It isn't because I think parents do own children, but because it's usually said by someone else ( a relative stranger) who wants to influence the way a child looks at the world.
And so do her parents, and chances are they're all doing it with the very best of intentions. We have checks and balances to try to ensure that educational establishments are working in the best interests of the children when they do what they do, we don't have that in place for parents.
It's a very threatening thing to say to a parent who may be already be sensitive to what their children are taught.
But their sensitivity doesn't over-ride the right of the child to a rounded, balanced, fair education and a proper introduction into the society that they are part of.
I've never heard of any child being pulled out of a science class, but I don't remember being taught about evolution particularly either.
There is no right to pull children out of a science class, so far as I know, so instead we have faith schools where some of the science is pulled out of the science class instead. Or where 'anti-science' is pumped into the all-encompassing 'religious instruction' element, and the science is deliberately undermined within the science lessons.
That's the threat - not broadly realised, so far as the evidence available shows, but it has happened.
The classes children got pulled from was loosely labelled RE which also covered things like sex ed, drugs, politics, and other various things. RE was basically a dumping ground for misc subjects.
And these days those are part of the PSHE curriculum - personally I think religious education should be a part of that as well.
I don't agree with pulling children out of sex ed classes but wonder if a different approach needs to be taken with some children who's parents object.
Why? Why does a parents' recidivism mean that a child has to go without a part of their education?
I think first we need to establish what the objection is.
Does it matter? What objection is going to be valid?
The objections I have come across have been along the lines that it might teach the children to experiment or that it might teach them things that are contrary to the values held by religion of one sort or another.
Children will or won't experiment - if they already know what's involved and what the implications are, the data shows, they'll be less likely to experiment and less likely when they do experiment to fall foul of the worst of the negative consequences.
When reality does conflict with their parents' religion, a) it's reality, deal with it and b) that child shouldn't be limited by the religion of their parents.
Perhaps some sort of private lesson which teaches the child about it in such a way that satisfies the parent and the school.
The various major religious groups already have plenty of opportunity to feed into the national curriculum.
Parents and teachers need to be talking to each other IMO.
Is there any evidence they don't? This problem isn't that parents and teachers aren't talking, but rather those instances when their conversation is dominated by their religious outlook to the detriment of their child and the broader community cohesion.
I have come across Athiest parents who opted their children out of visiting a mosque ( I didn't agree with them either, it seemed to be based on prejudice)
And neither would I agree, so long as the visit was to see a mosque and not to partake in the activities in a mosque - it's education about Islam, not 'education' in Islam.
I could see a few Muslim parents wanting to exclude their children from music classes as a small minority only believe music should be listened to in a religious setting.
And if and when their child is old enough to choose whether they want to be both a Muslim and, specifically, an adherent of that form of Islam then they can forgo music if they wish, but if they choose not to why should they have no idea of music at that point in their life?
That's the thing about religion though, it doesn't always sit easily within our own values.
That's fine, people are entitled to their own choices when it comes to religion: children, in that sense, are also people, and are entitled to their own choices. That means being informed of all the implications of those choices, informed of what their other options are, and not having their understanding and options limited by choices made by other people, including their parents.
One way forward is to wrest away the children from parental influence by passing laws to prevent this aspect of religion and the option of opting out within schools. ( children are in school as much as they are at home). Make education standard across all schools in the UK and to exclude religion ( terrible idea IMO)
Why is that a terrible idea? Why is it wrong for children to know that Jews believe one thing, Christians another, Muslims another, Buddhists another, some people don't believe any of it? Why is that wrong? It's a fact, should we shy away from inconvenient facts?
The NSS annoys me because its policies ( either unknowingly or knowingly) seek to do this, without acknowledging it.
On the contrary, I think in that sense they're fairly explicit about saying that's what they want.
See, it doesn't matter how hard I try, I see it as a form of social engineering.
And restricting 'Muslim' children's exposure to other ideas to maintain their faith in Islam isn't? Segregating Jewish children so that Hassidics can maintain their ideas of gender differentiation in spite of the evidence isn't social engineering? Any choice on how we educate is going to be open to the accusation of social engineering - what method is less intrusive than giving all the information possible to people and letting them choose their own path?
Part of me wants children to have a wide education but I am also very aware that it can be seen as a form of social engineering and if you are not careful you loose those children's sense of individuality.
Whereas segregating all the Muslims into Muslim schools and teaching them Muslim lessons delivered by Muslims doesn't supress individuality at all?
To me the NSS seem to want to churn out lots of little Athiest sausages, who only go home to their religions and customs.
Right. And when they are adults, in the main, though their home-bound religion will inform their choices, reality means that their religion doesn't over-ride the rules of the land at work, or in public. They can't protest the presence of 'infidels' or 'heathen' in their place of work, they can't expect to attend public places and not have one gender there in most instances. This is the reality of the society in which they live, it's multi-cultural, and they'll only appreciate that if their education is multi-cultural as well.
The thing is too, I value diversity. The NSS don't, they are too busy trying to make people think alike.
No, they aren't. The only way to guarantee diversity is to allow everyone to choose their own path. How can a child appreciate diversity if they never see it? If everything they know is 'The Jewish Way' according to a given sub-school's interpretation of what that is, what opportunity do they have to know what diversity is?
Diversity doesn't mean having the requisite number of each given demographic, it means people are free to join whichever demographic they want.
O.
See they are sort of furtively practicing or encouraging the practice of social engineering.
[/quote]
