PaAC: I've had an idea.

[velvetpage]

I was discussing the homeschooling debate with my dad just now, over steeped tea and donuts at Timmy's, and he pointed out that Canadians who want a religious education have an alternative to secular public schools, in the form of the Catholic school board. (At least, they do in most provinces.) We discussed alternative schools within the boards of education, and I had an idea.

It is quite common now for school boards to offer alternative or magnet programs within the public school framework. That is, a school will be geared towards high-level athletes, or towards the arts, or towards science. These schools are generally opt-in; that is, there is no real catchment area other than living within the confines of the school board itself, so no one is forced to attend these schools because of what street they live on.

Why not offer a magnet school for mainstream Protestant education? That is, an opt-in school, under the public umbrella, that gives kids the religious education they would otherwise be homeschooling or charter schooling to obtain. It would be staffed by teachers within the school board who followed the same creed, and those teachers would have all the same employment standards as their counterparts in the rest of the public board. The one and only difference would be the Christian focus.

In some areas, particularly the Bible Belt, you'd probably end up with two separate systems under one umbrella. That would be fine, as long as the public, secular schools continued to operate and were reasonably located to service the population who attended them. It would give parents and students a choice within the public system, so it would no longer be necessary to go outside the public system to get a religious education. The key here is that it has to be opt-in. So long as students and parents have a choice, it doesn't violate any rights. It's only when that choice is denied that there is a violation.

Thoughts?

Comments

[dawn-again.livejournal.com]

There's a Canadian Bible Belt?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

No, I was speaking in broad North American terms.

[dawn-again.livejournal.com]

It's unconstitutional in the US.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This has been partially interpreted by the Supreme Court as a prohibition on spending public funds for the teaching of any religon.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Then I'd say the First Amendment, in this case, is shooting itself in the foot. If people want the option enough, they will pull their kids out of public education entirely and work to bring down the system - as is already happening in some parts of the South. This suggestion allows for both a secular and a religious option within the same bureaucratic framework.

[mysirensong.livejournal.com]

Actually, as over-populated as our schools are here in Raleigh, where we are absolutely BOOMING and we can't build schools fast enough, a couple people pulling their kids out because they want them to be educated at home would probably make a lot of teachers breath a sigh of relief. They're over-extended enough -- let them focus their talent and energy on the children whose parents aren't bitching and moaning because they want the Ten Commandments displayed in school.

[freifraufischer.livejournal.com]

We can't build schools in Wake County fast enough so we're transforming so many into year round schools. I am ignorant on the subject but I've never quite understood why the year round calender lets the same school service more students.

[mysirensong.livejournal.com]

You're in Wake County, too?? How cool. :)

I'm trying to think of how to explain it. Let's say you have 30 desks in your classroom, but you have 40 kids you need to teach. You put them on "tracks" so that at any given time you only have 30 kids in your class, but you rotate them out. So, at one point you'll have groups A B & C there while D is at home, then group A goes home, D comes in - so you had B C D. Then B goes home, A comes back in so you have A C and D, and so on. You're teaching the same number of students, using the same number of resources (desks) but using "time" to your advantage so that you can fit everyone in.

Obviously, you don't have kids in the same *class* rotating tracks like that - because that would be a nightmare to teach, wouldn't it? - but the school does this basic concept with classrooms, books, equipment, etc.

And then, obviously the only way to make sure that the required 180 days (or whatever it is now) are being met is to extend the year since every 9 weeks or so you have a three week break.

Does that make sense?

[freifraufischer.livejournal.com]

I live in Apex.

That's probably the best explaination I've heard, certainly better than any of the local news stations has given. They just keep repeating that you can fit more kids in the classrooms without explain how.

[melstra.livejournal.com]

I'm curious about your example of the south's "bringing down the system". Elaborate? While it's true that pulling good students out of a public school can tend to leave the majority flailing, the fact is that people who put their kids in private school STILL pay taxes to the public school (a double whammy for their pocketbooks as they're also paying private school tuition). (At least so far as I know.) So by pulling their kids,they're actually making it easier on the system in that they're functionally increasing the amount spent per student, right? I'm not trying to argue here, just curious and fact-seeking. :)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Not in Ontario. Yes, they pay school tax, but the funding for the school is based on how many kids are enrolled in that school. If there are fewer kids, there is less funding. The school tax disappears into the government coffers, never to be seen again. AFAIK, that's the way it is for most school systems.

This is why the public system in Ontario suffered so much in the last eleven years. The per-student funding was based on an outdated, unresponsive formula, and was insufficient to meet school needs. In shrinking boards (like Hamilton) the board couldn't get enough new funding to provide extra programs, or in some cases meet its obligations, because no new students were coming in to add to the board's funding. Meanwhile, Peel board in Mississauga/Brampton has been booming because the housing in that region is booming. They've got new schools popping up all over the place, and they're able to hire before anyone else because of the extra funding from an expanding board.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

There are some powerful people in the Southern Baptist Convention, among other denominations, who are advocating that all Southern Baptists pull their kids out of the public system to homeschool them. The stated goal is to bring down the public system by not leaving enough of a tax base. When I find a link, I'll post it - I don't have it handy.

[dawn-again.livejournal.com]

I cant even discuss this any further.

[stress-kitten.livejournal.com]

I know that BC does not have a provincially-run Catholic School Board. To be honest, I thought the only places in Canada to still have that were Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba. The public education system here is completely secular. There is partial funding for independent schools, though... be they exclusive private schools or local religious schools. However, those schools do not have to hire BC Certified teachers... although the teachers do have to be liscenced through the independant/charter schools system. The independent schools are monitored by the Provincial Government to ensure they comply with B.C. educational standards, but this does give significant lee-way. And some question the level of observation, since Bountiful (an extremist mormon community in Creston) has gotten away with some pretty heinous levels of high-school completion, espeically for girls.

I disagree with the government fully funding religious-based education. While it would be opt in, does that mean we will also provide opt-in education for Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Jewish, Pasgan, etc., education? Where/when do we start drawing the line? Where/when does that start becoming discriminatory to minorities who might not have the numbers in an area to allow for a school directed towards their education? As far as I'm concerned, religious education is what catechism, Sunday School, Church and parental involvement are for.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

If there were enough of those other faiths to create an entire school and staff it with certified teachers, I don't see why not.

If it's under the umbrella of the public school system, then it can be held to the same standards as the public system. That's where it's an improvement over independent schools.

the Quebec experience

[hendrikboom.livejournal.com]

BC does not have a provincially-run Catholic School Board .... I thought the only places in Canada to still have that were Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba.

Actually, Quebec no longer does. The religious school boards (Protestant and Catholic) were abolished a few years ago in favour of linguistic ones. The old Protestant ones became English ones; the Catholic ones became French, and a lot of property changed hands (the English Catholic schools and the French Protestant schools).

The individual schools were able to choose whether they would retain their religious status or not. Most seem to have dropped it.

But what is still present is Moral and Religious Education. Officially, all schools provide Moral Education, Catholic Religious Education, and Protestant Religious Education, and it's the student's parents who choose between the three.

In practice, the PRE (which I opted for) is more of an examination of several faiths -- more or less those represented in the classroom. For example, when my children were in primary school the entire class got to learn about Christian and Jewish religious holidays as well as secular events like Halloween. I think the idea is to promote awareness that other people are different, and promote tolerance. There's a big difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion.

By the way, once they were old enough to understand the issue, I let my them choose which of the three they wanted.

When they started in High School, they went into the so-called International Program, which is a rather intense enrichment program (about 50% more real content, including an extra language). Enrollment is limited, there's an entrance exam for it, there was only one class in each grade, and the school bluntly told us that whichever of the three we chose, we'd get Moral Education. Apparently the others were still available to non-International students. I had no problem with that.

Re: the Quebec experience

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I think that system has an excellent level of compromise, of the sort that most would be happy with. I'd love to see some curricula for the three choices at different levels, if you know where they can be obtained.

Re: the Quebec experience

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I've friended you - please take that as an invitation to friend me back. :)

[paka.livejournal.com]

It would still be a public institution, paid for by the public though? I have no interest in being taxed for the privilage of having my own faith ignored and locked out of the public sector. This is a particularly bitter point given the Bush Administration's faith-based initiatives.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

If you lived in an area where there were enough of your own faith, you could realistically have a magnet school of your own.

This would have the potential to solve the "Prayer in public schools" debate. Those who wanted it could have it, and those who didn't want it wouldn't have to. Any group big enough to warrant its own school population in a region could get its own magnet school.

[paka.livejournal.com]

I dunno, that still sounds undemocratic. I mean, how large do you have to be to merit a magnet school? Isn't leaving the only [fill in blank with name of practice] family out, an injustice?

And while "Catholic" is a moderately unanimous block, "Moslem" could be Shi'ia or Sunni, "Jewish" could be Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist, and "Protestant" has how many iterations that might not be completely in agreement?

Admittedly, I'm pretty dead set against something as important and deeply personal as religious faith being administered by a public school system.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It seems to me it would be more democratic. Democracy means the majority rules. We've put limits on that so that no one's individual rights would be trampled, and rightly so. But if it is possible to cater to many groups with a public service, without diminishing the efficacy of that service, that seems to me to be more democratic than a take-it-or-leave-it approach to that service. The real question, then, is: should education be representative of the population being educated? If education is to be democratic, then I would argue that it should be representative.

BTW, a UN tribunal agrees with me in one respect. One of Canada's Protestant groups took the province of Ontario to court over discrimination, and the decision was that our funding model (Catholic and Public schools, but no funding for anybody else) was discriminatory. We should be funding either everybody or nobody. The judges didn't force the province to recitfy the situation, though several other provinces took it upon themselves to eliminate the Catholic system as a result.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

The judges didn't force the province to recitfy the situation, though several other provinces took it upon themselves to eliminate the Catholic system as a result.

The latter seems the reasonable and ethical choice to me.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Oh, and there's an argument to meet your second point. Most Protestant denominations have a set of core values they all espouse. There are a second set of almost-core values, of which there are three or four broad sets. After that it breaks down considerably, but it would be possible to group them together to form some broadly similar ideas, and teach those. Then you either leave out the parts where they differ, or you teach the differences side by side and let the kids choose. There's also the argument that most of Christianity believes almost the same things when you get down to brass tacks, and the public education could focus on those and leave out the nitty-gritty. You'd still get the prayer in schools, and the "what would Jesus do?" type emphasis. That's basically how the Catholic schools here handle it. (Yes, I've seen them from the inside - I taught in one as an assistant for a while in university.)

[athelind.livejournal.com]

If you lived in an area where there were enough of your own faith, you could realistically have a magnet school of your own.

And if you don't, to heck with you. Why aren't you living with your own kind, anyway?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

It's more representative than the take-it-or-leave-it system that's currently in place. And the secular schools are still available.

[nottheterritory.livejournal.com]

Have you looked at Newfoundland's system? I know that they do (or at least did for a long time) have not only a Catholic school system but also seperate school systems for at least two or three other Protestant faiths as well (including, I think, for the Salvation Army).

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I think they scrapped those systems. I know they don't fund the Catholic one anymore.

[mysirensong.livejournal.com]

I don't think it would ever fly here, and I'd be completely against it if someone tried to make it fly. I have a couple reasons I can think of right off hand.
A) Separation of Church and State means the Church doesn't get involved in the State and the State doesn't get involved in the Church. I believe it's important for people to worship and believe how they want to, without the State mandating it in any way. If there was some kind of Religious Public Education then, yes, the State would be involved in deciding what is and is not taught. All Protestants do *not* believe the same things, and interpretations of the Bible are varied from one pastor to another, much less one denomination. The government getting involved and saying, "This is what we teach the children about Communion" and "This is what we teach the children about the virgin birth" and "This is how we explain what happened on the day of Pentacost." No no no. None of that flies with me, and I don't think it should fly with any Christian, or anyone who believes in the separation of Church and State.

B) The point above about then having a Jewish School System, and a Muslim School System, etc is valid. I know your reply was "if there are enough students and teachers" but, if there are not, then ... what? Majority rules, sucks to be them? The Christians get to send their kids off for a Christian education simply because there are *more* of them? That's hugely discriminatory and we'd be up to our eyeballs in lawsuits over it before the whole system collapsed.

[melstra.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Gotta say that while that sounds good in theory, I generally agree with paka and stress_kitten on this one. I wouldn't mind protestant-based education for my child...but then again, even that is a broad brush and who's to say what flavor of protestantism it is? Down here in the Bible Belt, I can guarantee it wouldn't be MY brand of liberal protestantism. And then of course, there's the great head of "separation of church and state" to contend with. Magnet schools for arts or sciences are marginally tolerated here (I think they're a good idea, but I'm sure there are some who find them unfair) because they're seen as promoting important skills. Religion, on the other hand, even in its broadest sense, is only taught at a handful of US public schools (and we're talking comparative religion/philosophy, not specific doctrine), so there would definitely be a cry about the idea of advocating religion in the public schools-- opt-in or not.

Furthermore,say people agree. Only people who opt-in are in this new school. The old school continues. All are happy. Then the religious school starts to do REALLY well. Kids are getting great grades, the school is raised up as a beacon of good education, etc. Someone is now going to cry foul because suddenly the education at schools x and y is no longer equal.

You get the general idea. In the US, the proposed solution to this problem is to provide vouchers to parents which would subsidize school choice--even for religious schools. It's one of those campaign platforms that come and go. I myself am not sure about the idea, because I tend to see school choice as a difficult issue. I think that we should try to improve ALL schools, not just flee the bad ones like a rat from a sinking ship. However, at least vouchers help parents who can't afford private schools to have a few more options for their children.

Ok, I've blathered enough. ;)

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Upon reflection, I think I agree that it wouldn't fly in the States. I'm not convinced, though, that it couldn't fly in Canada, as an alternative to the dual system we have right now in Ontario where Catholic schools are funded but other faiths are not. I know several families that send their kids to the Catholic schools, on the grounds that they can't afford the Protestant private school and the Catholic school is closer to what they want than the public school is.

[dagoski.livejournal.com]

I just don't understand why these people can't send their kids to their churches for religous education. Having public schools stand down on religous education does not mean that parents are prohibited from providing their kids with religous instruction through their own churches. This is called parenting.

One reason why people like myself and paka are so deadset against public funding going to any religous education is the fact that protestant christianity in this country has a history of agressive proslytesizng and ignoring laws. Furthermore, terms like Protestant Republic have a dark and sinister history, having been used as rallying point first for Nativist Parties and then by the Ku Klux Klan as a way to appeal to wider audience. Maybe churches in Canada have a live and let live policy towards other faiths, but things here in the US have never been so civilized despite our strong constitutional protections. Mainline churches are not the problem, but much of the modern evangelical movment regards democracy as toilet paper; use it once and throw it away. So I don't want any of my money going to religion.

The practical problem with having protestant magnet schools is the trends towards Christian Nationalism or Protestant Separation might be a better term. Any accredited school would have to follow a state approved curriculum on secular subjects. The problem is that many of the religous sepratists would flat out refuse to teach scientific ideas they disagree with like Evolution, some kinds of set theory, geology and anyting that else goes against their narrow(and very flawed) interpretation of genesis. Now if they want to screw their kids out of a proper education for religous reasons, that's fine. Just don't expect my money to fund their substandard education.

I think the overarching problem in the US is that without a Soviet Union or other polorar opposite to define ourselves against, we simply aren't a nation. We can't agree on even the most fundamental notion what constitutes a proper education.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I think i can explain why they don't like the public school system. Just please keep in mind that I'm playing devil's advocate, because I don't actually believe this myself. (In fact this whole thread has an element of devil's advocate, because I don't actually believe a religious education is necessary to turning out religious adults. . . but I digress.)

It comes down to worldview. Christians tend to see all worldviews as fundamentally religious in nature, because religion is how people define their worldviews. So you can have an atheistic worldview, but if you do, that's still a religious viewpoint. According to this definition, a system that avoids teaching God is not simply areligious; it is teaching a different religion, which they've named secularism or secular humanism, depending on which theologian you're reading at the time. This is evident in various teachings throughout the school culture - everything from how to handle conflict to the geology and biology you mention - and actually results in changing the religious worldview of the students so subtly that they aren't aware of it until it's too late.

Parents who want a religious education for their kids believe that their worldview should be the foundation for absolutely everything that goes on in their school. A good example: the Catholic school I visited a few months ago (our school was evacuated due to a gas main breakage, and the catholic school down the road was our evacuation site) had "WWJD?" stenciled on all the pillars in the cafeteria. A Catholic teacher friend of mine has often asked how I handle certain ethical questions the kids ask "without playing the God card." These are examples of a religious culture and worldview at the school, that they want for their kids.

As for the rest of your comment: you're right that the trend towards dominionism in the US effectively precludes compromises such as this one. It might work in Canada, though - the dominionist ethic isn't nearly as over-reaching here.

"Christians tend to see all worldviews as fundamentally religious in nature"

[perlandria.livejournal.com]

"Christians tend to see all worldviews as fundamentally religious in nature" and that is a problem and basic flaw to that religion. An atheist is not religious. Just because you are binary in worldview, doesn't mean your Us and Them labels are true. Or that those of use who aren't faith based should accommodate what some of us see as on the benign or useful end of crazy.

I am about to start swapping labels in this discussion to see if it shakes you up any. Would your charter schools be more acceptable to separate boys and girls? How about the rich and poor? Black and white?

Re: "Christians tend to see all worldviews as fundamentally religious in nature"

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Did you miss the part where I said I didnt' believe this myself? It's right there in the first paragraph - I was explaining the worldview, not endorsing it. I don't believe this.

I just wanted to open up debate. I hadn't made up my mind that this was absolutely a good idea, or a bad one, and a lot of good points have been made that I tried to acknowledge. In short, please stop yelling at me - I'm trying to have a debate about an issue, not espouse views I hold myself. I don't need shaking up because I'm prepared to listen to a well-presented argument.

Re: "Christians tend to see all worldviews as fundamentally religious in nature"

[perlandria.livejournal.com]

It is not clear from the first paragraph, as it stands, everything you are saying now in your reply to me. I believe you intended the first paragraph as you explain.

Re: "Christians tend to see all worldviews as fundamentally religious in nature"

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I meant the first paragraph of the comment you were replying to.

Oh, side note: the school I used to teach at started single-gender, opt-in classes four years ago. There's a school in Montreal, again opt-in, that streams all kids according to gender. Both have more fans than critics.

[paka.livejournal.com]

There are basically two reasons I object, actually.

One is the taxation reason pretty much; I don't like the idea of being taxed to promote anyone's religion. Turning the situation on it's head, it wouldn't be fair to tax Christian families so that my kids could learn Hebrew and study Torah. But it is fair to tax all of us alike for schools that teach the kids the basics of English literature, or French, or whatever is of utility to them as citizens of X country rather than of Y religious group.

The second thing is more personal. If you have kids in a religious program sponsored through the public school system, isn't that basically tax-sponsored isolation of the kids who don't belong to Y religious group? Kids and teachers alike can be pretty cruel, sometimes, and I just don't think it's very humane for the system to inadvertantly isolate kids and make them into targets for bullying and ridicule.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to grant the first point. The second. . . it's my belief that most bullying isn't really about the difference being picked on. Kids get bullied about things that make them feel insecure and off-balance. Anything that does that will lead to bullying, because bullies are looking for weaknesses. If they can't find a legitimate weakness, they'll make one up, which is how a few of my girls got sexually harassed a year or two ago - the bullies couldn't find any significant insecurities that got the reaction they wanted, so they destroyed the girls' innocence in order to upset her.

What that means is that kids need to be secure in their own skin to protect them as much as possible from bullies. If kids are taught to be proud of their religion and how to deal with negativity, most (not all, certainly, but most) bullying can be stopped in its tracks, because the bullies will find themselves a) without ammunition, and b) without allies as the other students join in the jokes made by the "victim."

[paka.livejournal.com]

That makes no sense.

When you're a minority you ARE vulnerable already. Even if your family is wonderfully loving and comforting.

For a school system to PROVIDE more ammunition for bullying is simply unconscionable. In the system you are describing, the majority kids, and ONLY the majority kids who can have such programs in place - the guys who are already secure - will be bolstered further, the minority kids will be far more visible even if they are fairly secure people.

Worse, what happens when you make the minority kids really defensive? I've slugged fellow students when I got picked on, did that further anyone's education?

If you face a kid with these options; her parents send her to religious school on their own dime after class, or don't provide any option of that sort at all, while her fellow students have the public schools providing taxpayer-supported programs in a different religion... then what message does that send about acceptance, value, or potential role in the overall community?

Even if that student were secure in her accomplishments and personality, this still informs her that she is a second class citizen and is never going to be recognized as anything better.

Trust me on this one, it's a terrible idea.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

In other words, it promotes the kind of insecurity I mentioned.

You and I have different perspectives on bullying. I went through it too, but I've also been responsible for trying to stop it, and it's not an easy issue. We're probably both right in part.

I taught in a Catholic school that allowed non-Catholics to attend - it was the only French school in the city, so it had every Francophone in the city regardless of creed. The Muslim kids were a very clear religious minority, but they didn't get bullied over it. I think it went back to the culture of Christian love that was promoted ceaselessly. There were bullies, but they didn't pick on religion and they operated with a lot more secrecy than they have in any public school I've ever been in. It doesn't have to be like it was for you.

[paka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but can you really trust people?

Especially in the US. Our political climate is far, far uglier than Canada's, and currently anyone brown skinned already risks being deemed an Islamic fanatic. We have Fox News spouting anti-Semitism as part of connecting religion to the overall political agenda. It's probably already terrible at the public school level and I'd hate to see anything worsen it.

Unrelated question as part of wrapping things up; Timmy's equals Tim Hortons, or is it a different chain?

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I did concede, further up, that this isn't going to work in the U.S. at the moment, possibly not ever; I am not so sure it couldn't work here.

Timmy's is Tim Horton's, yes. Hamilton is the birthplace of the chain, and there's one on every corner (figuratively, of course, but there are three within a ten-minute walk of my home, even with a preschooler in tow, and five more within a five-minute drive.)

Your comments about majority hackle me

[perlandria.livejournal.com]

I don't like tax money being available for certain religious universities now. Why would I want to subsidize any part of any religious agenda? I didn't even answer religious questions as a child care provider. Belief systems are personal and are the responsibility of the home - not the school.

Are you asking because you want a consistent moral environment? I'd want a consistent moral environment, one that is free of Christian influence! Or ANY religious influence. I know a school is made of people, and some of those people will have faiths. You are a good person because you are kind, empathetic, and constructive - not because you are Christian. Being Christian gives you a framework to be yourself but I know too many ass hole Christians and sweetheart agnostics to think having faith equals being good.

Re: Your comments about majority hackle me

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Actually, if this type of school were available to me, I wouldn't send my kids to it. I value diversity more than I value a Christian education - in fact, much more. This whole thread was about two things: a) suggesting a possible compromise between two groups, both of whose points I can see and have some stake in; and b) playing a bit of devil's advocate for the side that wants this.

I'm tired of a democracy that represents fifty percent plus one of the population - or, in Canada's case, about 37%. I like the idea of reworking things so that more views can be heard in democracy. I want to see compromise, and I'm sick of the polarization on this and many other issues. It's tiring, and it doesn't have to be like this.

The university I went to started out as a Baptist seminary. It still has a Divinity college where Baptists (or anyone else) can go to learn to be ministers. It receives the same public funding as any other branch of the university, and has absolutely no say in the running or curricula of any other faculty. The religious and the areligious live side by side on that campus and, to the best of my knowledge, never created any problems for each other. I want it to be like that everywhere.

[ghostwes.livejournal.com]

I don't have much to contribute to this debate but I have noticed something locally that you might find interesting.

Across the street from my office is a Catholic high school. I've noticed lately that there have been an increasing number of Muslim kids attending the school (if the number of hijab-wearing girls is any indication). Have you noticed this trend at all?

I find it interesting that Muslims would prefer to put their kids in an explicitly Christian school rather than a public school. I know that there is actually a Muslim grade school here in town, though I'm told that it's not at all exclusive. It's probably not allowed to be, I suppose, though I can't see a lot of non-Muslims lining up to attend.

I will say, though, from personal experiences I've had with Muslims, I've found them to be much more tolerant of any religious beliefs than no religious beliefs. Some of my Muslim friends still refuse to believe that I am an atheist, which I find a bit frustrating.

Anyway, just an interesting aside...

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

There was a segment on that on the evening news here the last time I watched it. It's the same reason that you'll often find Protestant kids attending Catholic schools - a religious wourldview that isn't an exact match is closer to what they want than a secular worldview. This is the reason my cousins went to a Catholic high school.

Historically, Muslims have been taught to treat Christians and Jews with respect, because they're "people of the book," in possession of an accurate, though incomplete, revelation from Allah. That's only changed in the last sixty or so years.

zoink, I confess, I am not going to read all the replys to this :)

[girlydoll.livejournal.com]

Now, I did see alot of province names come up, one I didn't see was Saskatchewan.


Cough cough, climb on soap box.

In saskatchewan they DO have a provincial wide catholic school system, along with a public school system, along with an independant French board AND an independant Native school system.

In some elementary schools it is MANDATORY to take a native language corse, and no french is offerend.

In EVERY school system (including Catholic) You can OPT OUT of the religion and take a course called "life studies" instead, which is a course that deals with interactions with other people, so social studies.

So, the class will divide itself into two groups and some go to religion, others go to social studies. it works very well, and I don't see any difference with what you are proposing. Given a choice, I don't see what or who could have a problem with it. Oh, and Religion is offered in the public school board too, don't know why though...or in what capacity since the french schools were all catholic including the french school board.

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

I'm not really sure what I think, but I found this post and the various replies fascinating, and just wanted to let you know.

Lots to think about.

A little late...

[neosis.livejournal.com]

It should be no surprise that I think that's probably a bad idea, not worse than the Catholic School board, but no better either.

I think "comparitative religion" is the only religious study that belongs in a publically funded school system. To me, the primary benefit of these "religion streamed" schools seems to be the midguided attempt to "protect" the children from "other views", this should be on of the major strengths of the public school system.

Furthermore, I think this system would be incredibly vulnerable to abuse, what happens if too many people opt their children out of the public system? Do you continue to run an underfunded system that supplies a substandard education to the left overs?

What happens when the majority decides it's cheaper and more effective to simply shut down the public schools and force the remaining parents to choose a "religious" school for their children to attend?

I think a system could work, however, it would be dangerously susceptible to the machinations of adults with an agenda to push. In the states, it would never work. There'd be 10 groups working to subvert the idea before it even got off the ground, even if it wasn't prohibited by the constitution. You'd be handing the Southern Baptists exactly what they want, a way to deliberate punish any school that dares to teach evolution, and a way to censor the world for their children so that only approved ideas are taught at the school. How? They'd organize a mass transfer of children from any school that taught any unapproved ideas.

Personally, I think a public school system that accepts all students regardless of race, religion, or creed is the only way to go. Anything else reeks of manipulative parents trying to ensure that their children believe what they tell them to believe and only what they tell them to believe.

On the other side, I also recognize that the current catholic school system is actually one of the major producers of athiests. I suspect that many of the more intelligent children who come up out of the school easily recognize that the teachers use "God" as a tool to control the students, and it predisposes them to see that behaviour in religion at large.

So in summary, not a good idea, too much room for abuse. It's a first step away from a secular religiously-tolerant country and a first step towards majority-controlled theocracy. Prohibitions about the establishment of religion are there for a reason, to prevent the majority forcing their beliefs on everyone else simply by weight of numbers.