|
|
 
|
Classroom Complexities
Reading [
Lesson 4]
Up to now in the mini-course, we have treated the variety to be found in the national worldview mixture by categories. That method is simplistic. There is more to the matter by far. In your classroom, to consider types and proportions of adherents in each category may or may not be all helpful. Indeed, it may distract you from granting youngsters their personal outlooks regarding matters of ultimate belief. The following discussion will hopefully help you go beyond gross and simplistic means to more reasonably deal with the individual youngsters who inhabit your classroom.
Matters of Degree and Departure
You may wonder how, and to what extent, you should take notice of (and take into account) the varied worldviews of students within your classroom. Are you thinking of putting a label beside each student's name in your roll book? Let's see now: Johnny is "Mormon, Rebecca is " "Lutheran," Jenny is "Buddhist", Sylvia is Catholic, Talbott is Lutheran, and so on. Regarding religious identification, one must be particularly cautious. Recall that the government is not permitted to ask questions about the religion of the citizenry when taking the national census. This preclusion derives from interpretation of constitutional rights afforded to citizens regarding matters of conscience. Likewise, you should not expect the "citizens of your classroom" ever to self-identify on such matters. Some students will openly volunteer their affiliation or beliefs, some will wish to voice them and convince others of their merits, while still others may consider these matters to be an entirely private concern. Many parents will wish you to know of their child's situation regarding belief heritage so that you can make expected accommodations for their religious traditions. A teacher needs to be made aware of whatever accommodations are legally required and to abide by them. However, please take note of the fact that "identity categorization" by label is all too easily over-emphasized and can foster overgeneralization. Category labels may induce a teacher into making false assumptions about youngsters and about their families. You must guard against a tendency to make such assumptions. In the example above, if you know that Rebecca and Talbott both say they are Lutherans, what do you actually know past that? Beyond diversity in professed allegiances, there can be plenty of additional variance represented in a classroom’s religion stew. In addition to considering the concept of different "beliefs," a teacher must keep in mind that such notions as "degrees of belief" and also "lack of belief" are part of the picture. Depending on age, exposure, and innumerable other factors, pupils’ personal understandings and beliefs may be sketchily or ill-formed with respect to general public understanding of the tenets of their professed religion. It is important not to presuppose the nature or intensity of student beliefs based on a category label. Neither should you, without information, presume any lifestyle implications or intensity of emotional attachment. In any classroom, there are nonbelievers as well as faith adherents. Actually, nonbelief is ever present in all classrooms because, if you stop to think about it, a "believer in any single faith" (i.e., an adherent to a given tradition) becomes in several senses a "nonbeliever" with respect to all the other ones. Throughout your career, you need to be mindful of the fact that degrees of adherence (commitment to) to any worldview brings degrees of departure from (nonbelief in) other worldviews. Each individual is an amalgam of believer/nonbeliever. There is of course a strongly monotheistic slant to the standard public view of religion in the U.S. This "One God" view is aligned with what is often termed the "Judeo-Christian heritage" ( although original conceptions of civic heritage in the U.S. are infused with abundant deistic elements, and not solely Jewish and/or Christian in nature). Given the changes in U.S. demographics revealed by anthropologists of religion (e.g., Eck, 20012REF) and such surveys as the ARIS 20012REF, there is increasing likelihood that you may well have more self-identified minority religious youngsters in your classroom as time goes on. Many such students have a religious heritage quite unlike the conventional. To varying degrees, the "One God" notion so central to the dominant perspectives may be seen as irrelevant or aversive to these youngsters' worldview backgrounds and upbringing. Buddhism, for example, draws from a religious heritage quite different from that of the U.S. "civil religion" ("One Nation Under God"; "In God We Trust"; "God Bless America"; and so on). Adding further to the heterogeneity goulash are those seen as the “real nonbelievers”—youngsters whose family does not adhere to or profess conviction in any religion at all. To a greater extent than Buddhists (or Hindus, or other non-monotheistic religions), these children's backgrounds may challenge the conventional "civil religion." The changes in U.S. demographics denote increasing likelihood that you will find more self-identified nonreligious youngsters in your classroom as time goes on. All this variation swirling in the "classroom chowder" is enough to keep any teacher mindful and on his/her toes.
Matters of Nonbelief
Worldwide, while eighty percent of the world’s population claims some religious affiliation, twenty percent do not. In the U.S., these percentages are eighty-six and fourteen. [See Lesson 3 demographics and references.] Whereas the a-religious are merely indifferent regarding religion; freethinkers are often quite committed toward a worldview that is distinctly free of religion. In many cases, they will have formed their ideas through substantially different reasoning patterns and narratives than the conventionally religious. They may also display variations of nonbelief, having reached their outlook of unbelief via different rational paths from one another. Like the more conventionally religious and the minority religious youngsters in your class, nonreligious children will hold to their perspectives with varying degrees of firmness and cognitive maturity. They will hail from varied backgrounds. Some come from families simply uninterested in religion. Some will grow up in a freethinking household in which freethought history is valued and and freethought traditions are practiced. In larger communities, such freethinkers may be organized and meet together, not for worship, but for seasonal (e.g., solstice) celebrations, songfests, community service, and political action. Since U.S. nonbelievers who declare atheism or agnosticism are somewhat culturally marginalized and get little media mention, the statistics on nonbelief may come as a surprise to a teacher. According to the ARIS 2001 2REFstudy of the adult U.S. population, the self-acknowledged nonreligious outnumber the self-identified Jewish ten times over (13.2% to 1.3%). Just as interesting is the proportion of adults who dispense with religious belief and, when asked, distinctly identify themselves as agnostics, humanists, secularists, or atheists. A count of these nonbelievers may astonish because it exceeds in numbers that of all American Hindus and Buddhists combined. It is hard for a teacher to fully escape the societal biases that favor religion over nonreligion. For example, one must rise above the cultural stereotyping of unbelievers (especially atheists), the infusion of God references into our national symbolism, and the "public-speak" of politicians. The challenge of evenhandedness may be particularly challenging for a teacher who cannot recognize the existence of partiality. Or, if tenets of one's own religious tradition mitigate against it, then "being even-handed between religion and nonreligion" may tests one's mettle. Still, that is the legally imposed task of the educator--neutrality. Professionals can regard youngsters of disparate worldviews, religious and nonreligious, with equity. They can pursue an academic and impartial manner. Within the classroom, a teacher sufficiently committed to fair-mindedness for all youngsters can do it. ____________ Corrections and comments invited. [last modified:
4/4/02]
GLOSSARY TERMS: tentative(ness) \\ evenhanded(ness) \\ freethinker \\ freethought \\ atheism \\ agnosticism \\ believer \\ nonbeliever
End of Reading. Return to Guide Sheet. |
|
Instructional Systems, 163418 Fort Sutter Station, Sacramento, CA 95816 Email: OABITAR@aol.com Last updated 8/18/2006 OABITAR is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization. All materials developed by Instructional Systems are copyright © 2002,3,4,5,6. Please contact I.S. to arrange for free duplication privileges. |
