by chelseadad » Wed May 06, 2015 11:36 am
papinian wrote:
To quote chelseadad on another thread, we need a "dynamic, pluralised state school system, where parents have genuine choice and schools have greater methodological liberty". Faith schools are part of that mix.
I was encouraged to see you quoted me from a previous thread, as I take it that you are committed to the same ideals in education as I am, and we are not so far apart. We just disagree on what that end result will look like. We both agree that we don't want a one-size fits all approach, but you seem to support a system that has various forms of privilege and discrimination institutionally embedded into it. It is your curious claim that exclusion means more choice that I wish to challenge directly.
What I advocate is what is already a part of the British school system. You blunder when thinking we want some kind of French style system were religion is permitted no quarter at all. At my sons' school (one is in nursery, the other in Year 1), my children have already been informed onIslam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Christianity. They go to churches, mosques, gurdwaras. Children from those religious traditions are encouraged to talk openly about them. The teach on religion WITHOUT PRIVILEGING ANY ONE FAITH OVER THE OTHERS. Secular schools, such as the one my sons attend, don't close out religion, THEY MAKE ALL RELIGIONS AVAILABLE TO ALL ON EQUAL TERMS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Now tell me which school is closer to the ideal of genuine choice and methodological liberty: your institutionalised apartheid school? Or my school that offers an inclusive role for all religions and its adherents, thereby offering the chance for the child to learn and choose of their own volition. I think the answer is quite self-evident to the unbiased.
[quote="papinian"]
To quote chelseadad on another thread, we need a "dynamic, pluralised state school system, where parents have genuine choice and schools have greater methodological liberty". Faith schools are part of that mix.[/quote]
I was encouraged to see you quoted me from a previous thread, as I take it that you are committed to the same ideals in education as I am, and we are not so far apart. We just disagree on what that end result will look like. We both agree that we don't want a one-size fits all approach, but you seem to support a system that has various forms of privilege and discrimination institutionally embedded into it. It is your curious claim that exclusion means more choice that I wish to challenge directly.
What I advocate is what is already a part of the British school system. You blunder when thinking we want some kind of French style system were religion is permitted no quarter at all. At my sons' school (one is in nursery, the other in Year 1), my children have already been informed onIslam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Christianity. They go to churches, mosques, gurdwaras. Children from those religious traditions are encouraged to talk openly about them. The teach on religion WITHOUT PRIVILEGING ANY ONE FAITH OVER THE OTHERS. Secular schools, such as the one my sons attend, don't close out religion, THEY MAKE ALL RELIGIONS AVAILABLE TO ALL ON EQUAL TERMS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Now tell me which school is closer to the ideal of genuine choice and methodological liberty: your institutionalised apartheid school? Or my school that offers an inclusive role for all religions and its adherents, thereby offering the chance for the child to learn and choose of their own volition. I think the answer is quite self-evident to the unbiased.