Political Compass #55: Schools and religious values.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? [size=2]Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below, not just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated), and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself.

To date, the threads are:

Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
#37: What’s good for corporations is always good for everyone.
#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.
#39: Our civil rights are being excessively curbed re. terrorism.
#40: One party states avoid delays to progress.
#41: Only wrongdoers need worry about official surveillance.
#42: The death penalty should be an option for serious crimes.
#43: Society must have people above to be obeyed.
#44: Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything isn’t art at all.
#45: Punishment is more important than rehabilitation.
#46: It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
#47: Businessmen are more important than writers and artists.
#48: A mother’s first duty is to be a homemaker.
#49: Companies exploit the Third World’s plant genetic resources.
#50: Mature people make peace with the establishment.
#51: Astrology accurately explains many things.
#52: You cannot be moral without being religious.
#53: Charity is better than social secuity.
#54: Some people are naturally unlucky
[/size]

Proposition #55: I would not wish to send my child to a school that did not instill religious values. (Formerly: “Faith-based schools have a positive role to play in our education system”.)

SentientMeat (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree. (I wrote the following some time ago, so it’s geared a little more towards the former phrasing of #55.)
Firstly, is there anything about ‘faith’ which is a priori better than non-faith in educational terms? Surely not, since Religious Education is a subject which can be taught at any school? The only difference with religion-based schools appears to be that there is a lot more of it (with enormously disproportionate education in one faith compared to others) and that the education might conflict with that given in secular schools (such as the scientific fact that species are replaced by other previously nonexistent species over millions of years).

But #55 is not quite so specific: it merely speaks of wishing for a school to “instill religious values”. This is open to much wider interpretation than the value of Mormonism, Sunni Islam or Greek mythology-based education in particular. There are three such wider issues, I believe: *selection, freedom of choice, * and economics.

Firstly, selection. The argument here, I believe, is that a school which provides some basis for selection gets better results, and this may very well be statistically demonstrable. And so, say supporters of faith-based schools, “Look at the results - they are clearly better than your average tax-funded school. How can you say faith-based education has no positive role?” Again, I would reply that the issue is not due to the faith-basis of the education, but the fact that the school can select its pupils according to an arbitrary criterion. If a school only opened its gates to children from a particular area (and could choose that area just as it could choose its preferred faith), or whose parents had particular professions, ethnicity or even levels of wealth (after all, what else is a private school but one which selects its pupils on the basis of the wealth of their parents?), then one would expect to see a similar effect due to the (non-causative) correlations between these arbitrary classifications and the hierarchical structure of society.

Secondly, the * freedom* aspect: should people be free to send their kids to whatever school they please, regardless of what mumbo-jumbo masquerading as education they might be exposed to? Clearly they should (so long as no outright abuse is involved), since parents can just as easily opt to teach their kids at home. But that is not necessarily a positive role in my eyes - just because I believe that parents must be “free” to sabotage their children’s education doesn’t mean I have to consider it a plus (although I accept that “sabotage” can only reasonably be applied to a minority of either faith-based schools or home-based programs).

Finally, the economic aspect: One could argue that a faith-based school which is somehow financially independent of the state education system relieves some of the burden upon it - this being a “positive role”. Again, I would suggest that this makes it “independent” only under certain interpretations of the word, and that it is in any case rather a non-sequitur since we would then strictly be debating the proposition “Private schools have a positive role to play in our education system” rather than focussing on the faith basis as such.

I’m afraid I can see no positive role for faith-based education over and above education without such a basis. That certain schools might use this as a basis for selection is, I suggest, an irrelevance - I brought it up merely to head off such possible bifurcation, and because I constructed this response before the proposition changed slightly.

2

(7,15 / -1,15)

I would not wish to send my child to a school that did not instill religious values.
Mildly disagree. I think it’s fair that Christendom is taught by one who believes rather than as a collection of historical anecdotes. Outside the subject Christendom I want no religious influence.

Faith-based schools have a positive role to play in our education system
Strongly agree. Parents wishing to have their children educated after a specific religious orientation would not have this option without faith-based schools.

Your view of what private schools are seems very limited.

3

I imagine that the old form of the question (“Faith-based schools have a positive role. . .”) is mostly a referendum on the religiosity of the person being polled. I’ll try to play devil’s advocate, though. For the record, I’m an atheist (more or less life-long) who had 13 years of Catholic school (everything up until college).

I can think of four related benefits of faith-based schools:

  1. The schools are often subsidized by the church, temple, mosque, etc. My education, for example, was heavily subsidized by the New York Archdiocese. This puts a portion of the money collected by organized religion to good use.

  2. There are at least some qualified, dedicated teachers who would not wish to work in a public or even a private school, but who will work in a religious school. I have no cite for this, but it is my understanding that teachers at faith based schools are, on balance, paid less than public and private school teachers, which lowers the cost of eduation. In the case of Catholic schools, some of these teachers are priests, brothers, and nuns – their salaries are exceptionally small, further lowering the cost.

  3. Religious schools, due largely to the aforementioned cost deferrals, frequently represent a convenient compromise. They’re usually superior to public schools (in large American cities, at least), while generally cheaper than private schools. Incidentally, this is why I wound up at Catholic school; my parents refused to send me to a clearly inadequate New York Public School system, but did not have the money for private school.

  4. There are many people who simply would not send their children to a faith-neutral school. Presumably, their children would be home-schooled were no religious schools available. The presence of faith-based schools allows these parents to have regular jobs instead of staying at home with the kids all day.
    So, I’d Strongly Disagree for the new question, but Agree for the old one.

4

Strongly disagree. It’s true that many religious schools do better in terms of average test scores, it’s also true that they don’t have to take everybody that comes at them. It’s also probable that parents who pay tuition for private schools are more likely to have higher academic expectations for their children and be more demanding of them in keeping up with their studies.

I don’t see the need to send a child to a religious school to get their religious education. Between weekends, evenings, and summers there is plenty of time to get whatever religious training the parents want to provide. I also see a benefit to going to a school with students of varied faiths. It might be easier to get along with those of other faiths later in life if there is exposure to a diverse group in the school years.

Finally, for those that think it’s important to pray in school, I ask why? There are about 16 hours in the day when the child is not in school. Pray then.

5

It’s fine that you personally might not see a need. However, it’s your need to dictate what other parents should do that is the crux.

6

Schools exist so people can learn to think. Religion exists so people might triumph over their rational thoughts. Oil and water. A school with religious instruction is a contradiction in terms, because legitimate alternative ways of thinking are suppressed as a matter of policy.

IOW, Strongly Disagree.

7

Clearly you’ve never been in a classroom with a Jesuit.

8

If that was implied I apologize. If it’s important to you to send your kids to a religious school, by all means do so. I just don’t see a logical argument for so doing.

9

I taught in a Jesuit college. Almost got fired because I awarded a literary prize to a short story that the head-nutjob-in-chief thought was “immoral pornography.” Tell me about their openness of mind, why don’t you?

10

That’s peculiar – my experience has been quite the opposite of yours. Out of curiousity, where was this school located?

11

Syracuse NY. In a way, this whole discussion comes down to “indoctrination” and “subtle indoctrination.” The fathers were quite good, IMO, at seeming to be open-minded and willing to engage in discussion.

With the students, that is. If an authority (i.e., a freshly-minted Ph. D. who they made the mistake of hiring) was a freethinker, they had no qualms about making quite clear who was the boss; When push came to shove, they shoved.

12

These are such different propositions that they don’t seem to be measuring the same things.

I think, like Rune, that I Agree with the old but Disagree with the new. Parents should be able to choose what values the schools are teaching their children, thus schools that teach religious values have a role to play. I may or may not choose to avail myself of those schools, but they should be available.

I am in favor of school vouchers, in other words.

Regards,
Shodan

13

[QUOTE=SentientMeat]

I would not wish to send my child to a school that did not instill religious values.

Disagree.

It’s odd that they bothered to re-word it and it’s still confusing and unclear. Why the double negative?

I’m not religious. I’d prefer to send my kid to a good school. If I have the money, I’ll send them to private school because it’s generally better than public. When deciding to pick a town to live in, the quality of the school system will be a primary concern. The religious nature of a school would be a factor, but not a deciding one. If given the choice between a top notch Catholic School and a crappy puplic school I’d go with the Catholics. If given the choice between two good private schools that are equal I’d pick the non-religious one.
Faith-based schools have a positive role to play in our education system”

Agree.

This statement is easy to agree with. The public education system in the US right now is in shambles. Inner city schools in areas like Detroit can’t even graduate literate students from high school. I don’t agree with all the things that religion stands for, but I must admit that they are good at education and discipline. Plus, many people are religious and want thier kids to have religion as a part of their education. I see nothing wrong with this.

I really can’t see anyone disagreeing with this statement except for the most militant of anti-religous atheists.

14

[QUOTE=Debaser]

[QUOTE=SentientMeat]

I would not wish to send my child to a school that did not instill religious values.

-5.62, -5.49

Disagree strongly.

I believe that faith and religion are things which should be taught at home.
Faith-based schools have a positive role to play in our education system”

Agree-- to a certain extent.

My parents sent me to a faith-based school who claimed their graduates were highly sought-after by colleges. My parents believed them-- after all, these were Godly people, why would they lie?

Well, they did. The education standards were appalling. Were I not a voracious reader, I’d be utterly ignorant of everything except doctrine, basic grammar and adding. I do not exaggerate.

The first college to which I applied was the local branch campus of our state university. The woman gave an apologetic laugh when I told her where I’d gone to school, and told me I’d have to take a GED before I’d even be considered. Also, according to the state where I live, I’ve been a droput since the eighth grade.

My “diploma” is worthless.

That’s the objection I have to faith-based schools. Many parents don’t bother to check to see if they’re accredited schools, and their kids end up suffering for it. (Our school actually bragged that it was not accredited, but my parents weren’t sure what that meant and took the administrator’s word that there would be no problems.)

15

I think we are seeing here why they changed the phrasing. They wished to identify those who advocated faith-based education from a traditional, authoritarian point of view, not simply those who recognised them as some kind of stop-gap utility in a failing public education system (which would be rather more a horizontally oriented proposition, IMO.)

Again, I think it’s so that the entire test ends up without any bias - John showed this with a tick-all demonstration a while ago.

Would you characterise me so? That would be disappointing.

16

So let me get this straight–you had an awful personal experience with a faith-based school, you believe in principle that faith is best taught at home, yet you’re for them overall?

How come?

17

Because I have seen some damn good parochial schools which have a very good balance. The one my husband attended was an excellent Catholic school with high academic standards. They had a religion class, but there was no efforts at conversion-- religion was discussed as a social force, an ethical guide, and as history. The kids were encouraged to ask questions and challenge in this class. (Religion was not stirred into math class, for example.)

Schools like these are an asset to the educational community. It’s just that in my experience, ones like these are the minority.

18

I guess I’m not getting it. You seem to be saying above that even you freely concede that most religion-based schools do a terrible job, and you’ve cited a bad personal experience. Why would someone who thinks as you do favor faith-based education?

IMO, if parents want their kids to have a religious experience, then as BobLibDem says, there’s plenty of time for them to see to that on their own time. Why in the world would you want schools to do that , especially when you’ve seen seen how they’re capable of doing a bad job of it? Is there some value in brainwashing that I’m not seeing?

19

+7/-3 Disagree.

I’m an atheist, and I really don’t know what “religious values” are, so I doubt I’d want to send a child to a school that instilled them. I would “agree” with the old proposition, though, as some of our best schools at all levels are affiliated with a religious group.

20

I don’t know. Your OP doesn’t really address why you don’t like faith based schools. Your selection, freedom, and economics points don’t really address the core issue. You seem to assume that religion = bad, and that there must be some positive (selection, freedom, or economic) that will outweigh this inherent negative. But, you haven’t addressed what this negative is.