While a belief in the existence of an objective reality that is perceptible by our senses may be an unprovable assumption, it doesn't follow that there's anything remotely religious about it. Meanwhile, our schools are turning out students who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate compared to other industrialized countries, and we don't need to waste limited classroom time discussing the theoretical possibility that we're all brains-in-vats and that what we perceive isn't really real, when we should be teaching calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry. There's time enough for metaphysical speculation in a philosophy course (do public schools even offer philosophy courses?)
...
This is one of the most damaging arguments in the public school debate. Upon high school graduation, a child has spent approximately 16,000 hours in school. Yet many graduates are functionally illiterate. So the feds, and the states, and eventually the local board of education begin to cut other programs. Art, music, foreign language, and anything that can be labeled "extra curricular" suffers. I remember several years ago attending a school board meeting that was standing room only, filled with parents angry that French was being cut entirely, the music and art programs were losing teachers, and the shop and ag programs were gutted. The school board listened to us for about three hours after which they called a vote and passed their cuts unanimously without any debate among themselves. What? Were we invisible? Apparently so.
Did the school improve? Uh, no.
The school system has ample time to teach a great variety of studies effectively. The problem isn't limited time or resources. The problem is the model of education. Math and science are important subjects. Reading is also important. But they are no more important than receiving a well-rounded education in a variety of subjects.
What makes one discipline more important than another? They're intertwined. They build upon one another. In case you haven't noticed, science is really dry and boring. The younger the children, the more likely they are to be bored with their nose in a textbook. But young children love to communicate ideas. In fact, science tells us that they're biologically hardwired to enjoy engaging in such tasks. The ability to form and communicate complex ideas is part of what makes us human. Why would anyone want to restrict the areas in which children can engage in such thought and communication? "Well Johnny, it's 1:30pm. You can only communicate in science for the next 45 minutes." Good luck with that. What makes science and math so much more valuable than art or humanities? Religion is a very unique human quality. You won't remove it from the educational conversation. You can't. You can form committees, pass laws, and make public proclamations stating that we will, as a society, ignore it to the best of our abilities, but they will fail because humans are by nature religious beings.
Get out of the box. The public school system is a complete and utter failure because it refuses to engage little humans in an interesting and educational manner. There's no saving it. There's no, "OMG we have limited hours!!" There's only the admission that what we're doing isn't working. We need to do something else. If we can't teach a child to read in over 16,000 hours, you can't expect much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions