Oppressive and pointless

On the surface there seems little wrong with the Government's proposal that faith schools might be asked to admit 25 per cent of pupils who belong to a different faith.

But I believe these proposals are simultaneously oppressive and pointless.

Why oppressive? Everybody keeps warbling on about the importance of school choice. For all this talk, in practice there is very little choice at the moment. One of the very few ways you can choose a different education for your child within the state system is by sending them to a faith school.

Anybody who thinks that the character of such schools will not be fundamentally altered by introducing a large non-faith element does not understand how faith schools work.

Are the non-Jewish children in my son's primary school class supposed to make a flag for Simchat Torah to carry round in synagogue? Or is my son supposed to stop making such a thing? The faith element is woven into the curriculum. The new proposals would change faith schools forever.

Good, you may say. That's the whole point. But what harm have these faith schools, the one bit of free choice parents have (save the private sector), ever done to you? The children at the school my sons attend are well integrated and will be fine members of British society.

I know that some people worry about how integrated British Muslims are. But any problem here arose without attendance at faith schools. One of the 7/7 bombers was a teacher at an integrated school, for heaven's sake.

Now, let’s say that there are a few faith schools you do worry about. Will anybody from a different religious background actually send their children there? That's why these proposals are not just oppressive, they are also pointless. Any school that has an extreme ethos will not attract a mixed intake.

These ideas are a combination of two things. First is the idea that since we must do something and this is something, therefore we must do it. The second is a sort of totalitarian liberalism, which increasingly sees religious practice as an enemy.

And one final point. It maybe that at the end of this post, you still feel it would better for my children if there were changes to faith schools. But the whole point of liberty is that it protects my right to do what I think is correct for my children, whatever you might think. Provided, of course, that it does no harm to you, which is a pretty high hurdle for the reform proposals to jump. And they don't remotely jump it.

(Further reading: An excellent post, as usual, by Ruth Gledhill)

Comments

[Mandarin Orange]

"What harm have these faith schools, the one bit of free choice parents have (save the private sector), ever done to you?"

Well, they've spent my taxes ...

"But the whole point of liberty is that it protects my right to do what I think is correct for my children, whatever you might think. Provided, of course, that it does no harm to you."

Which part of 'they've spent my taxes' don't you get?

[Lord Truth]

Please Ms Gledhill!
"Liberty protects my right to do what I think is right formy children-provided it does no harm to you" Absolutely true-except that "faith schools" which often provide an excellent education are largely funded by the British taxpayer- take that money away and they would collapse into back room eighteenth century Dame schools that Ms Gledhill would run a mile from...
Further more... do they REALLY do no harm?...think Northern Ireland,think Pakistan/Afganistan and think New York where the fanaticism that empowers Israeli fundamentalists is bred in its many Jewish academies...
Think again Ms Gledhill.....

[susie]

Good points; in fact Jewish commentators have been making some of the most valuable contributions to the current Muslim debate. You note that one of the 7/7 bombers was a teacher in an integrated school. More than one of the bombers would probably at one phase in their lives have passed the "integrated or not?" test with flying colours. What happened in their case was not so much a failure to integrate as a sort of "de-integration". It's important to know what it was that led them to become alienated, and to ascertain eg how much influences during trips to Pakistan had to do with it. One of the 7/7 bombers was a convert to Islam, and they have often turned out to be the most zealous and in some cases extreme elements in Muslim society.

[Chris]

"What harm have these faith schools, the one bit of free choice parents have (save the private sector), ever done to you?"

In my area of North London, the 'best' schools (in league table terms) are all faith schools. That's because the (Christian) faith schools select middle class children, many of whose parents are prepared to lie about their religion. They have an overwhelmingly white intake, and don't admit children of devoutly religious but less advantaged parents. The rest of us are left to scrabble for the small number of places left in non-faith schools, and there aren't enough to go around.

I am an atheist, and I'm not willing to "find God" in order to get my children into these schools. So rather than accept the 'choice' I was given of a failing school 45 minutes away, I felt compelled to use the private sector, at a cost of £20,000 of pre-tax income per child. That's the harm faith schools do to me.

These schools are paid out of my taxes, but the State tells me I don't have access to them unless I acquire a religion and attend church 'at least fortnightly'. What's next ? Will my children have to go to the back of the queue for an operation because I'm not a Christian ?

[Jeff]

Am I the only person to agree 100% with Danny?
Are there really queues to get into a Muslim faith school?
Who is being disadvantaged here - after all one pupil in a faith school is one fewer in a mainstream state school.

[Nicky]

I am not sure whether the earlier comments object to schools supporting any faith, or whether there are particular religions that they think shouldn't be supported.

I think that the government should fund faith schools as they generally provide good education, and may also give children a moral background and sense of belonging in an increasingly fastmoving and uncertain society.

[Ross]

"they've spent my taxes"

Seeing as non faith schools also spend your taxes, I'm not sure why that is an argument against faith schools in particular.

[Mandarin Orange]

Jeff

I, an atheist, am compelled by the State (on pain, ultimately, of imprisonment) to pay for someone else's children to be raised as Jews, or Muslims, or Catholics, or Presbyterians, or whatever.

Democracy it may be but it is at the very least terminologically inexact for Danny to suggest that it has anything to do with liberty.

[Mandarin Orange]

Jeff

You're right up to a point - both are an infringement of liberty. We all have to put up with our liberty being infringed in various ways. I am prepared to tolerate my money being taken away from me to pay for public education. But I draw the line at faith schools - which by definition teach superstition "woven into the curriculum" as Danny would have it.

[Jennifer]

As an American, it is very interesting to watch Britain deal with this issue. We have the exact opposite issue: whether the state should provide financial support for religious schools at all. The state provides some, indirectly, but most comes from private tuition and fundraising.

The "payment of taxes" issue may be more of a red herring than than it appears from here. Regardless of which type of school children attend, the British public seems committed to paying for it. If all that is at issue is a set-aside system for admittees, all the religious values will still be taught, and the same amount of tax will be paid by individual citizens. If this is part of a longer-run scheme of dismantling religious schools, other state schools will have to be provided -- paid for out of the taxpayer's wallet. True, no religious values will be taught, but Nicky's point makes more sense than anyone has given it credit. We see it in the U.S. more, because we are individualistic to a fault, and we need institutions that nurture the more communal side of our society, but perhaps that shows up in less extreme form in Britain, too. Mandarin Orange has made several libertarian arguments, and to the extent that they are about how state sponsored education generally impedes liberty they have merit, but he never really connects the dots. That does not actually surprise me, because though such arguments are beyond the scope of this blog, "liberty" generally, including liberty for atheists and agnostics, is best protected when religious liberty is respected. I don't read his/her argument as libertarian, just anti-religion, however.

Chris' story is the one I worry about, simply because it is the one that shows me the potential cost of a more British system in the United States, which many of us would like. While tuitions themselves are not grotesque (a few thousand dollars a year at many Catholic parish schools, sometimes subsidized if necessary), having to put out your own money and make significant time commitments to do fundraising does focus a person's mind frivolously enrolling a child in school. The problem is that unlike most of the posters here, who are worried about paying once for school services, Chris and Americans pay twice: in tax and on the private economy. That should not have to happen.

[Mandarin Orange]

Jennifer

I am right up for protecting religious liberty - there have been times in European history in particualr when being an atheist was plenty enough reason fro you to be tortured and executed and I see religious tolerance as essential. I just don't think that tolerance extends to putting up with being obliged by State power to subsidise the indoctrination of children into any given religion. I wouldn't be particularly happy to see self-funding faith schools, but I would respect their right to exist.

[Shuggy]

" But what harm have these faith schools, the one bit of free choice parents have (save the private sector), ever done to you?"

As someone has pointed out above, they spend my taxes on schools that will exclude my son on the grounds of religious allegience. There is no other public service that could get away with this nonsense.

More directly, I teach in Glasgow. Here more than a third of schools are Roman Catholic. If I apply to an RC school, I can legally be discriminated against. But the same is not true for my Catholic comrades who work in the non-denominational sector. This means the Catholic teacher in Glasgow has roughly a third more job opportunities than I do. Harm? It's no big deal but it pisses me off a bit. You think this is fair? How?