I don't expect my school to feed my kids, but I sure as hell expect them to teach them things. That's their whole purpose for existing.
While parents have a huge role to play in educating their kids about life, school is pretty vital. Most parents aren't qualified to teach anyone about everything (or for some, anything), which is why we send them to school. They have people who specialize in different areas, and can ideally give our children a well rounded education. Or at least that's the plan.
God help the child who has to rely on me to teach them math.
Well, ya, I'm not expecting you to teach your children chemistry and physics, but if the first and/or only place your kids are learning about sex and sexuality is in a classroom, you're not pulling your weight.
I went to the Catholic system in Saskatoon and found it to be quite good. Especially at the highschool level it really is more of a world religion and world ethics with a healthy dose of catholic bias. You looked at Judism, Islam and Christianity, the impact the church had on Europe. I think that the historical religious knowledge I recieved has value regarless of the existance of God/gods.
On the Sex Ed side the mechanics of sex were taught but also the risk. Now risk may have been over exagerated or heavily focused on but I think that information is important. Should a sex ed class teach proper condom use or should kids go buy a box of comdoms and a try them out. I know that seeing someone put a Comdom on a banana on TV really taught me nothing about how to properly use them. It really is one of those practice items so I am not sure how much value there is in a short demo on condom use.
Where I think the Catholic system gets sex ed right is reminding kids that the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and disease is abstinence but if you choose to be sexually active use protection. Condoms have X% failure rate BC pills have X% failure rate. I don't know exactly what calgary teaches but in Saskatoon it was certainly adequate.
And if anyone has long term data about pregnacy rates in Catholic and Public schools within Canada I would love to see them because the long standing myth is that Catholic schools have a significantly higher pregnancy rate but never have I seen data that isn't based on southern US Abstenence Only eduction programs. The Catholic school sex ed (in Saskatoon at least) was far from an Abstence Only program. I would call it an Abstenecne first program.
Who ever these people are that can't figure out how to use a condom without seeing one put on a banana, really need to learn as we don't really need them reproducing.
I can't imagine how low an IQ would have to be to not be able to figure it out, especially with instructions right on the box. Seriously, what are they trying to do with them?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Who ever these people are that can't figure out how to use a condom without seeing one put on a banana, really need to learn as we don't really need them reproducing.
I can't imagine how low an IQ would have to be to not be able to figure it out, especially with instructions right on the box. Seriously, what are they trying to do with them?
Getting it on and using it effectively as contraception and against sti's are different things.
I went to Catholic school with plenty of non-Catholics east of Toronto (due to our local public high school having a horrid reputation). In high school most of the religion courses actually dealt more with literature, religions throughout the world and ethics rather than learning about Catholicism. I don't think any of the non-Catholics ever felt out of place going to school there.
With that being said though, a lot of the hours spent learning religion could have been better spent learning other things, and I would support giving public money only to one school board.
__________________
Quote:
Somewhere Leon Trotsky is an Oilers fan, because who better demonstrates his philosophy of the permanent revolution?
Last edited by OffsideSpecialist; 11-02-2012 at 09:37 PM.
...a lot of the hours spent learning religion could have been better spent learning other things, and I would support giving public money only to one school board.
I concede that as an educator in religious studies, my opinion is quite biased—although I would also argue that for virtually everyone, and furthermore, that there is no such thing as a purely "secular" education.
I see this quite often from opponents to any form of religious studies in schools, but too often the sentiment is that something—ANYTHING would be a better use of time in schools than teaching religion, but most frequently without any justifiable reasons why, nor any good suggestions about what to replace it with. The way most religious studies courses are taught these days—even in Catholic schools—is via the comparative religions model, by which patterns in religious thought and behaviour are presented, and models of the emergence of religion are further developed. Considering the enormous impact of religion on culture, and the contribution of religion to the history of EVERY society, I can't imagine what one would effectively find to replace it.
I graduated from the public school system in Calgary, received no instruction in religious studies, and then continued my education in a mix of private and state schools since then. I just this summer moved my family to Norway, and now have three kids in the international school here in Kristiansand, where all three of them receive regular matriculation in the development and patterns of tribal religions, the emergence of state-sponsered mythology and magic and mystery cults, and the origins and development of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I find in our short experience here that my kids generally need to think more in their religion classes, and that they are challenged to consider questions at a much higher cognitive level than in any of their other courses.
How is this a bad thing? How is this any less important or valuable to one's human development? Regardless of where one stands religiously, there are a few things that a well-rounded religious education promise above and beyond many other disciplines. When properly taught, the subject matter lends itself to a higher level of critical thinking, and provides opportunities for important philosophical, ethical, and ideological reflection. Perhaps more than any other discipline, religious studies grapples with Weltanschauung or world views. Especially in a world that is becoming increasingly globalised and an ever-accelerating rate, I can't thing of many things that are more important than understanding religion.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I concede that as an educator in religious studies, my opinion is quite biased—although I would also argue that for virtually everyone, and furthermore, that there is no such thing as a purely "secular" education....
Yup, I can agree with that. I think that my World Religions course was one of my most eye opening courses I took in school. I just think that the courses I took in grade 9 and 10 where we made crafts based on verses of the Bible were a big waste. I do think that more time should be spent focusing on various religions around the world and their influence on different cultures rather than spending so many years focusing on small tasks in a religion class based entirely on Catholicism. I don't see why the public board couldn't start teaching the type of classes that you talk about.
__________________
Quote:
Somewhere Leon Trotsky is an Oilers fan, because who better demonstrates his philosophy of the permanent revolution?
Last edited by OffsideSpecialist; 11-04-2012 at 09:40 AM.
In response to the OP, it totally depends on the school and school board. I don't think that you even have to direct your taxes to the catholic system. The big BUT is that the catholic school has a choice of whether or not it takes your child where as the public school really doesn't, so the chance of the catholic school taking your child without the taxes going to them are slim at best. I have been told that it really doesn't matter in the end, however, as the schools are ultimately funded on a per-student basis.
Whether or not they take your child will depend on the finances. If the school is under populated you have an excellent chance of being accepted, where as if it is over-populated the chances are much lower. The exception is if your child has been identified as "special needs" and gets greater funding for the school that takes him/her in. The kids that get funding for an aide are the best for a school, however there is a caveat with that as well. If the child is too severe (eg extreme behavior) then getting the funding for an aide isn't really worth it.
Note:this is more for children just entering the school system.
Can I direct my property taxes toward a separate school board, rather than a public board?
If you are of the same religion as the separate school district in your area, you must direct your education taxes to the separate school board. In Calgary, Roman Catholic property owners must declare their faith as Roman Catholic in order for their education taxes to be directed to the Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 1.
