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

[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.