USA Today editorial about new Religion in Schools Study

May 23, 2006 on 10:11 am | In Uncategorized | Comments Off

How one school district found religion

Posted 5/21/2006 6:22 PM ET
By Emile Lester and Patrick S. Roberts

Americans have never been in greater need of understanding religious differences and cultivating respect for religious freedom. The events of 9/11 transformed America’s relationship with Muslims at home and abroad, a surge in immigration from Asia and Africa has increased the nation’s religious diversity, and cultural conflicts between secularists and religious conservatives occur like clockwork.

So you might think the last thing school districts would want is to bring religion into the classroom. Better to play it safe, and avoid lawsuits and angry parents by limiting any mention of faith to the private sphere. But school officials in Modesto, in Northern California, decided not to play it safe. In 2000, the religiously diverse community took a risk and, in an almost unheard-of undertaking for a public school district, offered a required course on world religions and religious liberty for ninth-graders.

INDEX:Focus on faith

As college professors and social scientists studying religious freedom in the USA, we wanted to know more. Could greater discussion of religious differences actually deepen cultural divides? From October 2003 to January ‘05, we surveyed more than 400 Modesto students and conducted in-depth interviews with students, teachers, administrators and community leaders. We granted anonymity to students so they could speak freely, but we recorded the interviews. No prior study on American teens’ views on religious liberty has scientifically surveyed such a large number of students.

To our surprise, students’ respect for rights and liberties increased measurably after taking the course. Perhaps more important, the community has embraced the course as a vehicle for fostering understanding, not indoctrination.

All-American city

Modesto, population 190,000, resembles many medium-size U.S. cities. Over the past 40 years, it has made room for an array of immigrants, including Buddhists, Sikhs and Muslims. Evangelical “megachurches” have sprung up alongside mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic denominations and a flourishing Jewish community. Overt incidents of religious prejudice have been rare, but the cultural divide bred mutual suspicion.

In 1997, some religious groups in Modesto battled the school over a policy of tolerance for gay and lesbian students. Out of the dispute came a meeting of the minds: A 115-member committee of community members and educators was formed to examine how to provide safe schools for all students. That meant putting an end to bullying, whether based on sexual orientation, race or ethnicity — even religion. The world religions course was one of several initiatives designed to further the “safe schools” mission.

The experiment succeeded. Our surveys indicate it increased students’ respect for religious liberty as well as for basic First Amendment rights. One Russian Orthodox boy, for instance, found that the course brought him closer to his neighbors. “We have a Hindu family living across the street who pray(s) to a statue,” he said. “I thought it was just plain dumb. But I notice now they had a pretty good reason.”

Bringing religious beliefs out into the open increased students’ respect for religious liberty for two reasons. First, students not only emerged from the course far more knowledgeable about world religions, they also were able to apply the knowledge practically. One student told us that the course gave him a greater appreciation for the religious diversity in his school. “I walk up to one of my friends I’ve known for years. I had no idea he was a Sikh. When I see the bracelet (worn for religious reasons), I say, ‘Oh, you’re a Sikh.’ ”

Second, students learned that major faiths shared common moral values. When we asked one student why she enjoyed studying other religions, she said: “All my life I’ve been a Christian, and that’s really the only religion I know about. So when I take this class I see there are other religions out there, and they kind of believe in the same thing I do.”

Even so, students did not become relativists or converts. They were no more likely to disbelieve the truth of their own religious traditions after taking the course.

A broad spectrum of Modesto’s residents has embraced the course. Students can opt out, but only a handful have. The school board, which stands divided on other hot-button cultural issues, voted unanimously to adopt the course. Religious leaders of all faiths lent their support because they realized that something had to be done to bring peace to the schools — and that pushing religious identity undercover would create more problems than it solved.

Lessons beyond Modesto

Recent disputes over the teaching of evolution in Kansas and Dover, Pa., and over a Bible studies course in Odessa, Texas, have made national headlines. These stories leave the impression that all attempts to teach about religion in public schools — even courses far more balanced than these disputed courses — are bound to cause controversy. How did Modesto avoid this fate, and what lessons does Modesto provide for other communities?

• Extensive training gave teachers the knowledge and enthusiasm to handle a sensitive subject.

• An interfaith religious council reviewed the course before its implementation and paved the way for its acceptance. The council members applauded particularly the district’s decision to have the course focus on objectively describing religions rather than evaluating their merits.

• The focus on description prevented the perception that the course was biased or an attempt to indoctrinate students into a particular faith.

• Most crucial was the school district’s decision to introduce the course as part of an effort to counteract the hostility against students who were seen as different. First Baptist Church Associate Pastor Paul Zook explained that despite the council members’ disagreements, “We could find common ground (because) we all want kids to be safe.”

Limiting deeply held beliefs to the private sphere breeds suspicion and tension. True religious liberty prevails not only when people feel comfortable expressing their beliefs, but also when they learn to discuss religious differences with civility and respect.

Emile Lester is an assistant professor at The College of William and Mary. Patrick S. Roberts is a postdoctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Their report on Modesto’s course is available at www.firstamendmentcenter.org.

Best News: Sensation! Download Ringtones Valium online FDA Approved Pharmacy Rolex Replica Free Ringtones Cigarettes Phentermine online Online notebook shop Chronometer ya.by �ables Ornaments Phentermine No Prescription Get ringtones online Ladies handbag Green Card Information Sport Betting Medical tests Best Ringtones Balans Medicine news Sale Auto Suits Cheap pharmacy shop Soma online Pills, Compare pills, Reviews pills Adipex online Credits Ear rings mp3 music for mobile Boots Loan Online Top auto-moto Cases Evening dress Dating Replica Rolex Free mp3 ringtones Trousers Cigarette Underwear Blog Search the Web Sportswear Top casino Free Ringtones Necklace Mobiles Xanax online Yachts auto-moto Cheap drugs online shop Ambien online furniture Chairs Credit Tramadol online Autos Bracelets Tunings Intimate goods Vicodin online Cars Rington Building materials Cialis online

Religion and the Schools

December 5, 2005 on 7:42 pm | In Religion | No Comments

This commentary from Charles Haynes reminds us of the history of religion in the nation’s public schools.

The truth about God in public schools

By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar
12.01.05

Editor’s note: This commentary was published in USA TODAY on Nov. 21.

Attacks on the “Godless public schools” have been at the top of the culture-war hit list for more than 40 years. Hardly a day goes by without some politician or televangelist reminding Americans of how the Supreme Court kicked God out of the schools in the 1960s — and how the nation has been sliding down a slippery slope of moral and spiritual decline ever since.

The banishment of the Deity from the classroom is a compelling story that plays well in a nation where millions of citizens take their faith seriously. There’s only one problem:

It isn’t true.

Yes, 20 years ago many public schools did come close to being religion-free zones. In the wake of the controversial court decisions banning state-sponsored religious practices, some school officials overreacted by trying to keep all religion out. Textbooks largely ignored religion, and teachers were hesitant to teach about it. Administrators mistakenly confused student speech with government speech and told kids to leave their religion at the schoolhouse door.

But that was 20 years ago. Today, most state standards and textbooks include considerable mention of religion; student religious clubs meet on hundreds, if not thousands, of high school campuses; the sight of Christian students praying around the flagpole or in the lunchroom is not uncommon; and Muslim students are routinely given a free room to perform daily prayers.

How we got here
What accounts for this dramatic turnaround? Start with the Equal Access Act of 1984 that opened the door for student-initiated religious clubs in secondary schools. Then look at how California broke the mold in the late ’80s by deciding to require more teaching about religion in history classes. Finally, give credit to the remarkable agreements developed in the ’90s on how schools should deal with everything from religious holidays to the Bible under the First Amendment — a series of consensus guides endorsed by everyone from the National Education Association to the National Association of Evangelicals.

In spite of these positive developments, some opponents of public schools stick to the storyline of the Godless school where guns get in the door but prayers are banned. These are the “Restorers,” people who long to bring back the “good old days” when one religion (historically Protestant Christianity) was preferred in school policies and practices. Still angry that the courts won’t allow school officials to promote religion with prayers over the intercom or by posting the Ten Commandments on classroom walls, the Restorers downplay or ignore all of the ways in which religion is alive and well in schools. Any concession that things have changed for the better would undermine their call for an “exodus” from “atheistic government schools,” to quote a recent direct-mail letter from a religious conservative group.

Of course, it doesn’t help that people on the other end of the spectrum — the “Removers” — are determined to scrub every vestige of religion from the classroom. Proposals to teach more about religions are attacked as backdoor ways to impose religion. Policies designed to protect students’ religious expression are seen as efforts to encourage evangelization and harassment.

All it takes are a few bad stories to obscure the progress of the past two decades and to reinvigorate the culture warriors on both sides.

Exhibit A is the recent national brouhaha in which one teacher in one California school district (Cupertino) was accused of proselytizing in the classroom by inserting his religious views into the teaching of history. The Removers latched onto the incident as confirmation that teachers just can’t be trusted to “teach about religion.” Meanwhile, the Restorers saw it as fresh evidence of public-school hostility to all things Christian.

Caught in the crossfire, it’s not surprising that some school officials are still nervous about implementing the consensus guidelines or that some teachers remain afraid to touch religion, whatever the standards say.

And it’s no mystery why many students and parents are confused about what is and isn’t allowed under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, the quiet revolution begun 20 years ago continues to spread.

All of the changes — the Equal Access Act, new standards and textbooks, consensus guides — are built on this: Under the First Amendment, public schools may not inculcate or inhibit religion. This means that school officials must be careful to protect the religious liberty rights of students of all faiths and none. And they must ensure that the curriculum includes study about religion (as distinguished from religious indoctrination) as an important part of a complete education.

Success in the classroom
To see what this looks like, visit Ramona, Calif.; Davis County, Utah; Mustang, Okla.; or any one of the many other school districts that have successfully translated the national agreements into local policies and practices that take the First Amendment seriously.

Instead of lawsuits and shouting matches, these communities have come together to find common ground on how to protect student religious expression while guarding against school endorsement of religion. Visit schools in these districts and you’ll see teachers teaching about religions without controversy, students practicing their faith during the school day without interfering with the rights of others, and school officials handling potential conflicts over religion with the support and trust of their communities. Getting it right, however, won’t be easy after more than 150 years of getting it wrong.

Moreover, agreement on some issues — such as the place of religion in the curriculum or when students may pray together — doesn’t mean agreement on everything. The latest fight over evolution and recent lawsuits over where to draw the line on student religious expression in the classroom are stark reminders of how much work still needs to be done.

However great the challenge, schools have no choice but to move beyond the failed models of the past.

In a nation committed to religious liberty, public schools are neither the local church nor religion-free zones. They must be places where people of all faiths and none are treated with fairness and respect. In the USA, religion goes to school — but always through the First Amendment door.

Charles C. Haynes is the co-author of Finding Common Ground: A Guide to Religious Liberty in Public Schools and a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va.

Religion in the Classroom: Role Playing

November 14, 2005 on 12:34 pm | In Religion, Curriculum | No Comments

As the 9th circuit debates the constitutionality of using role playing to teach students about Islam in a public school classroom in California, recent reports of the debate are embedded with clues to the appropriate resolution of the case.

The parents bringing the suit are not opposed to the “objective” or academic study of religion in their child’s school, but they are concerned about the time allotted to each faith tradition and the appropriateness of asking children to role play adherents of these faiths as part of the lesson.

The school contends that the state social studies framework requires that religion be included where it natural arises, and that role play is a time-tested pedagogical tool.

Who is right?

I contend that both are right.

It may seem paradoxical, but in my 10 years of work in this area, following the lead of the First Amendment Center’s consensus guidelines on the topic, I have counseled school districts and teachers to use role play where they find it useful, but to NEVER use it when teaching about religion. The reasons for this include the possibility that the conscience of a student will be violated by the activity, and that role playing sacred events runs the risk of trivializing the event or belief.

At the same time, religion IS included all through the California state standards and framework for social studies (as it is in most states — see the report on national and state standards available for downloading on this site), and therefore is a legitimate and necessary area of study. This study, as it is encouraged by the state framework, is to be balanced with regard to time, materials, focus, etc.

Can we teach about ALL relgions in the schools? Of course not. There are now reported to be over 2,500 religions in the United States, so we obviously can’t teach about all of them. So, how do teachers decide? They must base their lessons first on what the standards and frameworks say students should learn, and then look at the overall curriculum for the year for balance. In other words, what information we include about the world’s religions should be based on what is needed in order to provide students the most complete education possible, while it is balanced and neutral in presentation.

My experience is that when schools and teachers use these guidelines, parents, the community at large, students and teachers are happy, and controveries of the kind we’re seeing in this court case are avoided.

Teaching About Religion Decision Pending

November 14, 2005 on 12:09 pm | In Uncategorized, Court Rulings | No Comments

Byron school religion decision pending

By Andrew Becker
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

ANTIOCH - Two years after a federal judge threw out her family’s lawsuit claiming Byron school district violated the U.S. Constitution by having seventh-grade students pretend to be Muslims in a world history class, Tiffany Eklund is still upset.

She’s not opposed to the academic teaching of Islam, or any religion for that matter. But she doesn’t understand why other religions weren’t studied for the same amount of time in her son’s class at Excelsior Middle School. Eklund feels strongly enough to have appealed the district court’s ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel in San Francisco recently heard arguments and is expected to rule on the case in the next few months.

“They (school teachers) should spend time simulating all religions, and they can’t,” said Eklund, who with her husband, Jonas, sued the Byron Union School District in 2002 on behalf of two of their children. “It should be all or none.”

In the lawsuit, which spurred a national debate on whether religious role-playing should be allowed in schools, the Eklunds argued that having students take Muslim names, memorize Muslim proverbs and recite passages from the Koran amounts to religious training. The school district, meanwhile, says that prohibiting such role-playing games could restrict free speech and common teaching techniques.

Linda Lye, an attorney for the school district, said if the appeals court overturns the district court’s decision it could have a chilling effect on teachers who want to use creative instructional techniques.

“It would be terribly dangerous for the courts to get into the business of second guessing educators’ decisions on how to present classroom materials, because this was a secular presentation of religion,” she said.

Stephen Barnett, a professor emeritus at UC Berkeley’s Boalt School of Law who specializes in academic freedom issues, said that if overturned, the ruling also could limit First Amendment freedom of speech rights. But, he said, it’s unlikely the Court of Appeals would overturn the district judge’s ruling.

In 2003, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled that the role-playing didn’t violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as it was a simulation of Islam that didn’t constitute actual religious activity or an establishment of the religion.

The Eklunds still contend that there was an endorsement of Islam, regardless of whether that was the intent, said Edward White, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center who represented the Eklunds. The public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., focuses on family values and Christian religious freedom. If the appellate court doesn’t overturn the decision, White said the next step could be to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said a similar suit was brought before the Supreme Court in 2001, but it wasn’t heard.

“When parents send kids to public school, it’s with the trust that students are going to be educated, not indoctrinated,” White said. “No one has a problem with creative teaching. It’s only when it crosses the line and indoctrinates the kids.”

School district Superintendent Thomas Meyer said that at no point was religion taught, and the role-playing was “blown way out of proportion.”

“The teachers were following California curriculum in the best and most honorable ways for the benefit of the students’ education,” Meyer said. “Role-playing is a good pedagogical strategy that good teachers everywhere use to help students understand history. We’re not doing anything different in Byron than in any other school district in America.”

The role-playing was part of supplemental material for a state-required unit on Islam. Brooke Carlin, the teacher who led the role-playing and one of two teachers named as a co-defendant in the suit, spent three weeks on the subject, which took place around Sept. 11, 2001. Role-playing also was used in a unit on medieval history and the role of Christianity. Chase Eklund, who is now a 17-year-old junior, played a priest during that unit, his mother said.

Although Carlin did not teach the class the next year, the Eklunds did not allow their daughter Samantha to participate in the unit on Islam. She studied the French Revolution instead, according to court documents.

The role-playing material, which is still available to teachers, has not been used since the 2001-02 school year, said Excelsior Middle School Principal Nancie Castro. She said that has nothing to do with the court decision or the lawsuit, but rather the range of material a teacher can use. Carlin has since left the school district to teach high school in Concord, Castro said.
Andrew Becker covers East County education. He can be reached at 925-779-7116 or abecker@cctimes.com.

More on Intelligent Design

October 25, 2005 on 9:16 am | In Intelligent Design Debate | No Comments

Cornell University president weighs in on the ID controversy and the topic of relgion in the nation’s schools

Commentary on ID

October 24, 2005 on 9:42 am | In Intelligent Design Debate | No Comments

The following is a commentary by Dr. Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center on the Intelligent Design case in Dover, PA.

From Dayton to Dover: Why is Darwin still on trial?
Inside the First Amendment

By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar
10.16.05

Some 80 years after John Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution in the tiny town of Dayton, Tenn., the battle against Darwin continues to be waged across the nation. Like the Energizer bunny, it just keeps going and going and going.

But these days evolutionists have the upper hand. In 1925, the so-called monkey trial was all about keeping evolution out of the classroom. In 2005, the struggle is to get an alternative to evolution (apparently any alternative will do) into the classroom.

The focus of the current courtroom fight over evolution is Dover, Pa., a small, mostly conservative, white, Christian town much like, well, Dayton, Tenn. Though evolutionists triumphed twice at the U.S. Supreme Court (1968 and 1987), they have yet to win in the court of public opinion — at least in communities like Dover and Dayton.

The Dover case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, was brought by 11 parents angered by the school board’s decision to make “intelligent design” part of the science curriculum. They argue that intelligent design (the idea that the complexity of living organisms can be explained only by the existence of an intelligent designer) is religion, not science — and to represent it as science in public schools imposes religion in violation of the First Amendment. The civil trial began Sept. 26 in federal court in Harrisburg and is expected to end in early November.

At the center of the dispute is a mandatory four-paragraph statement read to students at the beginning of their biology classes. After informing students that Darwin’s theory “is not a fact,” the statement describes intelligent design as “an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” Students are told that an intelligent-design textbook, Of Pandas and People, is available in the library if they want to know more.

Is the school district simply making kids aware of an “alternative scientific view,” as the school board contends? Or do the four paragraphs undermine science education and unconstitutionally advance religion, as the objecting parents claim?

On the first day of the trial, Brown University biology professor Kenneth Miller took the stand to defend evolution and attack intelligent design as a nonscientific religious belief. Miller, who also wrote the biology textbook used in Dover classrooms, claimed that the statement read in classes falsely suggests that evolution is “only” a theory in the sense that the term is used in everyday speech.

“Scientific theories are not hunches,” he testified. “When we say ‘theory,’ we mean a strong overarching explanation that ties together many facts and enables us to make testable predictions.”

The school district is putting its own witnesses on the stand to make its case for the purported scientific validity of intelligent design. Faced with opposition from all major scientific organizations, the district will find it a tough sell convincing the judge that intelligent design counts as science. That’s why the Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of the idea, probably wishes this trial had never happened. Discovery wants schools to raise questions about evolutionary theory, but not mandate (at least not yet) that intelligent design be mentioned as a “scientific alternative.” A loss in court that labels intelligent design “religious” could be devastating to the movement.

Judge John E. Jones may have a difficult time sorting out what is and isn’t science, but he’s sure to take a hard look at the motives and purposes of the school board for challenging evolution — the only scientific theory that Dover students are told to question. According to testimony from the plaintiffs, one school board member wanted evolution balanced “fifty-fifty” with creationism (a proposal that has already been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court). Another board member advocated at board meetings for a textbook that included the biblical view of creation. “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross,” he said. “Can’t someone take a stand for him?”

If Judge Jones is looking for evidence that the school board had a religious purpose, he need not look far. And if he finds it, the school district will lose this case on First Amendment grounds.

Whatever the outcome, the crusade against evolution is bound to go on. Why? Because from Dayton to Dover, many religious people still see evolution as the great enemy of faith. “Darwinism entirely changes one’s view of life,” thundered William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, “and undermines faith in the Bible.”

What’s sad about all this is how self-defeating these efforts are. When believers insist on “proving” religion through science, they are playing on the wrong field. If religion needs scientific proof to be true, it would no longer be authentic religion. It’s not called “faith” for nothing.

Of course, science has implications for religious belief. That’s why a dialogue between religion and science is needed, but only if both sides understand the language and the method — and respect the limits — of the other.

Dover, like Dayton, isn’t about dialogue — it’s about people shouting past one another. Eighty years ago, Scopes lost. This time around religion may be the big loser, and that would be unfortunate, indeed.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22209. E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org.

USA Today editorial about new Religion in Schools Study

Religion and the Schools

Religion in the Classroom: Role Playing

Teaching About Religion Decision Pending

More on Intelligent Design

Commentary on ID

Categories:

Archives:

Meta:

USA Today editorial about new Religion in Schools Study

Religion and the Schools

Religion in the Classroom: Role Playing

Teaching About Religion Decision Pending

More on Intelligent Design

Commentary on ID

Categories:

Marcia Beauchamp Consulting

Archives:

Meta: