The tolerant Catholic Church

[RomanNose]

I spoke about the best results. They are published each year in the form of league tables. Pretty easy to find if you disagree with my statement.

As for Ofsted - can you explain why you think they know better? They have come under much criticism from the government for making statements that were pretty wide of the mark when grading schools.

So you haven't even given me any examples, great. I would imagine that Ofsted who have much more experience with schools, even considering their mistakes are much more knowledgeable than you about the subject.
If we wanted to increase school results, we could just simply increase school budgets and stop decreasing them. I know schools and colleges that have had to reduce lessons due to lack of funds.

 

[Castiel]

So you haven't even given me any examples, great. I would imagine that Ofsted who have much more experience with schools, even considering their mistakes are much more knowledgeable than you about the subject.
If we wanted to increase school results, we could just simply increase school budgets and stop decreasing them. I know schools and colleges that have had to reduce lessons due to lack of funds.

How do you suggest increasing funds if you remove the institutions who supply those extra funds?

I don't agree either that is is simply down to funding, it is also down to policy making and the overall ethos of the School......many seem to have no direction in this regard and they seem to be the ones that are most likely to fail or have poorer results....even when extra funding is available. We have a school that despite a massive injection of funding still posted the worst results inthe area....only when the management of the School was changed and the non-curriculum policies on Uniform, Discipline and Attendence were instituted and strictly adhered to was there any significant improvement.

 

[|Thomas|]

I was aiming my questions at the group in general.



It is Article 18 in particular I refer to.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

I remain of the contention that the rights of Catholics will be impinged should this change in legislation come in. I am also of the opinion that many of the posters on this thread (really not aiming this at you in any way) while talking about rights are really only interested if they like the rights in question.

And what if it is not in the child's well being to be taught only one viewpoint?

Consider a subtly different example to the one you described. What if in PSHE lessons (I believe they call it this nowadays?) taught at catholic schools, they teach that homosexuality is wrong. You could argue that parents have a right to send their children wherever they want, and should be taught whatever they want them to learn. However, it is a very unhealthy attitude to take with LGBT youth, as can be seen to an extreme in America.

Of course this is different from teaching about gay marriage, but I don't think it's as black and white as you suggest. Sometimes the right for a religious institution to teach what they want cannot be given precedence over the well being of a child.

 

[Castiel]

And what if it is not in the child's well being to be taught only one viewpoint?

Consider a subtly different example to the one you described. What if in PGCE lessons (I believe they call it this nowadays?) taught at catholic schools, they teach that homosexuality is wrong. You could argue that parents have a right to send their children wherever they want, and should be taught whatever they want them to learn. However, it is a very unhealthy attitude to take with LGBT youth, as can be seen to an extreme in America.

Of course this is different from teaching about gay marriage, but I don't think it's as black and white as you suggest. Sometimes the right for a religious institution to teach what they want cannot be given precedence over the well being of a child.

Catholic Schools in the UK do not teach single perspective social education...neither do they teach PCGE outside of the national curriculum, so the point is entirely academic.

Even Religious Education is based on a broad multi-faith, multi-philosophy program......of course as is expected of a Catholic School the emphasis is on Catholicism, but at my son's school at least they have taught him about a wide range of alternative Faiths and positions....including Atheism.

 

[RomanNose]

How do you suggest increasing funds if you remove the institutions who supply those extra funds?

I don't agree either that is is simply down to funding, it is also down to policy making and the overall ethos of the School......many seem to have no direction in this regard and they seem to be the ones that are most likely to fail or have poorer results....even when extra funding is available. We have a school that despite a massive injection of funding still posted the worst results inthe area....only when the management of the School was changed and the non-curriculum policies on Uniform, Discipline and Attendence were instituted and strictly adhered to was there any significant improvement.

It's not just down to funding, but really at the moment schools seem to be on an extremely tight budget. I agree with everything you said, direction and discipline is very important. I think generally though, the quality of our education could be raised by increasing budgets and staff pay. It's stupid that education is being cut and they really should be finding other places to cut instead of it. Outside of budget I don't really think religion is that important in how well a school will do. I guess the religious element could be removed and the quality of education could remain the same just by subsiding what the Church gave.
What spud is saying is wrong though, it's pretty much a difference in funding that is the reason for the differences.

 

[|Thomas|]

Catholic Schools in the UK do not teach single perspective social education...neither do they teach PCGE outside of the national curriculum, so the point is entirely academic.

Even Religious Education is based on a broad multi-faith, multi-philosophy program......of course as is expected of a Catholic School the emphasis is on Catholicism, but at my son's school at least they have taught him about a wide range of alternative Faiths and positions....including Atheism.

Perhaps, although I grew up around the era of section 28 so I suppose it has all changed now. I did not go to a catholic school, but even in a normal state school many teachers did not keep homophobic views quiet, and not once in a PSHE lesson or equivalent was homosexuality even discussed. I only left school 6 years ago too.

I appreciate though that perhaps in the context of a modern education system my view no longer applies.

 

[Castiel]

It's not just down to funding, but really at the moment schools seem to be on an extremely tight budget. I agree with everything you said, direction and discipline is very important. I think generally though, the quality of our education could be raised by increasing budgets and staff pay. It's stupid that education is being cut and they really should be finding other places to cut instead of it. Outside of budget I don't really think religion is that important in how well a school will do. I guess the religious element could be removed and the quality of education could remain the same just by subsiding what the Church gave.
What spud is saying is wrong though, it's pretty much a difference in funding that is the reason for the differences.

I agree with much of what you have said, however while a School need not be a Faith School or have a connection to a Faith to have a specific ethos and actually take that ethos seriously, it is more apparent that Faith Schools are more likely to follow and enforce such policies.....

I think we can learn something from them, rather than simply criticising them or asking for their closure........that helps no-one, least of all the Children themselves.

I also think that teaching religion is important in School, as long as it is not insular or inherently sectarian. Whether we like it or not, Faith plays a huge part in everyones life, be it from the personal persepective of the believer or the understanding of the unbeliever....we do not foster understanding and tolerance by ignorance, be it by misunderstanding or poor education.

RE should be about teaching how different people have different worldviews and teach how these worldviews are similar and explore the commonalities of different Faiths rather than just pointing out the differences....and this goes both ways, you cannot expect tolerance for your position, if you show none yourself.

To remove RE from school would be detrimental to our Childrens overall education, it simply needs to be done in an inclusive and objective way...like all other aspects of our childs education.

 

[Castiel]

Perhaps, although I grew up around the era of section 28 so I suppose it has all changed now. I did not go to a catholic school, but even in a normal state school many teachers did not keep homophobic views quiet, and not once in a PGCE lesson or equivalent was homosexuality even discussed. I only left school 6 years ago too.

I appreciate though that perhaps in the context of a modern education system my view no longer applies.

Section 28 was a Government Policy rather than a School Policy though....


I went to School in the 1980s at the height of the AIDS nonsense and the UK schools I attended were trying to teach tolerance and acceptance in a world that was simply not conductive to it at the time.....anti-homosexual rhetoric was everywhere, in the media, the newspapers etc......if not for Schools teaching the opposite I think that we would never have moved away from that nonsense as quickly (albeit not quick enough) as we did......

 

[RomanNose]

We shouldn't remove RE, my problem with faith schools is that they sometimes have religious assemblies and sometimes don't teach them other faiths other what they follow.
This is also what that link says

Dr Sandie Schagen, Principal Research Officer at the National Foundation for Educational Research told the Parliamentary Education and Skills Select Committee in 2003: "On the basis of our research, looking exclusively at achievement, there is not any evidence at all to suggest really that increasing the number of faith schools will improve the level of achievement*. Our finding is that basically, when you apply value-added analysis, that advantage all but disappears, which suggests that the difference is based on intake. Interestingly, you can hypothesise that if they do have better ethos and better behaviour and so on that would lead to better achievement, but we did not find any evidence that that is so."

She seems to disagree that about a difference in ethos.

 

[Castiel]

We shouldn't remove RE, my problem with faith schools is that they sometimes have religious assemblies and sometimes don't teach them other faiths other what they follow.

I don't see anything wrong with religious assemblies as long as they are optional (legally they have to be) and that the School is not teaching sectarian ideas and bigotry.

Any school, and I am aware there has been a very small monority of schools preachin or indoctrinating hatred and/or ignoring standard Scientific principles in favour of literal interpretation faith based ones, these schools should be closed (as they are) and the staff responsible held to account, legally if necessary.

But you don't combat these things by banning all Faith Schools.....

 

[|Thomas|]

Section 28 was a Government Policy rather than a School Policy though....


I went to School in the 1980s at the height of the AIDS nonsense and the UK schools I attended were trying to teach tolerance and acceptance in a world that was simply not conductive to it at the time.....anti-homosexual rhetoric was everywhere, in the media, the newspapers etc......if not for Schools teaching the opposite I think that we would never have moved away from that nonsense as quickly (albeit not quick enough) as we did......

I am glad you had such a positive experience of the education system, unfortunately my experiences were quite the opposite.

Speaking from personal experience it is, or was, seriously damaging to the mental well being of LGBT kids. Talking to other gay friends as well, my experiences are not unique.

 

[Castiel]

She seems to disagree that about a difference in ethos.

As is her right, however, how does she explain Schools that even with significant increases in funding still underacheive, yet when the management and therefore the ethos of the school is changed there is a marked improvement....

I am of the opinion that we should have selection.....based on merit rather than faith however.....we should bring back the Grammar School system or have thefunding follow the child regardless of the school, state or public.......this in my opinion would raise overall standards and allow better targetting of extra funding and resources to those schools that need it...that includes changing the ethos and policy of the school if necessary.

I, like most parents, just want the best system for our childs education and well being! Religion has little to do with it, any Parent. An teach their children their Faith, and it is not as if there are not Sunday Schools and so on.........in most cases I think better interaction between Parents and Schools is what is needed and that seems, again, more likely with Faith Schools than otherwise....in my experience of course.

 

[Castiel]

I am glad you had such a positive experience of the education system, unfortunately my experiences were quite the opposite.

Speaking from personal experience it is, or was, seriously damaging to the mental well being of LGBT kids. Talking to other gay friends as well, my experiences are not unique.

You did not go to a Faith school though did you?

I have no doubt that being gay in any School is tough....

 

[RomanNose]

Well wouldn't that effectively get rid of faith schools? As they would no longer fund them as they don't have a intake based on faith?
Don't agree with religious assemblies for young kids though, they should only be allowed when they are at a reasonable age.

 

[Castiel]

Well wouldn't that effectively get rid of faith schools? As they would no longer fund them as they don't have a intake based on faith?
Don't agree with religious assemblies for young kids though, they should only be allowed when they are at a reasonable age.

I don't think it will......many non-faith Schools in the US enjoy funding from local churches...it is about support, inclusion and community, something I feel we have lost to a large extent....to our great detriment.

 

[|Thomas|]

You did not go to a Faith school though did you?

I have no doubt that being gay in any School is tough....

No I did not, but even in my school homophobia was common amongst the staff, let alone the kids. It was certainly never condoned at any point in my education.

I think we've drifted away from my point, so I wish to bow out of this thread. I will however make one general remark to everyone in this thread.

I truly love my boyfriend, I would do anything for him. One day, I hope to marry the guy I love, be it him or someone else. Marriage to me implies that this is the person who I want to spend the rest of my life with, it's something special. A civil partnership does not.

If you find this abhorrent, by all means campaign against gay marriage.

 

[Xordium]

It is Article 18 in particular I refer to.

Yes I presumed as much. The problem though is such things, like most complex things simply defined, become prone to clash with equally worthwhile notions. For example you are ignoring Article 1:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".

Lets move it further. If the law were changed and Catholic schools taught to teach the truth of that law - it does not exclude them from applying context. For example, "the law of this country says that marriage is a contract between two consenting adults of any gender. However, traditionally and for certain religious groups there is a belief that such a contract is only valid between and man and a woman." Moreover, to say that the human rights were being broken you are making the assumption that all the children going to those schools would hold Catholic beliefs. It is not the school that is having the human rights pushed around a little is it? It is the children who could easily be shown to not have the cognitive level to put forward a consistent argument for their beliefs. It is their parents beliefs at this age not the childs which means you are more looking at Article 26 being broken but we could demonstrate that the non-Catholic children would have Article 26 infringed by not being taught the truth of the law of the land.

Therefore, to actively stop a group from being equal in rights and dignity to prevent a theoretical breach of the human rights in a group who may not actually exist in the first place and that is equally circumnavigated with context to actually not impinge on anything seems rather cackhanded. And just reaching for anything to clutch on.

See the problem is if you want to start using the Human Rights Articles etc to prevent this from occurring then don't expect to get away with it because then other people may then turn them around on the Catholic Church and say that all Catholic doctrine is banned from being taught to anyone under the age of 16. Because telling a child they will burn forever for a small misdemeanor sounds remarkably like emotional abuse and would clash quite heavily with Article 5 - "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

 

[Castiel]

No I did not, but even in my school homophobia was common amongst the staff, let alone the kids. It was certainly never condoned at any point in my education.

I think we've drifted away from my point, so I wish to bow out of this thread. I will however make one general remark to everyone in this thread.

I truly love my boyfriend, I would do anything for him. One day, I hope to marry the guy I love, be it him or someone else. Marriage to me implies that this is the person who I want to spend the rest of my life with, it's something special. A civil partnership does not.

If you find this abhorrent, by all means campaign against gay marriage.

I, for one, support your right to marry....I hope you are able to do so.

 

[|Thomas|]

I, for one, support your right to marry....I hope you are able to do so.

It was by no means aimed at you sir .