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

[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.)