I think we established earlier that America, and may I suggest particularly the South where I understand you are, and we here in England have different "ideas" about education.
The education system here has core fundamental directives from govt down. So for example the every child matters had an impetus for community partnership working. This was built on by the children's plan. Community involvement and cohesion are key elements of how education is to be taken forward.
Over the years these type of initiatives have seen changes in how certain subjects have been delivered and the changes. A good example would be history and specifically crusades.
In the 80's a kid was thrown out of a class because he was "disruptive". His disruption was to query what the teacher was saying about Richard the lionheart and evil Saladin as well as other bits.
Crusades are still taught but they are more factual now and not biased. Or certainly less so.
This may not answer your question but as I said earlier you seem to have bigger problems over there
Your posts are interesting and I have 2 questions
1) How do your colleagues teach Civil war there?
2) If you tell the/your truth, what happens to you?
Doing your job in factually laying out historic events is not that same as you deciding to show a controversial picture in the current poltical climate. If you do youre purposefully instigating.
If you can't get a point across without these cartoons you'd be a bad teacher.
There is no "bigger problem".
The holocaust is also taught as a history lesson in U.S schools and it is done so with a lot of respect and meaning. The jewish audience in classes are definitely considered and rightly so. What you're hearing here is just some snide attempt at getting back at them muzzies, that'll teach 'em.
1) It’s been a mixed bag. Some folks teach it straight, others try to white wash it. I’ve had some serious heated convos with folks in my department before about things they’re teaching regarding slavery, the civil war, civil rights, etc. But they are teaching those things that way because they are products of that southern conservative culture that buys into the “Lost Cause” propaganda bullshit.Your posts are interesting and I have 2 questions
1) How do your colleagues teach Civil war there?
2) If you tell the/your truth, what happens to you?
BTW, just for context there is always debate over historical events in the U.S and how they are presented in classes. I find one side of the debate dumb (the side losing which claims colleges are just liberal etc) but you should know that classes and curriculum are decided by the community.
Religious schools are amongst the top performing schools in the country.
Education is about preparing kids not just to be economical productive but assets in their communities. Their communities are dictated by the religions and otherwise of the people around them.
A dictatorial approach benefits no one. Schools exist in a social context and this has to be taken into account
Excuse me?What you're hearing here is just some snide attempt at getting back at them muzzies, that'll teach 'em.
Of course, some classes & curriculum are decided by the community, it’s a collaborative effort by members of a community where multiple viewpoints are considered, then a teaching plan is devised through debate & compromise. Not all is decided at the ‘community’ level, though, but the process of devising curriculum is still the same. It’s hardly as dictatorial as religious classroom curriculum. It has input from many sides.BTW, just for context there is always debate over historical events in the U.S and how they are presented in classes. I find one side of the debate dumb (the side losing which claims colleges are just liberal etc) but you should know that classes and curriculum are decided by the community.
The only reason religious retain their stranglehold on secular society is because of fallacious arguments like the one you just made. Religious schools aren't better at educating kids purely because they are religious, and if a religious education actually DID make kids learn other subjects better it would still be counter-balanced by the negatives of the religious indoctrination. Do religion on your own time, don't force it into kids brains at school.
1) It’s been a mixed bag. Some folks teach it straight, others try to white wash it. I’ve had some serious heated convos with folks in my department before about things they’re teaching regarding slavery, the civil war, civil rights, etc. But they are teaching those things that way because they are products of that southern conservative culture that buys into the “Lost Cause” propaganda bullshit.
2) I’ve not had a parent get pissed at me yet, aside from the one who thought I was secretly converting kids to Islam. Definitely have had some kids get huffy about being presented with the facts. I’ve had colleagues that teach the truth who have. Parents coming up to the school demanding meetings etc. claiming that the teacher is indoctrinating their kid with liberal fake history. I’ve been lucky enough to have administrations that have had our backs when folks have done things like that.
You’re very welcome.Thanks for sharing this.
Only a topic related to Religion/Racism might trigger tensions in some French school centers in France.
Of course, some classes & curriculum are decided by the community, it’s a collaborative effort by members of a community where multiple viewpoints are considered, then a teaching plan is devised through debate & compromise. Not all is decided at the ‘community’ level, though, but the process of devising curriculum is still the same. It’s hardly as dictatorial as religious classroom curriculum. It has input from many sides.
Fingers crossed.I’ve not read it all but just don’t draw cartoons about any religion be that Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Scientology, buddism.
Don’t understand why you can’t just leave it alone, it’s obviously going to piss off a load of people.
Religion isn’t just precious to one person it’s precious to millions and it’s history sometimes go back thousands of years and it can make people incredibly protective.
Within 100 years most of the world won’t have a religion, I feel.
Religion is very spiritual and although some find it highly unbelievable I do feel it can give people a certain amount of morals.
Off tangent I do feel society is almost moving towards an almost anarchic state. Thinking about the people who have recently assumed power and the groups forming on the internet it is getting worrisome.
I do feel by in large throughout society people usually only seem to care about their own colour and community, it’s so evident but without evidence. We just need to make sure in the UK that we can mix communities successfully because that’s the only to get compassion on all grounds.
I think a quick Google will show you that RE and religion are seen as beneficial in education.
To me, that disclaimer smacks exactly of the pressure on a school curriculum in that link I sent to you in the Cobb County sticker saga. It reads very similarly to the exact verbiage on the sticker.Yeah most schools have a an agreed syllabus for RE.
It's interesting but I tried searching for the Batley grammar school (school involved in the cartoon issue) but can't find it.
Generally speaking (and these syllabuses tend to have similar content for certain advice) the use of shocking and controversial and shocking images is written into the syllabus.
So one school has:
Forr controversial and sensitive issues, it is important to consider the resources that are being used: for instance, very shocking images are not necessary, especially where the topics themselves may be shocking.
Religion always has been good for controlling people. Doesn't make it a healthy thing.
Excuse me?
To me, that disclaimer smacks exactly of the pressure on a school curriculum in that link I sent to you in the Cobb County sticker saga. It reads very similarly to the exact verbiage on the sticker.
It’s maddening when religion can exercise pressure on a supposedly secular school board to alter curriculum. It’s equally maddening when religions get held in a critical light & the uproar by the religious that comes as a result is taken with more value somehow.
We are getting mired in the ‘is this specifically a purposeful degradation of Islam?’ when the bigger question of ‘should religious beliefs exert any pressure on the shaping of a secular educational curriculum?’ Many feel that it should not.
But, this is exactly what the Cobb County school board did, it pushed an opinion over something that had been proven to exist. It allowed, in some cases, the teaching of evolution to stay in the textbooks yet discredited it through the fallacy of religion being somehow deemed factual & concrete. In some cases, entire pages of textbooks had their evolution passages whited out.I disagree. The sticker issue and this is different.
Taking away from the cartoon issue in Bartley. A Belgian teacher was sacked for showing a Muhammad cartoon to 10 year olds. Of course some of the social media "outrage" was similar to the Batley situation. However, the cartoon in question was of a man on all fours with his bits dangling. The decision was made purely for the nature of the image not that it was representing a Prophet.
I forget the exact wording on that sticker but in advice for RE the issue of neutrality is mentioned in the syllabus guidelines. Teaching a subject about something that exists isnt about the teacher pushing their own opinion. Put simply an atheist teacher shouldn't be saying they are teaching religion but believe it's bullshit. If anything any such strong feelings should mean the teachers opts out.
But, this is exactly what the Cobb County school board did, it pushed an opinion over something that had been proven to exist. It allowed, in some cases, the teaching of evolution to stay in the textbooks yet discredited it through the fallacy of religion being somehow deemed factual & concrete. In some cases, entire pages of textbooks had their evolution passages whited out.
The parallels are here with the Batley school row. What many in this thread want is for the cartoon to be whited out just like the evolution passage. While I didn’t agree with the sticker, it did allow evolution to still remain in the text books. And trust me, the uproar over the sticker vastly dwarfed the uproar at the Batley school.
I just don’t see how teaching the cartoon can’t be executed with proper warning & disclaimers. As I said, I didn’t agree with the school board, but at least they kept the evolution pages intact in most cases. The school board did not listen to the concerns of the aggrieved & maintained with their course of action until mandated by law to change. The Batley school appears to be listening to the concerns of the protestors at least.
Resource materials teach, they educate. They give substance to the class. To remove them in this case is to acquiesce to a specific religion & its pressures to make curriculum comport to it. And, in a secular educational environment, that’s improper to do in my opinion.As I said to Colorado red the issues in America are next level from what you guys tell me. But there isn't similarities from what I can see, with the Batley situation. Or education in general what I can see.
The topic here was blasphemy and no one has suggested it can't be taught. No one's even said you can't speak of the cartoons. From some of the information coming to light it was more about the teachers attitude over the cartoon anyway. So maybe it wasn't even about showing the cartoon.
The furore, like the Belgian situation, seems to be about the religion and the person the caricature news about rather than an unbiased "investigation" into what the cause was. Again see the Belgian example.
What the syllabus blurb is doing is advising caution to be sensitive. It goes into say these issues should be addressed as it's part of education.
There was no "teaching" of the cartoon it was just a resource material, the subject was blasphemy. I would argue that in this kind of situation why offer opt out when the topic could be addressed anyway. Kids don't need ntonbe shown porn (or adults) to discuss the negative affects if it. Or shown violent movies to discuss violence in tv/film.
Resource materials teach, they educate. They give substance to the class. To remove them in this case is to acquiesce to a specific religion & its pressures to make curriculum comport to it. And, in a secular educational environment, that’s improper to do in my opinion.
Why should one religion get a pass in this regard over another religion? It shouldn’t. Why should religion in general not be held in critical viewing in a secular educational environment? It should be held in a critical light. It shouldn’t get any special privilege in this regard. Religion has already benefitted by the pressure it has exerted on the institution of secular education long enough. It’s a belief, adopted at some point in one’s life. It’s not empirical fact, no matter how hard someone wants it to be. It has its value being taught about in a secular educational environment, it doesn’t have the right to impose restrictions in that environment. That’s the bigger issue here. We’re getting sidetracked by specifics, anecdotes, & hyperbole. The minutiae isn’t the issue.
Yes, non-religious folks should control secular education. How can you think otherwise? As I said, religion should be taught about in secular education (like in a Religion & Ethics course), but it should have no determination regarding the curriculum. It’s bafflingly absurd to think that it should in any way. In no way should religion dictate terms to a secular school or school board, any religion.Materials are just that, materials. An aid not the core. Being secular doesn't mean you isolate or offend your target audience with inappropriate material.
This wasn't about one religion getting a pass. The rules are applicable to all religions. If you read that part I quoted (from handsworth) it goes into specifics for all religions.
Also I feel you are forgetting one important issue here. This was about RE. Not all of school curriculum. Other subjects are not "syllabuses" and form part of a national curriculum and not subject to the same rules.
I think it's ironic that the discussion leads to religion not having an impact on education, whilst the whole arguement is basically non religious folk wanting to impact on education. Or certainly individuals wanting their own opinions/views to impact on how things should be done.
In the Batley case the minutaie is the issue. The furore is increasingly more about the teacher.
It's a valid point.Materials are just that, materials. An aid not the core. Being secular doesn't mean you isolate or offend your target audience with inappropriate material.
This wasn't about one religion getting a pass. The rules are applicable to all religions. If you read that part I quoted (from handsworth) it goes into specifics for all religions.
Also I feel you are forgetting one important issue here. This was about RE. Not all of school curriculum. Other subjects are not "syllabuses" and form part of a national curriculum and not subject to the same rules.
I think it's ironic that the discussion leads to religion not having an impact on education, whilst the whole arguement is basically non religious folk wanting to impact on education. Or certainly individuals wanting their own opinions/views to impact on how things should be done.
In the Batley case the minutaie is the issue. The furore is increasingly more about the teacher.
Why aren’t those things taught?I'd argue the absence of teaching kids about things such as slavery, British colonialism, and European imperialism in Africa is something to be angry about.
I'm not sure. We covered a range of topics in history but never those topics.Why aren’t those things taught?
1) Agreed. It’s dumb that those things weren’t covered. There should be a general survey course of your own country’s history, warts and all.I'm not sure. We covered a range of topics in history but never those topics.
We covered Chinese history (KMT and CCP), both World Wars, and a bit on suffragettes in my GCSE years. Prior to that, it was stuff such as the Anglo Saxons, invasion from Normandy, the various houses in British history (Stuarts, Tudors, Windsors), and things such as the War of the Roses.
In the more junior years, we spent an obscene amount of time learning about Ancient History, predominantly Greek mythology. I can still recount the tales of Perseus and Theseus today.
We never really had a social or cultural awareness class either, which should be done.
To me, this is a huge criticism of history taught in school. An inordinate amount of time is spent discussing topics from times that have little resemblance to the modern world. It is obviously important to study from where our origins come, but not at the detriment of studying more recent, more societally relevant & impactful topics. It’s always seemed imbalanced to me. Far more needs to be discussed in world history since WWII than is currently taught, less emphasis on ancient history (where curriculum & text space should be culled).I'm not sure. We covered a range of topics in history but never those topics.
We covered Chinese history (KMT and CCP), both World Wars, and a bit on suffragettes in my GCSE years. Prior to that, it was stuff such as the Anglo Saxons, invasion from Normandy, the various houses in British history (Stuarts, Tudors, Windsors), and things such as the War of the Roses.
In the more junior years, we spent an obscene amount of time learning about Ancient History, predominantly Greek mythology. I can still recount the tales of Perseus and Theseus today.
We never really had a social or cultural awareness class either, which should be done.
And religion. This is the perfect place to discuss religion, its qualities & warts, in a secular environment.1) Agreed. It’s dumb that those things weren’t covered. There should be a general survey course of your own country’s history, warts and all.
2) I would be interested to see a social/cultural awareness course in action. I’d imagine it would combine a bit of current events, sociology, and ethics.
Isn’t that the dang truth. It’s like a running joke about how many times a history class gets to WWII right at the end of the school year.Far more needs to be discussed in world history since WWII than is currently taught
Yep. Consider how exponentially things have progressed since WWII, students unfortunately get so little exposure to it until college, if ever.Isn’t that the dang truth. It’s like a running joke about how many times a history class gets to WWII right at the end of the school year.
It’s always amusing to me though to think about how each generation of history teacher has so much more to teach about than the previous generation.
The only reason religious retain their stranglehold on secular society is because of fallacious arguments like the one you just made. Religious schools aren't better at educating kids purely because they are religious, and if a religious education actually DID make kids learn other subjects better it would still be counter-balanced by the negatives of the religious indoctrination. Do religion on your own time, don't force it into kids brains at school.
I’ve not read it all but just don’t draw cartoons about any religion be that Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Scientology, buddism.
Don’t understand why you can’t just leave it alone, it’s obviously going to piss off a load of people.
Religion isn’t just precious to one person it’s precious to millions and it’s history sometimes go back thousands of years and it can make people incredibly protective.
Within 100 years most of the world won’t have a religion, I feel.
Religion is very spiritual and although some find it highly unbelievable I do feel it can give people a certain amount of morals.
Off tangent I do feel society is almost moving towards an almost anarchic state. Thinking about the people who have recently assumed power and the groups forming on the internet it is getting worrisome.
I do feel by in large throughout society people usually only seem to care about their own colour and community, it’s so evident but without evidence. We just need to make sure in the UK that we can mix communities successfully because that’s the only to get compassion on all grounds.
as opposed to religious institutions pissing off millions of people by covering up and condoning child abuse among many other things
satire (even in the form of cartoons) is a reasonable, non violent demonstration of opposition to such things
dont satarize things you disagree with as it will upset people is a poor poor argument.
you have to talk about things you disagree with and not on the terms of the people you disagree with.
If you allow the people you disagree with to set the terms, you never change society.
as opposed to religious institutions pissing off millions of people by covering up and condoning child abuse among many other things
satire (even in the form of cartoons) is a reasonable, non violent demonstration of opposition to such things
dont satarize things you disagree with as it will upset people is a poor poor argument.
you have to talk about things you disagree with and not on the terms of the people you disagree with.
If you allow the people you disagree with to set the terms, you never change society.
