"Absurdities" of having faith schools in system.

[ProfessorDavey]

This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.

Why?

[ProfessorDavey]

PD,

I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus.  In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough.  At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child.  But this does not seem to be happening.

If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.

[Hope]

This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.

Why?

As you said in your own post, the case study nature of such a study tends to fragment the ideas.  I've seen it happen.

[BashfulAnthony]

PD,

I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus.  In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough.  At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child.  But this does not seem to be happening.

If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.

But it is not happening to hardly any extent, as far as I am aware.  So, presumably, most are happy enough with things as they are.  Incidentally, as you will be aware, children can also be withdrawn from Assemblies, or such things as Christmas celebrations or activities:  this hardly ever happens, either.  So, again, it seems there is general satisfaction with what is happening.

I might add, it is not so much a matter of whether RE is taught in school, but how it is presented:  the preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.

[Shaker]

This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.

Why?

[ippy]

Teaching that there is no evidence that would support the idea some people have that there is a god would only be telling it like it is.

As someone who has supported non-native speaker pupils within mainstream classes and subjects I've come across a host of different teachers.  Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' term in regard to science and its understandings. 

In fact, it was from one of them that I got my oft-repeated comment about emotions - that we can see symptoms of emotions (the chemical responses that many talk about), but have to believe that those responses are symptoms of the real thing; she even pointed out that all the evidence we have for current scientific understandings are but symptoms, rather than the real thing

"As someone who has supported non-native speaker pupils within mainstream classes and subjects I've come across a host of different teachers.  Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' termAs someone who has supported non-native speaker pupils within mainstream classes and subjects I've come across a host of different teachers.  Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' term in regard to science and its understandings". 

Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' term in regard to science and its understandings and dismiss them if they don't hold up through lack of credible evidence; nothing new there.

=====

"In fact, it was from one of them that I got my oft-repeated comment about emotions - that we can see symptoms of emotions (the chemical responses that many talk about), but have to believe that those responses are symptoms of the real thing; she even pointed out that all the evidence we have for current scientific understandings are but symptoms, rather than the real thing".

So that was her opinion, has it been tested/challenged in any way that might move this idea of hers on? 

ippy

[ippy]

PD,

I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus.  In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough.  At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child.  But this does not seem to be happening.

If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.

But it is not happening to hardly any extent, as far as I am aware.  So, presumably, most are happy enough with things as they are.  Incidentally, as you will be aware, children can also be withdrawn from Assemblies, or such things as Christmas celebrations or activities:  this hardly ever happens, either.  So, again, it seems there is general satisfaction with what is happening.

I might add, it is not so much a matter of whether RE is taught in school, but how it is presented:  the preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.

preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.

Well face it BA there's very few people that are interested any more.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

PD,

I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus.  In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough.  At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child.  But this does not seem to be happening.

If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.

But it is not happening to hardly any extent, as far as I am aware.  So, presumably, most are happy enough with things as they are.  Incidentally, as you will be aware, children can also be withdrawn from Assemblies, or such things as Christmas celebrations or activities:  this hardly ever happens, either.  So, again, it seems there is general satisfaction with what is happening.

I might add, it is not so much a matter of whether RE is taught in school, but how it is presented:  the preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.

preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.

Well face it BA there's very few people that are interested any more.

ippy

I don't think it's that so much as inadequacies in the teaching of teachers, and there's nothing new in that.

[ProfessorDavey]

This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.

Why?

As you said in your own post, the case study nature of such a study tends to fragment the ideas.  I've seen it happen.

No I didn't.

Why are ideas any more fragmented than a different form of topic based approach that uses a particular religion as a topic, or the idea of ceremonies as a topic and compares religions.

I can't see why this is any less fragmented than a topic based approach based on ethical issues, nor why this is fundamentally a problem.

[Hope]

Why are ideas any more fragmented than a different form of topic based approach that uses a particular religion as a topic, or the idea of ceremonies as a topic and compares religions.

I can't see why this is any less fragmented than a topic based approach based on ethical issues, nor why this is fundamentally a problem.

If you deal with ethics in a 'case study' format, one will tend to look at the case in point and decide on what one's response should be within the 'vacuum' of that single case or set of cases.  This can lead to creating ethical codes that have this segmentation built into the process.  I prefer to teach ethical principles and then look at how they apply to individual cases.  For instance, how does war impact on the idea that one should not kill?  Or is taking perfectly good food from a trash bin outside a supermarket to help feed the homeless stealing or not?

I got the impression that you would like to see the context be the starting point and an ethical principle be developed from it.  If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why are ideas any more fragmented than a different form of topic based approach that uses a particular religion as a topic, or the idea of ceremonies as a topic and compares religions.

I can't see why this is any less fragmented than a topic based approach based on ethical issues, nor why this is fundamentally a problem.

If you deal with ethics in a 'case study' format, one will tend to look at the case in point and decide on what one's response should be within the 'vacuum' of that single case or set of cases.  This can lead to creating ethical codes that have this segmentation built into the process.  I prefer to teach ethical principles and then look at how they apply to individual cases.  For instance, how does war impact on the idea that one should not kill?  Or is taking perfectly good food from a trash bin outside a supermarket to help feed the homeless stealing or not?

I got the impression that you would like to see the context be the starting point and an ethical principle be developed from it.  If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.

Well I guess that you like me have actually studies and taught ethics, so actually have some experience.

So on that basis, yes there are different approaches, but I don't see that one is fundamentally better than the other.

Personally with a group of students I first like to explore some case studies and get the students to give their 'gut' reaction to right and wrong within the cases. I do this for a number of reasons:

1. It is easier I think for a student to consider their own reaction to abortion (for the sake of arguments) or the practical examples you used rather than start by dry ethical theory and then to begin to explore why people react in a particular manner.

2. When done in a confidential and anonymised manner (which is what I do) it allows the range of view to be revealed within the group. This is helpful as it support the notion that students should be mindful that the person next to them might disagree, perhaps quite radically, and to respect the group so to speak. Further to recognise that there are a range of opinions and when legislators etc try to make decisions they actually can't decide on the basis of the consensus view, because often there isn't one.

3. Many people develop an approach to ethics with is inherently 'hybrid' a bit religious upbringing-driven, a little bit golden rule humanism, a touch of consequentialism etc etc. Few of us adopt a pure ethical theory and apply is consistently.

Only having done that do I tend to introduce classical ethical theories - why, because I find that students tend to engage with them much better when considered in the context of their own views on particular cases. Further it helps students to understand  the limits of their adherence to a particular ethical approach.

I find this works pretty well. Perhaps you do it differently and that's fine if it works for you. But I guess to my mind ethics (certainly practical ethics) is about exploring individual views on topics in the context of ethical theory. It isn't about learning an ethical theory (even less so learning the 'correct' ethical theory) and then practicing it by applying it to situations.

Where I do lean toward the 'learn the theory and then apply it' approach is only where ethical practice is legally codified - a good example being the requirement for consent in medical ethics.

[SteveH]

Thought I'd bump up the oldest thread, just for the hell of it.
The only ethical system that makes sense is rule-utilitarianism. I certainly wouldn't want to ban faith schools, but I don't think they should be state-funded.

[Robbie]

Right on bro.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only ethical system that makes sense is rule-utilitarianism. I certainly wouldn't want to ban faith schools, but I don't think they should be state-funded.

I'd agree with that - no school funded by the state should be biased in favour of and run by a particularly religion, any more than they should be biased in favour and run by a particular political party.

If religious organisations wish to set up their own private schools, so be it (subject to the caveats below), but they, not the tax payer, should fund them.

But I also think that even if privately funded there need to be certain ground rules in legislation that prevent any school being a place of religious indoctrination and failing to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. There are too many faith schools outside the state sector that completely fail their children on the fundamentals of freedom of religion (children should be able to choose whether to be religious, or not religious and to change their minds) and the basis human right to receive a broad and balanced education.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you deal with ethics in a 'case study' format, one will tend to look at the case in point and decide on what one's response should be within the 'vacuum' of that single case or set of cases.  This can lead to creating ethical codes that have this segmentation built into the process.  I prefer to teach ethical principles and then look at how they apply to individual cases.  For instance, how does war impact on the idea that one should not kill?  Or is taking perfectly good food from a trash bin outside a supermarket to help feed the homeless stealing or not?

I got the impression that you would like to see the context be the starting point and an ethical principle be developed from it.  If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.
Well I guess that you like me have actually studies and taught ethics, so actually have some experience.

So on that basis, yes there are different approaches, but I don't see that one is fundamentally better than the other.

Personally with a group of students I first like to explore some case studies and get the students to give their 'gut' reaction to right and wrong within the cases. I do this for a number of reasons:

1. It is easier I think for a student to consider their own reaction to abortion (for the sake of arguments) or the practical examples you used rather than start by dry ethical theory and then to begin to explore why people react in a particular manner.

2. When done in a confidential and anonymised manner (which is what I do) it allows the range of view to be revealed within the group. This is helpful as it support the notion that students should be mindful that the person next to them might disagree, perhaps quite radically, and to respect the group so to speak. Further to recognise that there are a range of opinions and when legislators etc try to make decisions they actually can't decide on the basis of the consensus view, because often there isn't one.

3. Many people develop an approach to ethics with is inherently 'hybrid' a bit religious upbringing-driven, a little bit golden rule humanism, a touch of consequentialism etc etc. Few of us adopt a pure ethical theory and apply is consistently.

Only having done that do I tend to introduce classical ethical theories - why, because I find that students tend to engage with them much better when considered in the context of their own views on particular cases. Further it helps students to understand  the limits of their adherence to a particular ethical approach.

I find this works pretty well. Perhaps you do it differently and that's fine if it works for you. But I guess to my mind ethics (certainly practical ethics) is about exploring individual views on topics in the context of ethical theory. It isn't about learning an ethical theory (even less so learning the 'correct' ethical theory) and then practicing it by applying it to situations.

Where I do lean toward the 'learn the theory and then apply it' approach is only where ethical practice is legally codified - a good example being the requirement for consent in medical ethics.

What good timing to re-boot this thread.

Today I'm teaching the first session on my ethics course, to a whole new cohort of students. With some minor modifications I'm still using the approach I described in the post above over 5 years ago.

Of course today, unlike in 2015, everything will be on-line and taught remotely, so the opportunities for interaction with the students and the students with themselves will be rather different. Will let you know how it goes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thought I'd bump up the oldest thread, just for the hell of it.
The only ethical system that makes sense is rule-utilitarianism. I certainly wouldn't want to ban faith schools, but I don't think they should be state-funded.

I don't really get the desire to end segregation of children by faith schools at the same time as having an unquestioning attitude over segregating Kids according to wealth.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't really get the desire to end segregation of children by faith schools at the same time as having an unquestioning attitude over segregating Kids according to wealth.

Are you talking about private schools Vlad?

[Roses]

I'd agree with that - no school funded by the state should be biased in favour of and run by a particularly religion, any more than they should be biased in favour and run by a particular political party.

If religious organisations wish to set up their own private schools, so be it (subject to the caveats below), but they, not the tax payer, should fund them.

But I also think that even if privately funded there need to be certain ground rules in legislation that prevent any school being a place of religious indoctrination and failing to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. There are too many faith schools outside the state sector that completely fail their children on the fundamentals of freedom of religion (children should be able to choose whether to be religious, or not religious and to change their minds) and the basis human right to receive a broad and balanced education.

Good post, I agree with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you talking about private schools Vlad?

Yes indeed.

[SteveH]

I don't really get the desire to end segregation of children by faith schools at the same time as having an unquestioning attitude over segregating Kids according to wealth.

The existence of one form of discrimination doesn't justify the existence of another form.

[ProfessorDavey]

The existence of one form of discrimination doesn't justify the existence of another form.

That's true.

But there is also a fundamental difference between what the state funds directly via public funding and what the state allows people to spend their own money on. Within reason, with our current society, the state gives us freedom to spend our own money as we wish, whether on a nice car, a holiday, private schooling or private healthcare. The state largely gets out of the way in terms of those decisions.

That is entirely different to decisions on what the state directly funds in terms of public funded services. And certainly those publicly-funded services should be provided without discrimination on the basis of faith. I think we'd be pretty horrified if we turned up at an NHS hospital to be told to go away because they prioritise people of a different religion. More so if we found out that no hospital prioritised people with our own beliefs. So why should that apply to schooling.

And a further point - while you might argue that it shouldn't be the case - fundamental human rights typically ascribe certain characteristics that should be protected from discrimination. These include religion (or lack of religion) - it doesn't include level of wealth.