How many angels can dance in a 9th grade classroom?

[Tiassa]

I was wondering if we could put ourselves through the mill over the idea of religion in education. Not so much the idea of whether we should teach theology in public schools, though I'm sure that aspect will be a large portion of the debate ... but I'm wondering if anyone has thoughts on how this would best be accomplished.

* * * * *

Among the considerations I'm playing with is one based almost solely on my own experience and observations:

* When I was in high school, and colleges were the top issue hammered at by parents, teachers, and counselors, I noticed that the curriculum at this Catholic school pointed students toward business, legal, and scientific majors. To seek a degree in such fields as literature, history, sociology, ad nauseum was considered deviant ambition. This sentiment ran so strong that even the extended family expressed moral disappointment when my brother, at Stanford University, declared a double major in Literature and History. Apparently, the most influential parts of my family's cultural heritage regarded such ambitions as wasted on the grounds that proportionately few Literature or History degrees ever bring financial prosperity.

However, of the religious people I knew in college, there were almost predictably varied reactions by underclassmen taking their first theology course. Observationally, I can speak to three: A) Some Christians simply denied the subject matter on the grounds that it was atheistic tripe infecting public schools--conspiracy against Christians. B) Some Christians embraced the material as a contextual tool in understanding their faith. C) The two Sikhs and one Jewish person in my first theology class seemed rather indifferent; they largely took the information as historical, and tried to place it in a speculative context.

A and B become important because there is another correllation I noticed in that time: how many history classes one had taken. It seemed that those who fell into category A--denial--were less experienced in historical academia than those who fell into category B.

But that's all there is to that set of observations ... relevance is hopefully to come. ;)

* * * * *

Were we to teach theology in public high schools, how would that be accomplished? Would the prejudices against history be lightened if theology were taught as a segment of history? For certainly we cannot instruct children in religious mores ... that is an individual's issue, and the foundations for those decisions (I think) belong with the students' families.

Would such a curriculum spark new interest in students, pointing them toward history and faith, offering new issues to consider and facets to explore? Could a broader respect for historical thinkers (at least in American culture) inspire a broader sense of faith, settled amid a reinforced notion of heritage? Could that broader historical respect affect the foundations of an individual's faith, demanding that one's faith considerations be less immediate?

* * * * *

I do understand, however, that for these questions to be valid, one must accept certain assumptions I've made. Please take my observations and categorizations of high school and college as merely that--categorized observations; one need not agree, per se, with the categories, but I would ask that fair consideration be given to the ideas and mechanisms which create the behavior I described (and, to be fair, the ideas and mechanisms which allow me to interpret what I see that way).

Because we could simply install theology as catechism, as such--simply delineating the rules of faith & conduct for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and various prominent revival Pagan religions. And I don't think that would be good.

But what, then? The volumes of Christian history require years to themselves, and no condensed enumeration of Christian action during those centuries could possibly convey the amount of subjective material that one would have to work amid. (For instance, how important, really, are the Bogomil heretics? or Isidore or Alcuin?) To explain the function of Heaven and Hell, or settle issues of justification regarding God and Satan requires arguments of detail that no high school curriculum has time for. And we haven't even gotten to the Jews, the Muslims, or any of the others.

The key assumption for which I ask your grace would be when I observed the subtle demonization of certain fields of study (History, Literature, &c). By all means let me know if this idea utterly falls through. (If I say that there are less history majors because the money's better in marketing, that only begs the question, as such.)

But I suppose the key ideas I'm seeking to explore would be:

* Why teach theology in public high schools?
* How to teach theology in public high schools?
* How will this affect educational processes?
* How will this affect students, both short- and long-term?

The clock on the wall is screaming at me to get going, so I shall. Thanks for the minutes you've wasted reading this. Let me know when I stopped making sense.

Thank you,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[truestory]

I'm dropping in just to provide some information concerning the actual practice of the teaching of theology in high schools in the county where I live.

Theology is offered as an elective in local high schools. As with all elective courses, they must be approved by a parent or guardian. There are guidelines which must be followed by teachers when discussing courses dealing with such subjects as religion and morality (regardless of which class the subjects might come up in).

Under threat of the penalty of termination of employment, teachers must take an "informative" approach to such subjects... NEVER a "persuasive" one. Teachers are forbidden from expressing their own personal beliefs no matter how hard they might be pressed by the students (and the kids can push pretty hard, believe me).

Teachers are encouraged to play devil's advocate, so to speak, in order to stimulate discussion among the students. As moderators of such discussions, teachers are responsible for ensuring that they provide and maintain an atmosphere of respect, conducive to the free-exchange of ideas.

The scope and specific subject matter for each course is made available for students, parents and the public to preview or review.

This approach seems to be working since theology has been offered in our local high schools for the past twenty years with no noted problems.

[Tiassa]

Truestory--

Thank you for the info. A couple of general questions, if I might:

* Do you happen to know which religion(s) are covered; namely, I'm curious if you've any idea as to how the criteria are set. Certainly, I can see Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism; Judaism is necessary, but its scope is narrowed by the number of Jewish. Is the criteria related to the "size" (population) of the faith?

* Part of that is that I'm wondering what the cutoff is. I can see Satanism being important to the discussion, as it seemed to be the standard version of a first deviant curiosity among the Christian children I knew. I, too, played my part in that drama, and would have (at age 15-17) resented the exclusion of the dual opposite of Christianity (though it might have more to do with Catholics excluding their Devil). But there's not a whole lot of Satanists, and then how would one describe the variations of various paganisms?

As a general commentary, I would say that it's a tough call over whether or not teachers can put their own views into the equation ... the reasons why not are the same reasons I've always held for the separation of church and state--the investment of a single faith in an authority figure. However, this threatens an important aspect of religions: the mechanisms of individual faith.

However, it sounds like the schools in your area have found a reasonable formula for the process.

The only other question I would raise here ... though I wouldn't necessarily expect an answer one way or the other (it's entirely possible you wouldn't know due to circumstances) ... what is the form of instruction? Specifically, are teachers and students simply enumerating points of faith, or are they taking those points and extending them to the historical and anthropological processes motivating the points of faith?

To relate that more directly to the topic post: Part of what I failed to express (in general; specifics are long and, probably, convoluted at this time) is a sense of the vitality of history in the human spirit. Looking back to my allegation of demonizing certain academic fields (liberal arts), I would say that merely asserting faith points is on par with the standard preparatory education ... but if those academic points of faith can be brought to life, if history can demonstrate how the people who believed these ideas applied them to life situations, then we can begin moving forward ("forward" subject, in this case, to my own perspective; it's fair for anyone else do decide what forward is). In other words, if I think the world has lost its spirituality to a certain degree (okay, I'll limit that to the U.S.), then I think these aspects of theology--the relation of paradigm to faith to action in history--can reawaken that dying edge of the Universal Mystery.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
Take a side you say, it's black and gray. And all the hunters take the hunted merrily out to play. We are one, you say, but who are you? You're all too busy reaping in the things you never sown. And this feast must go on and on and on .... Nobody gives a damn. (Floater; "Beast")

[truestory]

tiassa,

It's been a number of years since I've seen the specific curriculum but, taking into consideration all of the courses that are offered, including those offered to advanced placement students which are always extremely liberal in scope and which give the teachers and students wide discretion as to what direction the course will take (usually dependent on the interest expressed by the students at that level), I did not see any correlation to the scope of the courses and the population of particular faiths or religions. Perhaps in a course entitled "World Religions" more time would be spent on those with greater world populations or longer histories, but I really can't say for sure.

Again, taking the entire curriculum into consideration, I do know that the discussion of Satanism would appropriately fall into the scope of some of the courses. There was a course on developing cults in the United States but, I don't remember the title right now.

The form of instruction depends on the year in which the course is offered (Freshman through Senior) and the presumed intellectual and educational maturity of the particular group of students. For example, the introductory courses seemed to focus more on enumerating points of various faiths - although there was always some debate and discussion among the more interested students, the scope of the discussion was not as great as say that of the seniors in advanced placement courses (who all wanted to be there).

"Religion, Morality and Western Culture" was a favorite among juniors and seniors. The form of instruction in those classes was mostly that of informed debate. The teacher would of course, based on previously assigned reading, lead the class into a discussion, then the students would most likely naturally narrow the discussion to topics and points within the scope of discussion and the course would evolve from there. For example, based on the students' expressed interests (which the teacher would pick up by listening) the teacher might form an organized debate, picking up on a number of key points made during the students' free discussion, break the class up into sub-groups and assign various debate topics and positions (pro or con)... I'm sure you've seen this form used before... a favorite method of teaching/learning, was to assign the students a debate position opposite to that which they originally took in the free discussion. These discussions and debates would extend into all areas of history and society. As you can probably imagine, the AP students especially, through their research, would draw on every source possible in an effort to win their side of the debate (even though it might be the side which they didn't agree with or know much about to begin with).

Teachers still work in a team atmosphere in this public school system so, the curriculum is fairly well integrated. (Now that I think of it, I believe that some of the religion-related courses were actually structured to fulfill some history credits.) Regardless, I find the curriculum to be very diverse and flexible enough, I believe, to encourage and accomodate individual abilities and aspirations. (I must admit, I was a bit concerned when we first moved to this area. Compared to the Bronx, the general population of this area seemed relatively homogenous at first and not representative of the real world if you know what I mean. However, the area started growing rapidly shortly thereafter, bringing some welcomed diversity). Although this school system has some politics as usual, most of the teachers are supportive of each other and the students regardless of their particular discipline or interests. I can't say as much for some of the administrators but, hey, they're only human.

My children attended one school within this public school system and, although I am not a board-certified teacher, because I had other professional certifications and experience in other youth organizations, my teaching services were requested for two years due to a rapidly growing student population and a shortage of board-certified teachers in the county. Based on my own experiences and those of my children, I did not notice demonization of any discipline within this school system.

I found the core curriculum to be excellent and it's curriculum as a whole seemed to be forever expanding. (My children were more than well-prepared to enter college. A couple of them actually attended college at night during their junior and senior years of high school.) Specialized programs were constantly being developed to accomodate those with special needs and special abilities.

One of my brothers was identified as a gifted and talented artist in an elective art course which he was taking in his senior year of high school. (He needed an art credit to graduate.) Due to the dedication and encouragement of the teaching staff (not just art teachers) based on his small but powerful portfolio, he went on to attend a prestigious college of art on scholarship and has become a relatively well-known and successful artist... and he's still alive!

Anyway, enough of the rambling about my family... I hope I answered your questions about the theology/religion courses.



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited February 04, 2000).]

[Lori]

Tiassa,

This is a really great topic and one that I have thought about alot. You can't help but wonder at what is wrong with today's youth. You watch the news, and you see it walking your dog down the street in your own neighborhood. The sense of hardenedness, distrust, disappointment, lack of direction. It seems that kids either find God, buy into the soul-sucking, money-making machine that we call life, or blow their brains out. It makes me wonder what all the fuss is about displaying the 10 Commandments, or for that matter, any religious document or display in our schools and other secular institutions. The separation of church and state is not what it was ever designed to be. I have a firm belief that the knowledge of the presence of God and a relationship with Him is the ONLY thing worth living for. We deny Him. What has that done to our children? What hope has that given them? None. You have to see that they look at US then for their only guidance, their only inspiration, and they are STARVING TO DEATH. I think that spiritual beliefs and historical knowledge go hand in hand. Don't like the 10 Commandments? Fine, then display Buddist principals right next to them, but at least give them SOMETHING to go on besides the soul-sucking money-making machine and despair. It's so sad to witness. We've got to do something differently, yes?????

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.

[Boris]

Lori,

that's a couple of interesting assumptions you make. First of all, how can you be so sure teens are not rebelling simply because they are teens? As far as I know, that has always been the case. Secondly, could it be the general revulsion toward the "bullshit" (forgive the strong explitive) of religion that is driving the modern youth away, rather than religion's absense from public schools? Could it simply be the case that today's youth uses its brain just a little more, and takes a bit fewer things for granted? Could it all be connected to the fact that in the modern world, people are open to widely different ideas, global exchange, and social diversity, making the old reclusive community with its absolutes, obsolete? Careful with nostalgia. The "good" old past is often better left in its grave.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[Boris]

As far as public schools go, I have no problem with religious classes being offered as electives. After all, the school is supposed to serve the needs of its community. So, if 80% of the community, say, are Christian and demand a religion class, it ought to be made available to them. But the same ought to be done if those 80% are Satanist. The whole point of American <u>public</u> schools, is that they cannot bias their overall policy according to any religion.

The general problem with promotion of religion lies less with offering religion-based electives, than in fact aiding <u>establishment</u> of a religion. That means a public school can't just put the 10 commandments on the wall, because such an action could be construed as religious favoritism. It would also be called oppressive by those who do not share Christian beliefs (think of atheists, for example.) Public schools are paid for by the entire public, and therefore cannot justifiably bias themselves toward the views of any restricted segment of the population.

Incorporating "alternative" views from any particular religion into vital or mandatory science curricula, on the other hand, is entirely unacceptable altogether.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

[tablariddim]

I think it could be beneficial, if there were compulsory classes (say the first 2/3 years and elective after that) in general theologies and world religions, with an emphasis on the development of philosophy, moral values and the importance of spiritual love as prescribed by the sum total of the various religions.
The idea is to give children a good sense of modern morality and accepted norms of behaviour without promoting any partircular faith above others.
I'm sure wonderful programs could be devised for this, utilising study, debate and practical (field) exercices, in doing good works and offering love, forgiveness and good will !

Wouldn't it benefit society?

... http://users.esc.net.au/~nitro/chef_tab.gif

[Lori]

Um...to keep it brief Boris, one, I'm glad to see you back among us. I was beginning to think that you may have gotten religion or something, but alas...and two, no, in regards to the teenagers today, I think that you are utterly, totally, completely, and catagorically wrong. What a shocker, huh? I don't think that your suggestions make any logical sense based on anything I've witnessed in this world. Sorry, nice try. :)

------------------
"Go Jesus, go! Go Jesus, go!"

I finally get to be the cheerleader that I always wanted to be but could not, as I was not a fluff chick.