dc.contributor.author | Short, G. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-04-22T10:07:18Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-04-22T10:07:18Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2003 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Short , G 2003 , ' Faith schools and indoctrination : A response to Michael Hand ' , Theory and Research in Education , vol. 1 , no. 3 , pp. 331-341 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878503001003005 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1477-8785 | |
dc.identifier.other | dspace: 2299/4438 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2299/4438 | |
dc.description | “The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Theory and Research in Education , Vol 1/ Issue 3, 2003, Copyright SAGE Publications Ltd at: http://tre.sagepub.com/ " DOI: 10.1177/1477878503001003005 [Full text of this article is not available in the UHRA] | |
dc.description.abstract | Michael Hand has recently advocated the abolition of faith schools on the grounds that they may indoctrinate their pupils. In this rejoinder, I aim to show that the assumptions underpinning his thesis are seriously flawed. Initially, I question whether faith schools set out to indoctrinate. I then consider whether they are able to do so (particularly in a secular society) and if we can ever know that a faith school, rather than some other agency, has been responsible for indoctrination. Finally, I cast doubt on Hand’s key assumption concerning pupils’ perceptions of their teachers. I contend that it is theoretically problematic and empirically unsupported. | en |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Theory and Research in Education | |
dc.title | Faith schools and indoctrination : A response to Michael Hand | en |
dc.contributor.institution | School of Education | |
dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1177/1477878503001003005 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessed | true | |