Sikh School To Be Built In Slough, England.

[namzuf9]

Excuse my bluntness but WTF has religion got to do with education?

In the UK Religious Education/Studies is a core subject meaning that it has to be taught in all schools. I have no problem with that, the subject of religion is an interesting one and children should learn about other religions aside from their own.
That is as far as the schools should go.

Imagine the uproar caused if a white only or black only school opened up!
Racism is'nt always about the colour of your skin but a lot of people tend to forget that fact.

[vidcc]

Excuse my bluntness but WTF has religion got to do with education?

Schools have many subjects that are not mandatory.
It has nothing to do with standard education, however if parents wish it to be part of their childs education they have the right to send them to a school that does teach it.

Imagine the uproar caused if a white only or black only school opened up!

Not so long ago we did have that here in parts of the USA, however i don't see the connection between a religion and skin color. Your point, to me at least, doesn't connect to the point of this school....one doesn't have to be a particular color to be a sikh.
Is there uproar amoung the sikh community, or any other religious group at catholic schools? Is there uproar over non religious state schools?

I am an athiest and disagree with the state teaching specific religious theory. The only religious teachings in school should be about the different "brands" of religion so that all can understand and hopefully be more tollerant of differences.
However even as an Athiest i would fight any attempt to remove specific religious theory teaching schools that cater to those that wish to attend such.
In balance i would fight any attempt from any religion to have religious theory taught in a plain state school

[hobbes]

Religion has nothing to do with the goal of educating students. Many highschools have a variety of different electives, but because Spanish is offered, we don't call it a Spanish school. A Sikh school would have the Sikh philosophy permeate the school agenda, not just be a normal school that has a class in Sikh. Additionally, we are talking about elementary schools, which have no electives.

If a religious group wants State money to help build their own, how is that different from an all white group that wants their own school, too?

There is none, it is the State supporting private interest groups. Skin color, religion, heritage-whatever, it is all private interest.

The State should stay out of private affairs. Religious studies can be done on your own time.

The State should provide a system to allow for education for everyone and it should oversee private schools to be sure they are meeting the requirements of the State.

Anyone wishing other than what the State provides for everyone, can do so, they just have to pay for it.

[vidcc]

Religion has nothing to do with the goal of educating students. Many highschools have a variety of different electives, but because Spanish is offered, we don't call it a Spanish school. A Sikh school would have the Sikh philosophy permeate the school agenda, not just be a normal school that has a class in Sikh. Additionally, we are talking about elementary schools, which have no electives.
But this case was a british school...which works differently from American schools, they still have to teach the state defined curriculum and the state supports that part...the rest is up to the school to fund. If they had no intention to teach the national curriculum they would get no money to help build the school as it wouldn't be "school"..hope that makes sense

If a religious group wants State money to help build their own, how is that different from an all white group that wants their own school, too?

There is none, it is the State supporting private interest groups. Skin color, religion, heritage-whatever.
what would an all white school teach apart from the national curriculum?... all that would be is segregation based on color and it would bar entry of anyone that is not white...a religious school accepts anyone that is prepared to accept learning their specific religious theory. I am unaware of any that require unquestionable faith in that theory.

The State should stay out of private affairs. Religious studies can be done on your own time.

The State should provide a system to allow for education for everyone and it should oversee private schools to be sure they are meeting the requirements of the State.

Anyone wishing other than what the State provides for everyone, can do so, they just have to pay for it.

see first red paragraph

[hobbes]

Vidcc,

I'm talking my personal philsophy and saying that I find fault with British system and I am explaining why.

You can change "all white", to a "white supremist", or any type of supremist school. They would teach the core curriculum and allow anyone who wished to hear their supremist agenda.

Private interest, private finance.

What if brick masons wanted a school so their children could grow up in a brick building environment. Should tax dollars support that? Private interest does not mean that it is a bad interest, just that it is something over and above what the state is there for and quite separate from the goals of education.

The key point is that religion is a personal issue, education is a State issue. States provides roads for everyone regardless of religion and the schools should be no different. Wouldn't you laugh at a request of a Sihk only road. Anyone can drive on it, but you just have to pay the Sikh's a toll.

[UKResident]

Hobbes, you keep harping on about 'what if' this and 'what if' that, and yet it isn't. There are no applications for Star Trek schools or any of the other fanciful examples you have given. We're different to the US in Britain, and thank God for that, we don't want to live like you, we don't want your ideals, we're not the 51st state of the Union. We are a tolerant people, we understand that some Sikhs want their children taught in a Sikh school, just as some Catholics do, and we are secure enough in ourselves to allow them their wish. The money from the government was a grant, the school will be paid for by the parents, with a per pupil grant from the government that will be less than that paid per pupil to state schools. You should also remember that some parts of the US still have segregated schools, something we have never done. l think when you talk about your ideals you should keep them strictly to your country, because they aren't, and never will be, ours.

[hobbes]

I have stated my opinion.

You have just posted a defensive retort. I have no interest in you being a 51st state, that is not even relevant. What about my post suggests anything "defensive". Why attack me? I also posted that "If the UK likes it that way, so be it, I just disagree."

Your comments about segregation in American schools has nothing to do with my opinion and I don't even know that is true.

I said, "private interests should be privately funded. This goes for sikhs, catholics, and jedi's." The logic is the same. Why sikhs' and not Jedi's.

State schools are for everyone.

This is another example of a person who makes no attempt to see where I am coming from but just wants to argue. What a waste of time.

[UKResident]

You say why not Jedis, the inference being that if you do it for one you have to do it for all. In Britain, if there were a large population of Jedis and they wanted their own school they could apply for a government building grant, they would have to meet part of the cost, and most of the cost of running the school. The government, recognising that they would have to contribute to each child's education wherever they were schooled, contributes on a per pupil basis to each child's education. This is how it should be, if the government picks up the total cost of a child's education at a state school, then it is obligated to aid parents in their child's education whatever school they go to. This is the same whether the school is run by Catholics or the Rudolph Steiner Organisation. In Britain we recognise the parent's right to choose the type of education their child receives, and we either fully or partly fund it, this is how it should be. l really don't see the difference between a school for the children of Sikhs and a school for the children of multi-millionaires.

l can assure you there are segregated schools in the US, kids are prevented from attending certain schools based on the colour of their skins.

[Rat Faced]

I said, "private interests should be privately funded. This goes for sikhs, catholics, and jedi's." The logic is the same. Why sikhs' and not Jedi's.

They are hobbes..

The State pays for the National Curriculum, thats all.

Anything "extra" is privately funded.

As I said earlier, the Catholic and CofE churches "sponsor" many schools in the UK... this extra funding is what pays for the education over and above the National Curiculum.

They are still "State" schools and are monitored as such in the required subjects. That they wish to raise funds for other purposes is upto them, any State School can do this. The Parents/Governors of these schools wish to concentrate on their faith, so they get sponsored by a church...

...others raise funds to take the kids abroad as part of their studies, or to make available after school clubs for homework etc...

The use of these privatly raised funds is, as I have said, upto the Governors of the School.. ie: The Parents.

I have no problem with this school, as long as the National Curriculum is being taught... I see no difference between this school and a Catholic sponsored School.

The school cannot, by Law, exclude any child on grounds of Race or Religion..

[hobbes]

Which would negate any argument against them on the basis of funding.

This does leave hobbes' point re integration. However I believe that the parents right to choose the form of their child's education is more important than hobbes' argument that they will integrate quicker (as I understand it).

As has been stated earlier the integration will take place. However it will be as a drift towards the culture of the "host" nation. One sees this happen, as one sees the pain of the older generation, watching their heritage die.

One can see how Italian parents would despair, as their children adopted the culture of the USA.

I'm sorry, but the original poster was complaining that 6 million pounds of tax money was being given to build a private interest school in his area and he was objecting that his tax dollars go to fund something that he doesn't want and serves to separate, rather than unite the community.

If the community is fully vested in schools, the construction of another one is superfluous and just caters to special interests. Rat had argued that the money given cover the "state curriculum" only, but I say the 6 million is being spent on a school which is not needed. That is simply giving 6 million away so that people can continue to create their little Sihk world in the UK. I would be appalled that my money was being spent in such a way.

I have been attempting to test the limits of such a policy by asking where this stops. Maybe we could have an Italian school, an Indian school, a Chav school (or is that and oxymoron). Nice way to segregate your community.

Many foreign cultures do loathe to give up their traditions. My experience is that it is a major conflict in Indian families. As an example, the children want to marry who they meet, their parents want it to be arranged. The adult Indians which to segregate their children, so as not to be tempted by outside influences. A friend was told to get rid of his white girlfriend or be disowned by his family. My Muslim collegue took his female child from school because he feared that she would taste the freedom and learn the attitude of the American woman. In his culture women are property, in fact, he had 2 wives. So people do have strong desires to keep their heritage alive. That is natural, but I see no reason for the local government to support that.

Jpol, I take it you've heard of West Side Story. Certainly those Italians didn't want to mix with those Puerto Ricans. We have a long history of racial segregation in the US, which has been quite divisive. I just hate to see you guys going down that same path. You know, learn from history and all that.

I, of course, have consistently supported the parents right to choose where their children go to school, why that was brought up is beyond my understanding. I just think it should be out of their pockets if they want a special school, not out of mine.

I grew in a suburb with 3 elementary schools. Had the Jews wanted to build a fourth, we would have said "fine". Had they then asked for my money to build it I would have declined. "We don't need it, it serves no purpose to me. You want it, you build it." Had we needed an extra school because of class size issues, I would want the new school to be open to everyone. Sure anyone CAN technically go to the Jewish school, but what Catholic parents would send their children there. It is an exclusionary school using my money.

The final point is this.

In a sikh school, 2+2=what, how is "the" spelled, do they learn to read? Yes, they do. This is the purpose of education.

What role does religion have in meeting the educational goals of the State? None.

So why are religions invoved in schools?

Why can't I request 6 million pounds to build a school based on fried chicken. I want a place for my kids to grow and learn under the auspices of a chickenocentric curriculum which also fulfills the State requiremnets.

Fried chicken has nothing to do with the State curriculum, but then again neither does religion. Both should be equally worthy of public funds.

Would I be considered rash if I told chicken man to build his own school. Would I be rash to tell a "white supremist" to fund his own school. Why this special treatment of religion?

In summary, I disagree with the policy as it supports segregation and because education and religion are as related as fried chicken and education.