I haven't taught in any school, although do in a university, but that does't necessary mean I don't have a level of awareness of what may go on in faith schools.
Susan asked
me what
I did - not what the generality of teachers/youth workers do, PD. Of course I know what goes on in faith schools - but I also know what goes on in state schools - I've had to teach some of the material, even though at times it has conflicted with my opinion and/or worldview. In fact, many teachers have to teach material that conflicts with what they believe in some way or another, be that the sciences of the humanities.
I'm not aware of any other type of state school that claims the kind of distinct and partial ethos that exists with faith schools.
I have yet to teach in any state school that doesn't - through what it offers as extra-curricula topics, its prizes and awards, its general ethos - give the impression that modern scientific thinking is the only way forward for society and the chidren going through it.
But the science curriculum is evidence based not opinion based. If you teach that hydrogen burns with a squeaky pop and provide the relevant equation for the combustion then that can be proven to be true.
But most science and other curricula include subjective ideas that impose specific understandings on the children being taught. For instance, when it comes to teaching evolution, the language required by teachers is that this is the only way to explain our existence. There is no encouragement for students to explore whether the claim is true. To use the term so beloved by ippy, this sounds very much like indoctrination
. Your example of hydrogen burning is very different from the philosophical nature of human existence, discussion of which rarely occurs at any level of scientific education.
I don't understand you. Why is schooling not neutral in terms of belief. If children are being taught about a range of religions and what they might believe without a suggestion that one is preferred, correct, ours or right, why is that anything other than neutral.
If, being the pertinent word. As pointed out in the previous paragraph, modern education is largely about instilling ideas and 'truths' without encouraging students to challenge them when it comes to scientific thinking.
It can also be balanced if you discuss none of the opinions.
but which schools ever teach none of the options? See above again.
A school in the private sector that charges fees does sets out its ethos a parents will pay their money or not on the basis of the type of education that school provides. And if the school is oversubscribed then criteria would need to be developed that don't run counter to standard equalities approach, so race, sexuality or religion for example wouldn't be able to use.
I attended an independent secondary school in Oxford which was an Anglican foundation. I didn't know every parent, obviously, but I knew many of the parents of the lads in my house. I would say that 1 student in 15 came from a family that would have regarded itself as a practising Christian family. Nominal, yes; practising, no. As an Anglican foundation, one of the standard events was the confirmation service in chapel at the end of one's first year. As the son of an Anglican clergyman, I was asked to do one of the readings at 'my' service. Both the chaplain and the headmaster were 'shocked' when I not only refused to do the reading, but said that I woudn't be attending the service because I didn't feel that I was ready to 'confirm' any faith position.
Interestingly, when my elder brother and I asked Dad, when we had both left school) why he'd chosen to send us to that particular school (and the prep. school we'd both attended until we were 12/13), the things he listed were the academic and the sporting records of the schools. The fact that both schools were considerably 'higher' - in ecclesiastical/theological terms - than we were as a family was irrelevant, as was the religious element.
