Bible studies approved

[Boo]

I have not done an exhaustive search so I'm not sure if there are other threads regarding this; the NYTimes and AP are reporting that the Texas state's Board of Education has given final approval to officially offering bible study classes in public high schools. Classes started in 2007 pending final Board approval and now they have it. There are some caveats;the Texas AG has yet to officially rule on this, it has yet to be decided if this will be an elective course and if schools can opt to not offer the course. I'm not sure how well thought out this has been by the BOE.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us...?ref=education


One item of interest from the article:

Quote:

Mark Chancey, associate professor in religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has studied Bible classes already offered in about 25 districts. His study found most of the courses were explicitly devotional with almost exclusively Christian, usually Protestant, perspectives. It also found that most were taught by teachers who were not familiar with the issue of separation of church and state.

How can someone with a 4 year degree (usual minimum standard for teaching certificate in most states) be unfamiliar with facts taught in HS level Civics classes and a basic tenet of the US Constitution? Is this not covered on the teaching exam? Is this a problem in other states?

The implications are stunning. I have to wonder if school boards will begin recruiting people with degrees in Theology to teach these classes? If an applicant is Greek Orthodox or a member of the Native American Church will they be considered qualified? Is it discrimination to hire only Protestant Christians to teach bible studies?


The questions are rhetorical of course.




Boo

[196]

No curriculum guidelines because it "could lead to constitutional problems in the classroom". Wow. This really is taxpayer funded bible study in the guise of education.

[Nogbad]

This is religious education pure and simple - Texas votes for Madrassas! Interesting.

[Jon_Stripe]

O.k, you're gonna teach Bible studies in our public schools?

Then what about Wicken studies?

or

Islamic studies?

or

Buddhism studies?

Better yet; how 'bout all the major ones.

I'm not being sarcastic.

There are lots more of these people around then you might think.

The world isn't made up of all Christians.........

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Nogbad

This is religious education pure and simple - Texas votes for Madrassas! Interesting.

Are they compulserary?

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Boo

How can someone with a 4 year degree (usual minimum standard for teaching certificate in most states) be unfamiliar with facts taught in HS level Civics classes and a basic tenet of the US Constitution? Is this not covered on the teaching exam? Is this a problem in other states?

They vote Republican and watch Fox "News", making them twice as ignorant as other Americans with similar education backgrounds?

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by Nogbad

This is religious education pure and simple - Texas votes for Madrassas! Interesting.

Religious schools are only wrong when they aren't Christian... the same way that torture, illegal spying on citizens, and indefinite imprisonment without trial were all wrong when the Soviets did it, but just fine when Bush did the exact same thing. For these folks, "religious freedom" means "government-enforced Christianity."

[RandFan]

I have no problem with bible studies as part of a comparative religion class. Just being an elective isn't sufficient for me. Government shouldn't be in the business of furthering any single religion and it is unconstitutional in America.

[Jon_Stripe]

"They vote Republican and watch Fox "News", making them twice as ignorant as other Americans with similar education backgrounds?"

--

"Religious schools are only wrong when they aren't Christian... the same way that torture, illegal spying on citizens, and indefinite imprisonment without trial were all wrong when the Soviets did it, but just fine when Bush did the exact same thing. For these folks, "religious freedom" means "government-enforced Christianity.""


HAHAHA!

Nice.

I like you.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by Jon_Stripe

O.k, you're gonna teach Bible studies in our public schools?

Then what about Wicken studies?

or

Islamic studies?

or

Buddhism studies?

Better yet; how 'bout all the major ones.

I'm not being sarcastic.

There are lots more of these people around then you might think.

The world isn't made up of all Christians.........

Jon,

Here is an insight as to why just bible studies:

Quote:

One of the board members aligned with social conservative groups known for their strong stands on evolution, sexual abstinence and other heated topics covered in textbooks. One of four board members who voted against current high school biology books because of their failure to list weaknesses in the theory of evolution.

Quote:

But Dr. McLeroy said his vote on the biology books had nothing to do with censorship or religion and was based on "good science."

"It is wrong to teach opinion as fact," he said.

Regarding his religious beliefs, he said, "I'm a very religious guy, and I've taught Sunday school for several years. It's important to me."

Above is from That Dallas News story that ran when he was appointed. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.3bba4d6.html


I agree that studying the bible as part of a comparative religious studies course is an excellent idea, however that is not what they have in mind.

Also from the Dallas Morning news in a more recent article:

Quote:

Critics contend that the standards – based on old guidelines for independent studies in English and social studies – are so vague and general that many schools might unknowingly create unconstitutional Bible classes that either promote the religious views of teachers or disparage the religious beliefs of some students.

Earlier this year, the Ector County school board agreed to quit using a Bible course curriculum at two high schools in Odessa that the American Civil Liberties Union said promoted Protestant religious beliefs not shared by Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and many Protestants.

However, state board members supporting the Bible course rule adopted Friday said such lawsuits are rare and should not be a problem for most school districts.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.4d51734.html


For more information check out the sticky thread Texans Read This http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100408 in Politics.



Boo

[UnrepentantSinner]

I know there's a few courses out there that even AU thinks are acceptable as electives, but I'm pretty sure the McElroy school board will find cirricula from Liberty U. or Bob Jones U. knowning them.

[Lisa Simpson]

A similar class was voted down again in my kids' school district.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/c...schulte-course

Quote:

Trustees who voted against the proposal said a Bible class could be confused as proselytizing and another elective would have to be removed to make room for the Bible class.

"The teachers have said they are not interested and for us to make this top-down decision would be pure folly," said Trustee Bonnie Castrey.

[cj.23]

Well if religion is taught in public schools that will doubtless lead to the end of the Christian majority in the USA, based on every other nations experience. Woeful ignorance of religion seems to be synonymous with a highly religious population, so surely the atheists should be celebrating?

I would be deeply disturbed if the courses are taught by someone who has not got a RS or Theology degree, obviously, and do not explore world religions, sociology or religion, etc, etc.

cj x

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Boo

How can someone with a 4 year degree (usual minimum standard for teaching certificate in most states) be unfamiliar with facts taught in HS level Civics classes and a basic tenet of the US Constitution? Is this not covered on the teaching exam? Is this a problem in other states?

Boo, Texas is a bit of a special case. I don't know the exact reasons, nor am I in a position to draw inferences, but I can tell you that Texas recruits a surprising number of teachers from overseas. The ones I am most familiar with are from the Philippines; they possess valid teaching credentials from established Philippine universities, so there's no question that they are academically qualified. The point remains, however, that Texas employs a large number of teachers who cannot necessarily be expected to be familiar with American cultural and/or legal issues.

Again, I have no idea how this might apply to the teaching of religion in Texas public schools, but it's at least a partial answer to your question.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Jon_Stripe

O.k, you're gonna teach Bible studies in our public schools?

Then what about Wicken studies?

or

Islamic studies?

or

Buddhism studies?

Better yet; how 'bout all the major ones.

I'm not being sarcastic.

There are lots more of these people around then you might think.

The world isn't made up of all Christians.........

Who is going to decide which are "major" religions?

[uk_dave]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Who is going to decide which are "major" religions?

The way its always been done in the past. Get some flaming torches and kindling......

[196]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Who is going to decide which are "major" religions?

In most jurisdictions course content is set by a curriculum committee of experts. The result is a curriculum document that guides teachers on the topics to be covered. In a legitimate "world religion" course, the experts would give a list of the "major" religions and some examples of things students are expected to learn. As we see in this case, the curriculum process can be subject to political interference. In Texas they just skipped the curriculum document to give the individual instructor carte blanche to teach whatever he or she wants.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by 196

In most jurisdictions course content is set by a curriculum committee of experts. The result is a curriculum document that guides teachers on the topics to be covered. In a legitimate "world religion" course, the experts would give a list of the "major" religions and some examples of things students are expected to learn. As we see in this case, the curriculum process can be subject to political interference. In Texas they just skipped the curriculum document to give the individual instructor carte blanche to teach whatever he or she wants.

Not just what they want but specifically just what they want from only the bible of the protestant christian faith. This is what puts it in potential violation of the separation of church and state. It's not "major religions" it's a specific document of faith as believed by a specific segment of a specific religion, i.e. protestant christianity.



Boo

[gdnp]

Although I suppose it is theoretically possible that such classes could be taught without bias, the probability of that happening is nil. What a can of worms. It belongs in Sunday School, not in public school.

[cj.23]

Except Britain, and I think most European states have taught Religion to a very high standard for the last fifty odd years as an academic objective subject???

cj x

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Except Britain, and I think most European states have taught Religion to a very high standard for the last fifty odd years as an academic objective subject???

The Brits also don't have a long-term tradition of leaving the religious nutters to sort out their own education. A "national curriculum" designed by Whitehall mandarins would do wonders for American primary and secondary education. Unfortunately, it would probably also destroy American tertiary education....

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Unfortunately, it would probably also destroy American tertiary education....

Why's that?

cj x

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Why's that?

A primary advantage of American tertiary education is the ability to specialize and to attract well-heeled sponsors for the specialists, which in turn gives the high-end universities the ability to (over)pay their specialists and thus further specialize; establishment of a national curriculum would eliminate this.

There's a reason that more professors flee Oxbridge for the Ivy League than the other way around.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Jon_Stripe

O.k, you're gonna teach Bible studies in our public schools?

Then what about Wicken studies?

Despite being invented by a british civil servant world impact is limited.

Quote:

or

Islamic studies?

Hopefuly

Quote:

or

Buddhism studies?

perhaps.

Quote:

Better yet; how 'bout all the major ones.

I'm not being sarcastic.

There are lots more of these people around then you might think.

The world isn't made up of all Christians.........

The problem is you are limiting yourself to current religions. Aten and Amun-Ra haven;t had followers for a few thousand years but they are kinda important to understand certian elements of history.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by drkitten

A primary advantage of American tertiary education is the ability to specialize and to attract well-heeled sponsors for the specialists, which in turn gives the high-end universities the ability to (over)pay their specialists and thus further specialize; establishment of a national curriculum would eliminate this.

There's a reason that more professors flee Oxbridge for the Ivy League than the other way around.

Ah! The reason I had never looked at lecturing in the USA despite a couple of tempting offers was I believed the opposite - I thought US undergrads had to study a wide range of subjects, specializing very late in their studies? Perhaps I am misunderstanding though... but I do like the idea of being overpaid!

cj x

[geni]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Who is going to decide which are "major" religions?

For current religions probably raw numbers. For non current probably the body count.

[Piggy]

They're doing this in my state, too.

The problem is, they don't have teachers in the high schools who are qualified to teach the Bible.

I wish I still had the link to the course materials supplier, but they're fundie. Maybe I can find it.

I'd be happy to teach a Bible class, but they'd bomb my damn house or something if I did.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Ah! The reason I had never looked at lecturing in the USA despite a couple of tempting offers was I believed the opposite - I thought US undergrads had to study a wide range of subjects, specializing very late in their studies?

They do (typically the first year or two years are "core" courses and only then do undergraduates specialize), but undergraduates are (and always have been) a bit of background noise at a typical university, in part because they are in and out so fast. The intellectual heart of a university is of course, the faculty (who can be there for forty years and are usually active researchers, even at smaller and less-prestigious schools).

Absent a national curriculum, faculty are free to pursue and to teach their own research interests, even if it leaves moderate (or gaping) holes in the actual course content; I've seen biology degrees where invertebrates, for example, don't get a mention. So what you have is a school where students get a very good background of vertebrate zoology, and the students who are interested in bugs simply don't attend (or transfer out) --- which tends to be more valuable than a mediocre background in both, because the vertebrate zoologist was forced to teach a course in entymology 'because the standards say so.'

Of course, this is exactly why standards exist in the first place, to prevent departments from specializing away from important but unpopular areas. The difference is that there's no such thing as an "arithmetic" specialist; it's not really possible to take advantage of a teacher's superior knowledge at the primary school level since fundamentally we all know the same amount about arithmetic or the water cycle. It's at the undergraduate --- and the post-graduate --- levels where you start to see advantage.

Basically, you can get a better department with three vertebrate zoologists than you can with one vert., one invert., and one botanist -- if you're teaching courses at a level where the students can benefit from the interactions between the faculty.

And overpaid is certainly nice. I was checking the salary for an Oxbridge Endowed Professorship a while ago, and it's less than I make as the equivalent of a senior lecturer here at a rather mediocre school. (And that's also with the exchange rate in the loo as well.)

[geni]

Originally Posted by drkitten

A primary advantage of American tertiary education is the ability to specialize and to attract well-heeled sponsors for the specialists, which in turn gives the high-end universities the ability to (over)pay their specialists and thus further specialize; establishment of a national curriculum would eliminate this.

There's a reason that more professors flee Oxbridge for the Ivy League than the other way around.

UK does not have a national curriculum at university level. There is a significant amount of specialisation at collage level and some at GCSE level.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by geni

The problem is you are limiting yourself to current religions. Aten and Amun-Ra haven;t had followers for a few thousand years but they are kinda important to understand certian elements of history.

Yes, but "world impact" is still limited. The number of people -- including professional historians -- who could even distinguish Aten and Amun-Ra is quite limited. I can't imagine why a Europeanist, or an Asianist, or even a scholar of the modern Mideast would need to know about long-dead religious beliefs.

A key aspect to designing high school curricula is not to ask the question "would it be useful to know this?" Instead, you have to ask yourself "would it be crippling to NOT know this." Time, classroom space, and faculty salaries are extremely tight -- and if you are removing a course in Modern European History or the Renaissance to put in Aten and Amun-Ra, I would be forced to object.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by geni

UK does not have a national curriculum at university level. There is a significant amount of specialisation at collage level and some at GCSE level.

Not as such, no. But the grading practices (such as external readers for much of the exam grading) --- and the various evaluations to make sure that all the schools are keeping standards up -- have much the same effect; UK universities are much more homogenous than their equivalents in the USA.

But more to the point -- we're talking about the establishment of a major new bureaucracy in the USA with the mandate to establish a national curriculum for primary and secondary education. Do you really think that this bureaucracy would confine itself strictly to its written mandate and not attempt to establish standards and practices for post-secondary education as well? We've seen such attempts by ambitious Secretaries of Education anyway even without a formal remit.

[geni]

Originally Posted by drkitten

They do (typically the first year or two years are "core" courses and only then do undergraduates specialize), but undergraduates are (and always have been) a bit of background noise at a typical university, in part because they are in and out so fast. The intellectual heart of a university is of course, the faculty (who can be there for forty years and are usually active researchers, even at smaller and less-prestigious schools).

Absent a national curriculum, faculty are free to pursue and to teach their own research interests, even if it leaves moderate (or gaping) holes in the actual course content; I've seen biology degrees where invertebrates, for example, don't get a mention. So what you have is a school where students get a very good background of vertebrate zoology, and the students who are interested in bugs simply don't attend (or transfer out) --- which tends to be more valuable than a mediocre background in both, because the vertebrate zoologist was forced to teach a course in entymology 'because the standards say so.'

Not at university level they don't. Mind you with the fairly low levels of tenure in the UK it is fairly trivial for them to bring in someone who covers whatever their existing staff don't. But once you move beyond the core of a subject you are rapaidly going to end up focusing on whatever the lectures are interested in rather than some kind of balanced course.

[geni]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Yes, but "world impact" is still limited. The number of people -- including professional historians -- who could even distinguish Aten and Amun-Ra is quite limited. I can't imagine why a Europeanist, or an Asianist, or even a scholar of the modern Mideast would need to know about long-dead religious beliefs.

A key aspect to designing high school curricula is not to ask the question "would it be useful to know this?" Instead, you have to ask yourself "would it be crippling to NOT know this." Time, classroom space, and faculty salaries are extremely tight -- and if you are removing a course in Modern European History or the Renaissance to put in Aten and Amun-Ra, I would be forced to object.

Well people do seem to like to cover Tutankhamun and the whole Aten thing is pretty much it in terms of events with long term significance while he was alive.

[shadron]

I would imagine that Atenism's possible latent significance to monotheism in general would make it a rather touchy subject for a teacher wanting to stay employed in Texas.

[bpesta22]

Believe it or not, my brother was hired as a consultant to show high skool teachers in texas how to teach a bible as lit class. We are a bit different in our world views.

Anyway, there was a news story about it with him in it, I'll see if I can dig it up!

[bpesta22]

not sure if this link's video works, but that's my brother!

http://freemarketblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Yes, but "world impact" is still limited. The number of people -- including professional historians -- who could even distinguish Aten and Amun-Ra is quite limited. I can't imagine why a Europeanist, or an Asianist, or even a scholar of the modern Mideast would need to know about long-dead religious beliefs.

I have lectured in both Religion and History at a UK university, and am considered pretty good i think on religions of the A.N.E, and the only thing I can think of without Google is that the priests of Amun/Hammon (Amane in Nubia?) were displaced by the Aten worship of Akhenaten, then murder said Pharaoh and that worship of Amun has declined by the Hellenistic period of Egypt, indeed almost ended as far as I know. Considering my ignorance, I'm going to guess that outside of Egyptologists and New Ages with a thing for Akhenaten (and I do know quite a bit aout his reliligious reforms i guess) most historians would know almost precisely nothing about it- as much as I do about say land price fluctations in 19th century Schleswig-Holstein!

cj x

[cj.23]

If there is a shortage of qualified religion teachers in the US, why not simply hire British RE teachers? They can teach based on my ex-girlfriends course and my experience in training RE teachers Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism and also generally have a knowledge of Chinese and African traditional religions, plus can do stuff like "do science and religion conflict?" and sicuss bioethics etc, etc to contextualize it.

My A level course taught me Biblical Crit & The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Feurbach, Nietzche, Kierkegarde, Hegel, Freud, Marx, Christianity & other religions (Hick mainly), the Victorian Church and lost of other fun stuff. If bias is an issue we have plenty of atheist, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu RE Teachers here - and a good few Wiccans which never ceases to amaze me. I think the majority of RE teachers i have met have been atheist or agnostic though, with Christians representing the second largest group. Still they are definitely extremely well trained, and higher wages in the uSA would attract them?

cj x

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by cj.23

If there is a shortage of qualified religion teachers in the US, why not simply hire British RE teachers? They can teach based on my ex-girlfriends course and my experience in training RE teachers Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism and also generally have a knowledge of Chinese and African traditional religions, plus can do stuff like "do science and religion conflict?" and sicuss bioethics etc, etc to contextualize it.

My A level course taught me Biblical Crit & The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Feurbach, Nietzche, Kierkegarde, Hegel, Freud, Marx, Christianity & other religions (Hick mainly), the Victorian Church and lost of other fun stuff. If bias is an issue we have plenty of atheist, Muslim, Jewish and Hindu RE Teachers here - and a good few Wiccans which never ceases to amaze me. I think the majority of RE teachers i have met have been atheist or agnostic though, with Christians representing the second largest group. Still they are definitely extremely well trained, and higher wages in the uSA would attract them?

cj x

Now that sounds like an interesting course. That, of course, is not the point of those who want bible studies here. The last thing they want is a critical evaluation of their beliefs. They wish reinforcement and indoctrination: a Southern Baptist perspective.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by cj.23

If there is a shortage of qualified religion teachers in the US, why not simply hire British RE teachers?

Well, assuming they were being honest in their class offerings --- they couldn't afford to.

The "shortage" isn't caused by a lack of people with teaching credentials; the "shortage" is caused by a lack of people with teaching credentials who are willing to move to South Bumbleburgh, Texas to teach for $13,000 a year under the supervision of the South Bumbleburgh Area School District.

Quote:

Still they are definitely extremely well trained, and higher wages in the uSA would attract them?

The higher wages in the States only really applies at the post-secondary level; primary and secondary school teachers in the USA are notoriously underpaid.

But beyond that, teaching conditions in public schools tend to be so bad --- in part because of the way that schools are the battleground for local politics --- that even when wages are raised, teachers tend to stay away in droves. And Texas is one of the worst offenders in this regard.

But, of course, the other problem is that the sponsors of this program don't really want "qualified religion teachers" any more than your local crystal healer wants to hire RNs for patient care. What the sponsors are really looking for is not qualified religious instruction, but Sunday-school-during-the-week, and I suspect your ex- would get really annoyed with being presented with material that starts out with the assumption that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament.