external, supernatural source? Again, what appears to be a libertarian argument has decidedly illiberal undertones once you examine it.

By way of dragging this back on topic ... I suppose I'm defending the right of this Islamic school to exist, and defending its right to derive the school code from Islamic morality. Where I draw the line is in the forcing of individual pupils to submit to overtly religious acts when they do not subscribe to the religion.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

My, there's a lot of conclusion-jumping going on this afternoon.

No conclusion jumping imo. Asking for clarification. Perhaps the number of requests is an indication of the ambiguity of your post though.

The follow-on question from that is, who are you (aimed at no-one in particular) to say that your personal morality should be favoured over that of someone who is comfortable to claim their morality is derived from an external, supernatural source? Again, what appears to be a libertarian argument has decidedly illiberal undertones once you examine it.

I'm not necessarily talking about my morality, but rather about a morality that is shared by the majority of people in this country whilst not offending others. A faith-neutral morality if you like. It shouldn't be too hard to find such a set of morals I would think.

As for there being illiberal undertones to the libertarian argument. Well, yes, if someone has the right to not be subjected to another person's faith-based morals in school, than it stands to reason that this will impact on another person's ability to make those morals heard (in school). But then, as a non-religious person, I think faith should be a personal matter. You are free to adhere to your faith, but you are not free to impose it on me or my children.

[hatedbythemail]

safe to say i think that daniel has benefited from a good education, religiously inspired or not :-)

(soz, couldnt rep him - good post)

Originally Posted by Chris T

My, there's a lot of conclusion-jumping going on this afternoon.

The point of my question was not to imply the non-religious have no morals. That would be an insane suggestion, it is plainly not the case (truth be told I'm a little disappointed, I thought some of you knew me better than that).

My point is that it seems arbitrary to suggest that religion should play no role in school life, precisely because the non-religious *do* have a moral compass of their own. What you're doing is not, as appears on the face of it, removing moral assumptions and (dare I say it) prejudices from the classroom; all you are doing is substituting one, readily identifiable set with another, possibly less obvious set (less obvious because outside of the framework of a religion, a personal moral direction can be harder to define and pin down).

The follow-on question from that is, who are you (aimed at no-one in particular) to say that your personal morality should be favoured over that of someone who is comfortable to claim their morality is derived from an external, supernatural source? Again, what appears to be a libertarian argument has decidedly illiberal undertones once you examine it.

By way of dragging this back on topic ... I suppose I'm defending the right of this Islamic school to exist, and defending its right to derive the school code from Islamic morality. Where I draw the line is in the forcing of individual pupils to submit to overtly religious acts when they do not subscribe to the religion.

Which is why it would be better for all concerned if we kept all religions at arms length in schools.No one is denying the right of all faiths to instil the values and beliefs of their religion but I contend that one doesn't need morality to learn science,english,maths,geography or any of the other subjects.What one does need is a sense of right and wrong as defined by the WHOLE of the society we live in and religion isn't the only way to pass that knowledge on to the next generation.The rules of life don't have to be presented as a religious package.

Originally Posted by danielf

No conclusion jumping imo. Asking for clarification. Perhaps the number of requests is an indication of the ambiguity of your post though.

How could it be ambiguous? It was a question, a request for information, not a statement of fact or belief. I don't think it was reasonable to try to extrapolate anything from it, which Incog did and you and the Inj. associated yourselves with.

Anyhow, I digress.

I'm not necessarily talking about my morality, but rather about a morality that is shared by the majority of people in this country whilst not offending others. A faith-neutral morality if you like. It shouldn't be too hard to find such a set of morals I would think.

As for there being illiberal undertones to the libertarian argument. Well, yes, if someone has the right to not be subjected to another person's faith-based morals in school, than it stands to reason that this will impact on another person's ability to make those morals heard (in school). But then, as a non-religious person, I think faith should be a personal matter. You are free to adhere to your faith, but you are not free to impose it on me or my children.

From what evidence do you conclude that broadly Christian morality is not shared by the majority of people in this country? Let's not confuse 'Christian morality' with 'Church attendance'.

Let me ask another question: if it were possible to arrive at such a 'faith-neutral' morality (and I am not at all convinced it is), who would be the arbiter of it? Where would its authority come from? How would it be ensured that everyone shared it, or at least observed it? In any matter where there is difference between various religions (and the non-religious), what takes priority and who decides it?

It seems to me that any attempt to create or set up a moral code, whether religious or non, inevitably leads to 'imposition' of one person (or one group)'s moral code on those who do not share it in any situation where some form of conformity amongst a group of people is required.

My issue is with the idea that it is desirable to remove faith-based morality from schools and replace it with something 'faith neutral'. What those who propose this are actually calling for, is removal of something they don't agree with and replacing it with something they do agree with. It's an understandable aim but I object to it being dressed up as 'neutral' when it is anything but. It's just 'different'.

As for your comments about imposition of faith: I'm afraid I don't see their relevance as an answer to my post. To be honest they sound like a standard objection to Christianity (and a badly-constructed one, as Biblical Christianity always seeks to persuade, never impose). The very point I've been making throughout this thread is that there is a difference between adherence to (or respect towards) a general moral code, and observance of the faith that creates that moral code. This is why I think it is acceptable for an Islamic state school to have an Islamic ethos but not to compel its female pupils to wear a headscarf.

[hatedbythemail]

i follow my own morality which will be informed by all sorts of things but i would think mainly from life experience, exploring ideas etc. christian heritage may well play a part in that but thats entirely different to faith informing education, or more importantly a particular faith informing education.

as for the idea that no education or institution is philosophically neutral then i guess you're right. but it becomes a very reductionist argument. it depends of course if you believe in society, the idea of shared aims and values to give a broad consensus (within which people can and will deviate). and to my mind incognitas is right that you can teach science, maths - the 'hard' subjects (not harder!) - without religion being of essence (and yes i am dismissing creationism but then again even that could be discussed and set against the findings of rational science). when it comes to literature, history, geo-politics, then religion is a part of all those subjects, but study of them need not favour one particular faith.

Originally Posted by hatedbythemail

i follow my own morality which will be informed by all sorts of things but i would think mainly from life experience, exploring ideas etc. christian heritage may well play a part in that but thats entirely different to faith informing education, or more importantly a particular faith informing education.

as for the idea that no education or institution is philosophically neutral then i guess you're right. but it becomes a very reductionist argument. it depends of course if you believe in society, the idea of shared aims and values to give a broad consensus (within which people can and will deviate). and to my mind incognitas is right that you can teach science, maths - the 'hard' subjects (not harder!) - without religion being of essence (and yes i am dismissing creationism but then again even that could be discussed and set against the findings of rational science). when it comes to literature, history, geo-politics, then religion is a part of all those subjects, but study of them need not favour one particular faith.

You have put much better than I did but essentially you got the point I was trying to make but much more eloquently than I.The sore throat has reach my grey matter and reduced it to mush.