Gideon's Bibles

[Rhiannon]

This is the list of recommended Bible readings found in Gideons. Not ideal for troubled youngsters.

http://www.gideons.org/readthebible/Helps.aspx

[ProfessorDavey]

I can only think you haven't actually read the passages it links too.

Wrong - I've looked them up.

So explain to me why the following may be of use to an 11 year old child who is really anxious about going on a week outward bound activity holiday from school because they are concerned about their weight and have already had negative comments from other kids at the school.

Noting that, of course the Gideons have a one size fits all approach - targeting everyone not just christian kids (indeed their evangelism is most aimed at those who aren't christian as their aim is conversion) - so we should assume this child isn't an active christian and probably has never read the bible or been involved in worship - the child may not believe in god, or is not certain god exists. I make these assumptions because this is the most likely situation for 11 year old children in the UK. So this is what the Gideons think a child should be encouraged to read to sort out their anxiety:

'But now, this is what the LORD says- he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine. 2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze. 3 For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.'

Who in their right mind would think this is an appropriate action for an adult faced with an anxious child. Bonkers.

If you think that's about as far away from acting in their best interests as you can get, I think you need a reality check.

Dropping bombs on them or  neglect are far worse.

We are talking about a child who is suffering from anxiety or fear - I don't think anyone would suggest bombing them would be an appropriate course of action.

As to neglect - well you could argue that if faced with that situation as an adult you sent the child off to read sections from the bible which are, frankly' gobbledegook (see above) then that might be an act or neglect - minor neglect for sure, but so far away from what should be done as to take it into that territory. And don't forget that there have been a number of awful cases over the past few years of neglect involving highly religious families neglecting their children due to them being insufficiently pious in their religion.

By the way I know plenty of actively religious people (including my wife) and I cannot imagine any of them would consider the appropriate response to an anxious or fearful child would be to send them off to read the bible. Nope understanding, listening, hugs, reassurance etc, etc yes - sending them off to read sections of the bible - never.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is the list of recommended Bible readings found in Gideons. Not ideal for troubled youngsters.

http://www.gideons.org/readthebible/Helps.aspx

Indeed.

And lets not forget that every troubled child is an individual. Their concerns, the reasons for them and the solutions to them will be as individual as they are. So no 'one size fits all' approach would be suitable. Without trying to understand the specific issues of that child and their individual needs you will never truly be able to support and help them.

Sending them off to read obscure and incomprehensible sections of the bible (or any other similar book) is likely to lead the child to feel more confused and more isolated as the adult hasn't engaged with them as an individual at all, merely pushed them aside by telling them to go and read a book.

[floo]

The problem with that is that children are dependent on adults, and so if an adult is providing for a child's needs then the child is naturally going to be influenced by the adults' beliefs. The Gideon Bible has a list entitled "where to find help when:" (followed by headings such as "anxious" or "afraid", and a passage from the New Testament or Psalms which provides help in those situations). If by providing scripture verses which help a child in various situations the Gideons are simply meeting some of his or her needs, I don't see how it is unethical for a child to be influenced by their beliefs (unless they are teaching stuff which is unethical)

Religion and verses from the Bible made me afraid as a kid, there was never any comfort for me in that not so good book!

[ProfessorDavey]

Because being a vegetarian just means they don't eat meat, it isn't a belief system any more than being diabetic is.

Vegetarians come in all faiths and none and are already catered for with both faith and secular schools.

It's not like vegetarians can't be Christian is it?

Vegetarianism of itself isn't a belief, it's an action.

People are vegetarian for a wide range of reasons, they might not share the beliefs of another vegetarian.

It doesn't follow.

A Christian shares beliefs in common, vegetarians don't.

Not everyone gives up meat for the same reasons.

Vegetarians (and certainly vegans) aren't just people who just don't eat meat, most are people who belief that eating meat is wrong. That is a belief system and those are the people I am talking about - which I suspect will be most vegetarians (certainly those I know are vegetarian on principle) and I suspect nearly all vegans. And their belief (that eating meat is wrong) clearly fits the criteria for protection under the 2010 Equality Act, namely:

It must be genuinely held;
It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on information available at the moment; (2011 the present state of information available)
It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
It must attain  a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society; (2011 and must not be incompatible with human dignity…)
It must be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

So the question remains why are some peoples beliefs (which are protected under the 2010 Equality Act) suitable for the state to provide schools that are run according to that belief (religions) while other beliefs (which are similarly protected under the 2010 Equality Act) aren't. I think the answer is that they are and were the government to refuse (on principle) to allow a state funded vegan school then I suspect they'd lose if they were taken to court.

And on your non-sense about vegetarians coming in all 'faiths' - so what; christians come in all political opinions - that doesn't mean that their political belief trumps their religious one or vice versa. You don't seem to be able to think beyond a narrow notion that religion must always have primacy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Religion and verses from the Bible made me afraid as a kid, there was never any comfort for me in that not so good book!

I think an 11 or 12 year old child who is anxious and fearful because he or she is being bullied is much more likely to gain comfort from many of Jacqueline Wilson's books - which often deal directly with these sorts of issues, rather than obscure and incomprehensible sections of the bible. Reading Jacqueline Wilson's books might make him or her feel they aren't so alone or unusual and give them courage to talk to others about their problems.

[Leonard James]

Recounting "God" stories as reality to children, is taking advantage of their vulnerability and doing them a disservice.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why have you assumed that the Gideons are suggesting children read it in isolation?
I've never heard of that.
Are you saying they go around telling children not to talk to an adult as well?


It doesn't seem to occur to you they could do both, does it?

Do you have any evidence that the Gideons are saying children shouldn't also discuss things with an adult they feel comfortable with, as well?

Here is there 'help' section online:

https://www.gideons.org.uk/about_the_bible/bible_helps

Where does is suggest that someone suffering should contact another support organisation, e.g. the Samaritans - it doesn't.

Where does it suggest that a child suffering from fear or anxiety should talk to an adult ab out it - it doesn't.

All it does it guide the reaser to bible passages.

So if your are suicidal and type 'suicide' in the search you get:

'1 Corinthians 10:13
13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.'

And a couple of other verses that are equally unlikely to be of any help to anyone. Does it also say - think about calling the Samaritans - no. Does it also say 'talk to someone you trust about your thoughts' - no. Does it say - go to your doctor - no.

I think I have made my point.

No over to you - provide evidence that the Gideons in the written material they distribute (including online) do guide people to other sources of help (other charitable help, medical services, responsible adults etc etc) beyond bible passages in times of need.

[ProfessorDavey]

Some  of the vegetarians I know, don't eat meat because they don't like it. ( the taste and smell of it).

It's not a religion.

Where have I ever said that vegetarianism or veganism is a religion - I haven't. I have said that in many, likely most, cases they are a belief.

And non religious beliefs are as protected as religious ones under the law and therefore people are required by law to be treated equally irrespective of their beliefs. So to allow state funded schools for some beliefs (many religions) but not others (other religions and non religious beliefs) means that the government would be breaking its own laws.

Were someone to try to set up a state funded vegan school and be refused by government on principle I think they would have a very good case that this would be unlawful.

[Leonard James]

I don't think they would be refused if there was enough of them.

I think they wouldn't succeed because their belief in common only amounts to what they eat and a right not to be discriminated against because of it, and they can be easily catered for in our present system.

Religion has a much broader basis of belief in common, which often effects far more than just what they eat and there are far more Christians and Muslims to have a school than vegans.

Veganism generally only effects what you eat and wear.

A religion tends to get faith schools because it has more structure and ritual.

You could have Buddist and Hindu schools because they may well be vegan and of a faith.

But veganism on its own isn't enough to justify a school.

So the only way to be fair is to cut tax reliefs to all.

[Leonard James]

Not really.

The only fair way is to allow a school if there are enough pupils of that belief  to fill it and it can be shown there is enough of a way of life and ritual that it requires one.

But that is hardly 'fair' to minority groups, is it?

[Leonard James]

If we never did things because it was unfair to a minority group somewhere, we'd never do anything 

Sometimes you have to go with what the majority want, rather than just minority groups.

That's democracy isn't it?

 

Indeed! But let's not hide the fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

People who moan about faith schools,  forget that those parents pay taxes too.

Indeed and people of faith aren't discriminated against at non faith schools. By contrast people without religious faith, despite paying exactly the same in taxes are discriminated against by faith schools. So you can have two children and families, identical in every respect except one is from a christian family the other from an atheist family. The christian meets the criteria for two schools (one faith one non faith) the atheist meets the criteria for neither. There will never by an opposite situation. How can that be fair.

Plus some faith schools are very popular and one near me everyone was trying to get their children into.

Their results were a lot better than the secular one, plus even non Christians liked their children being taught basic Christian values.

Faith schools are quite popular on the whole.

Oh no - the hoary old myth of the 'popular' faith schools. No evidence for this at all, beyond trading individual anecdotes. Actually all the evidence suggests that non faith schools are much more likely to be oversubscribed than faith schools. Actually just last week I sway further evidence of this in my own area (Hertfordshire) - go check out school guru which gives up to date information on the most popular schools in the county (based on number of applications per place available).

Guess what - of the top 10 most popular secondary schools schools in the county how many are faith schools - exactly zero.

Of the top 10 most popular primary schools schools in the county how many are faith schools - also exactly zero.

And even in my more local area - my immediate city

Of the top 10 most popular primary schools schools in the city how many are faith schools - also exactly zero.

Of the top 5 most popular secondary schools schools in the city how many are faith schools - one - blimey, creeps in at number 5 and guess what, there are only 9 secondary schools in the city and 3 of the 4 below it are also faith schools. The only outlier is a brand new non faith school that only opened a couple of years ago so not surprising is hasn't quite generated a popular groundswell yet.

And you'll find the same or similar all over the country. So when you actually look at the evidence it is the non faith schools that tend to be much more popular, more oversubscribed than the faith schools.

As to results - when account is taken of the intake there are no differences between faith and non faith schools, so pupils make just as much progress in non faith schools as faith ones. Any difference in headline grades is due to the well known 'backdoor selection' effect where faith schools take more children from advantages backgrounds, fewer from disadvantaged background, fewer on free school meal, fewer with special education needs etc than would be expected given the demographics of their local area.

[jeremyp]

I think they wouldn't succeed because their belief in common only amounts to what they eat and a right not to be discriminated against because of it, and they can be easily catered for in our present system.

For some vegetarians, their vegetarianism is much more than a mere dietary restriction. For some, it's a whole moral and philosophical idea of how we relate to the world and animals in particular and how we should treat them. I would argue this has a more profound effect on their lives than Christ on the average CofE regular.

[ProfessorDavey]

For some vegetarians, their vegetarianism is much more than a mere dietary restriction. For some, it's a whole moral and philosophical idea of how we relate to the world and animals in particular and how we should treat them. I would argue this has a more profound effect on their lives than Christ on the average CofE regular.

I'd agree - I know very few (if any) vegetarians who are vegetarian because they don't like meat - actually I know plenty who really like meat but won't eat it on principle - and that principle is based on a belief that eating meat is wrong.

And that belief is very all encompassing. Plenty will see that their belief not only impacts themselves, both in terms of emotional (doing the right thing) but also physical wellbeing, it also impacts on the welfare of other animal species and also on the 'well-being' of the plant in that the environmental benefits of vegetarianism are often part and parcel of their beliefs.

So it is perfectly reasonable to argue firstly that vegetarianism and veganism as beliefs are more expansive (individual, other humans and other people and the planet) that christianity, which lets face it is basically an entirely 'human-centric' belief system with no real recognition of the importance of other species/the planet etc.

Also I agree with Jeremy - most vegetarians practice are active every single day, every meal they eat. You don't get many vegetarians, prepared to describe themselves as such you don't eat meat on most days, but eat a nice roast chicken on others. Nope they are actively vegetarian day in , day out. By contrast there are plenty of christians whose active engagement with their belief is little more than one hour on a Sunday, and for the rest of the week they are (in active terms) indistinguishable from non christians.

[jeremyp]

I'd agree - I know very few (if any) vegetarians who are vegetarian because they don't like meat - actually I know plenty who really like meat but won't eat it on principle - and that principle is based on a belief that eating meat is wrong.

And that belief is very all encompassing. Plenty will see that their belief not only impacts themselves, both in terms of emotional (doing the right thing) but also physical wellbeing, it also impacts on the welfare of other animal species and also on the 'well-being' of the plant in that the environmental benefits of vegetarianism are often part and parcel of their beliefs.

So it is perfectly reasonable to argue firstly that vegetarianism and veganism as beliefs are more expansive (individual, other humans and other people and the planet) that christianity, which lets face it is basically an entirely 'human-centric' belief system with no real recognition of the importance of other species/the planet etc.

Also I agree with Jeremy - most vegetarians practice are active every single day, every meal they eat. You don't get many vegetarians, prepared to describe themselves as such you don't eat meat on most days, but eat a nice roast chicken on others. Nope they are actively vegetarian day in , day out. By contrast there are plenty of christians whose active engagement with their belief is little more than one hour on a Sunday, and for the rest of the week they are (in active terms) indistinguishable from non christians.

I was thinking it is more than just food. For instance, I could imagine a vegetarian refusing to play cricket because a cow needed to die to make the ball. Then there might be animal based products in the art classes and domestic science would be an obvious problem.

No, I think the justification for vegetarian schools is far higher than for CofE schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

If we never did things because it was unfair to a minority group somewhere, we'd never do anything 

Sometimes you have to go with what the majority want, rather than just minority groups.

That's democracy isn't it?

 

And where is the evidence that the majority want state funded faith schools. There isn't any - survey after survey has demonstrated that the majority do not want the state to fund faith schools. And in even greater numbers they don't want an expansion in the number of faith schools. And what do we get - protection for existing faith schools and a major programme of expansion.

It won't end well, give that there is already over-saturation of faith schools, given that they tend to get rather fewer applications per place than non faith schools. And as the number of people in the UK who are religious continues to dwindle that problem will become even worse.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was thinking it is more than just food. For instance, I could imagine a vegetarian refusing to play cricket because a cow needed to die to make the ball. Then there might be animal based products in the art classes and domestic science would be an obvious problem.

No, I think the justification for vegetarian schools is far higher than for CofE schools.

Yes, of course.

The vegetarian (and certainly) vegan beliefs go way beyond simply eating meat - it is about how we treat members of other species.

I doubt there are many state schools in the UK that really cater for those needs - indeed I suspect few go beyond the provision of one vegetarian option (probably not even vegan) in their school canteen.

[ProfessorDavey]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11286467/Primary-school-tables-faith-schools-dominating-rankings.html

The highest primary school was a Sikh one.

Hmm the Daily Telegraph - always the best source of unbiased information - not!!

Why ask the monkey when you can go straight the the organ grinder - in other worlds the information that comes from the Department for Education that the Telegraph puts their own spin on.

So there was a recent report on Faith schools, which concluded on results that:

'Examination results for faith schools are somewhat better, on average, than those for non-faith schools. For instance in 2013 64% of pupils in mainstream state funded faith schools achieve five or more grades at A*-C including English and Maths compared to 60% of pupils at state non-faith schools. However, pupil intake differs between in faith and non-faith schools, both background characteristics (such as free school meal eligibility) and their prior attainment, so headline results may not give us the most meaningful comparisons. ...

And they then looked into comparisons when compounding factors such as pupil prior attainment etc and school type were taken into account, so effectively comparing like for like, the only difference being one group of schools is faith the other non faith. And their conclusion:

'The performance gaps between faith and non-faith schools are smaller still or reversed when schools status is included in this analysis.'

So there is absolutely no evidence that any difference between the schools is due to the faith nature of the school.

There is an issue over difference between schools that in control of their own admission and those where the LEA runs the admissions. Those that run their own admissions tend to end up with a better prior attainment of pupils etc (i.e. back door selection). Now traditionally that has largely been faith schools, but not anymore as there are now several thousand 'academy converters', both faith and non faith, that have exactly the same ability to control their own admission criteria, have the same administrative arrangements and funding arrangements with government etc. So they are identical, except some are faith and some not. And guess what: there is no difference between faith 'academy converters' and non faith 'academy converters'.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm convinced the NSS and others fiddles their statistics by only asking these questions to people who inevitably are going to give a predictable answer.

And which statistics might those be Rose:

Official stats on applications per place for schools (don't think the NSS has anything to do with this), opinion polling much of which has nothing to do with an NSS agenda, data on progress by students (direct from the Department of Education).

I think it is often the other way around - that there is a spin that faith schools are a) more popular than non faith schools, and b) that kids make better progress at faith schools, because they are 'faith' schools. Neither is backed up by evidence.

Here is a great example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9729674/Top-state-schools-flooded-with-over-1000-applications.html

Again from the Torygraph. Their spin being that:

'Parents are flooding an elite group of grammar schools, faith schools and flagship academies with more than a thousand applications, it was revealed.'

The clear implication being that faith school are disproportionately amongst the most popular schools.

Yet actually look at their list of the 30 most popular schools and only 6 are faith schools - i.e. 20%. Sounds impressive until you add in the fact that 34% of schools are faith schools, so faith schools are clearly punching well below their weight in terms of popularity. Which doesn't surprise me at all, as all the evidence suggests that it is non faith schools that are much more likely to be most popular and oversubscribed than faith schools.

See my evidence from Hertfordshire too - rather more compelling that your vague anecdotal assertion that 'the Faith school near me was a lot more popular'.

Actually is astonishes me how few applications there are for faith schools even ones that are top notch in terms of their academic record.

[ProfessorDavey]

the Faith school near me was a lot more popular

Perhaps that's so, but this is purely anecdotal and there is no evidence to back this up.

So here is some evidence from my city.

There are 9 secondary schools, 6 non faith (including two single sex, one boys one girls) and 3 faith schools (one mixed CofE and 2 RCC - one mixed, one girls). Every parent puts down 4 choices so a 4 applications per place might be considered par - above that the school is oversubscribed, below that undersubscribed.

If you rank the schools - the top 5 are all non faith, the bottom 2 both faith. The only cross over being a faith school as number 6 and a non faith (but new) school at number 7.

Average applications per place for the 6 non faith schools, 4.45 application per place; at the 3 faith schools 1.98 applications per place.

The change in number of applications is also revealing - so the new non faith school is improving massively - a 42% increase in application this year compared to last. But interesting this isn't taking applications from the other non faith schools - quite the reverse all the other non faith schools also stayed the same or increased the number of applications. By contrast all of the faith schools are losing applications, with applications compared to last year down by 7%, 14% and 15% for the three faith schools.

Now that's evidence.

Summary non faiths schools are twice as popular as faith schools and getting more popular still. Faith schools are half as popular as non faith schools and getting less popular.

[ProfessorDavey]

To give you an example of my local schools ( yes I looked it up  )


The only thing that matters around here is which catchment area you fall in.  ( when you have to move mid term)

In 2006   The local average of children getting 5 or more GCSEs at C or above:

Local average was 38.7%

National Average was 45.6%

The local secular school 11%

Firstly data from nearly 10 years ago?!?

Also why no comparison with any other local school. But more importantly, so what - so you've got a rubbish non faith school locally and perhaps a better faith one. So what - that tells you nothing about the broader picture as we can simply trade very specific examples.

So the secondary school my kids go to (mixed non faith) is about 200 yards from another secondary school (mixed, faith) - they are basically tapping into exactly the same local demographics.

My kids school - A*-C GCSEs - 86% (most recent data, not from 2006) and OFSTED outstanding in every area.
Nearby faith school - A*-C GCSEs - 50% (most recent data, not from 2006) and OFSTED - Inadequate in all but one area, requires improvement in the other.

And guess what, this autumn 1196 people applied for the 180 places at my school, just 239 applied to the faith school.

But all this proves is my local faith school is really good (and popular) and the neighbouring faith school is really poor and really unpopular. It tells us no more about the bigger picture than your very limited and outdated anecdote.

I've not seen any reports of parents complaining that they don't want their child to go to a faith school.

But I've seen plenty that don't want their kids to go to the local secular one.

Actually there are loads of reports about desperate parents doing everything they can to get into non faith schools, including breaking and bending the rules by pretending to live in places they don't etc.

But the proof really is in the pudding - forget sensational newspaper articles and look at the real evidence, which is of course the schools parents chose to apply to. Did you not read my post - in my city there are, on average, 4.45 application per place at the non faith schools, and just 1.98 applications per place at the faith schools.

And in the county as whole the top ten most popular primary schools are all non faith, and the top ten most popular secondary schools are all non faith.

And this seems to be similar across the country (as even the Telegraph article demonstrates, despite their spin, with faith schools punching well below their weight in popularity stakes) - I remember a recent article about the most popular schools in London which needed two tables, one for faith schools and one for non faith - why? Because not a single faith school would have made in into the overall top ten most popular.

[ProfessorDavey]

But the point remains that some people like them and want to send their child to one, and they can't afford private education.

But clearly less than like non faith schools, or they would be gaining the same or more applications per place as non faith schools - but all the proper evidence (not anecdote or media spin) tells us that applications per place at non faith schools are higher than at faith schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

If we only had secular state schools ...

By the way as far as I am aware there are no secular schools in this country. All state funded schools (whether faith or non faith) are required to hold acts of worships of a broadly christian nature. That isn't consistent with the notion of a secular school.

[Shaker]

By the way as far as I am aware there are no secular schools in this country. All state funded schools (whether faith or non faith) are required to hold acts of worships of a broadly christian nature. That isn't consistent with the notion of a secular school.

Somebody attempted to open an explicitly secular school a few years ago (I assume that this meant a school without daily worship of a broadly Christian nature, etc.) and was refused permission to do so.