Should faith schools admit children of a different religion?

Faith schools are a huge, and controversial topic. I have written before on how I feel that, because they prevent children from different faiths from growing up together and seeing each other daily, they may cause more segregation in society. But I also understand that parents, frustrated with the choice of schools on offer, often turn to them as a welcome alternative. Many, of course, also choose them in a positive way - because they want their child to have a religious schooling, or grow up comfortable with their faith.

Today the Runnymede Trust released its report into faith schools, arguing strongly that they discriminate against those from poorer backgrounds, and making six key recommendations. The first is to "end selection on the basis of faith." Rob Berkeley, author of the report, writes that "faith schools should be for the benefit of all in society, rather than just the few. If faith schools are convinced of their relevance for society, then that should apply equally for all children. With state funding comes an obligation to be relevant and open to all citizens."

Berkeley goes on to accuse faith schools of limiting children's education, by educating them for a "single vision". He says that too often, such schools don't promote community cohesion or engage with the community at large. Instead of being a faith school for children of a particular faith, he argues, faith should be a specialism for the school. Many children would have this specialism, but others, of course, wouldn't.

There seem to be two main issues surrounding faith schools. One is as mentioned above, that they may not help social cohesion (although some schools have been credited for their community involvement). The other is that many parents feel it is completely and utterly "unfair" that they pay taxes for a school which won't admit their child because they don't follow a particular religion. From talking to parents, they appear to feel this most strongly with Church of England schools. After all, they argue, the country is C of E, so C of E schools should admit any child.

But another big issue is that of the type of children who attend these schools. Some parents definitely use them, as the report suggests, "as a way of ensuring social exclusivity within a school". It's basically a form of selection, just as private schools and buying a house near the best school in the area are. All, clearly, involve forward planning and, very often, money - hence the social exclusivity label.

Would opening faith schools to all get rid of this? I'm not sure. It would depend on how the "specialism" label was applied, and how many pupils were to be accepted on the basis of their religion, and how many weren't. But it would also depend on something bigger, on parents wanting their child to be sent to a faith school, even though they are not of that faith.

I know of parents who claim they wish their child went to a faith school, but who dismiss religion as something irrelevant. If faith schools were opened up to the children of these parents, would they be happy that religion was taught there as something to be respected and followed, or would they try and change the ethos of the school to fit them? What about those successful faith schools which incorporate religious teaching into all aspects of their curriculum, adhere strictly to particular dietary laws, or organise their holidays around religious festival days?  And what about the fact that it would be unlikely that these schools celebrated Christmas or Easter? Would you be happy for your child to attend a school like this, or are these suggestions a way of ensuring that faith schools have to change their ethos and teaching - hardly the point of all this, I would have thought...?

Read School Gate on:

Church schools must try harder

Bullying because of religious faith

The true cost of the rise in private school fees

Why isn't she Mary? The perils of being a nativity play mum

Comments

[R. W.]

Atheists should stop criticizing faith schools run by people who believe differently than they do. (Atheism itself is a belief system, which has absolute faith that there is no God; athiests are usually insultingly intolerant of others who do not share their belief. Agnostics on the other hand, say there might or might not be a God, they just don't know. They are more tolerant of the beliefs of others, and therefore make pleasanter neighbors.)

If atheists had the courage of their convictions, they would start atheist schools which (to show the superiority of their belief) should academically out-perform the benchmark excellence of Catholic and E of E schools, and produce even better citizens.

It is the culture of a belief system which proves its worth to society at large; "Trees are known by their fruit": We know the sort of ethical, tolerant, and civic-minded adults produced by Catholic, C of E, and Islamic schools-- So: atheists, stop whinging and start your own schools: let's see what sort of citizens your curriculum would graduate. . . meanwhile, stop being intolerant of the schools run by people whose beliefs differ from yours.

[Guy]

Sally B, wghilst6 I have some sympathy with you, I don't beleive forcing religious views on children is the right thing.

If an adult wants to believe in one religion or another than that's their free right

Indoctrination of under 10s (because that's what it is) doesnt seem to me to be about free choice

[Guy]

Britain is a country with a Christian heritage. so whilst I'm not keen on any faith schools it has to be said that the Christian (and Jewish) schools that have been operating in the UK for a long time are not the problem.

There seems to be a PC reluctance of those in the west to admit that not all belief systems are equal and that Islam is in itself a problem

I don't see Catholic, C of E or Jewish schools being condemned in the press for teaching that other faiths followers are animals, "kuffar", unclean etc.

We need to stop the skirting about the main issue that Islam as a religion has some very unpleasant views associate3d with it that are unacceptable to a modern day 21st century western democracy.

I personally would make the education system slightly more secular, would place a stop order on any more Islamic schools and have in depth investigations into existing Islamic schools to ensure they are teaching an inclusive mantra.

Muslims will no doubt scream their heads of over this, but it's not the Christian or Jewish citizens of the UK forming ghettos and carrying out terrorist acts within the country

[Phil Ware]

SALLY B wrote "So all schools have to be secular so that aetheist parents are satisfied that no child has an advantage over their children?

Isn't that giving a monopoly to one section of society? - why can't they accept that there are rational intelligent adults who have a religious belief that they believe makes for a better community?"

The state should have no business getting involved with religion - period. People should be free to believe in whatever they want, but the state should not be subsidising certain religions over others.

All schools should be of a high enough standard in the first place with out the need for faith schools.

I would also recommend that you look up the word RATIONAL in a dictionary as it must by definition preclude religious belief, so your statement that "rational intelligent adults who have a religious belief" is surely an oxymoron.

[Sally B]

So all schools have to be secular so that aetheist parents are satisfied that no child has an advantage over their children?

Isn't that giving a monopoly to one section of society? - why can't they accept that there are rational intelligent adults who have a religious belief that they believe makes for a better community?

Or do atheists believe they have the monopoly on intelligence? How arrogant is all I can say.

The other argument seems to be that all schools have to be secular to promote social cohesion. But the same adults who say this then totally deride other adults who have a belief so do they really want an open society?

[justagirl]

I went to a CE High School, my choice at 11 years old. My brother and sister went there too, their own choices. I could have chosen to go to a very good fee paying school, I chose the faith school because I liked the community feel and aspect of it. I grew up around people of all faiths and learnt about different faiths at school; I was never forced to participate in any acts of worship that I disagreed with (especially as I am a Methodist and the chaplain was very high Anglican and I disagreed with a lot of what he said so didn't go to some eucharists etc). I was back at school the other day and someone said something quite pertinent: people don't go there for the academic results, they go there for the ethos of the school. I have never known another school like it in terms of community and the way that people who went there think- with a genuine concern and respect for others. It is a very good school. This is because of its underpinning principles. Its intake is about 50/50 white/black, with everyone from very evangelical churches to high Anglican. You do not have to say that you are a Christian in order to go there. Your parents have to be active in the Church, and the idea is that if you find a faith while you are there then great, but if you don't, nobody will tell you anything otherwise. Creationism is not taught in science, other religions are taught in RS. There is no indoctrination.

If I had wanted to go to a school that is literally 10 minutes walk from my house I would not have got in. Why? Because my old primary was not an official feeder school (despite being 10 mins in the other direction) and there were 'enough other children who lived closer'. This school was a faceless comp with horrible results and a feeling that you were unimportant and just a number in the system. I'd want my child to go to a school like mine was and not like that.

People would do well to remember that this is a Christian country and while nobody is telling you what to believe, it is still a Christian country whether you like it or not. So it is still reasonable for faith state schools to exist.

[alan]

If faith schools are the best, can't we have faith schools but without the faith bit? They'd be even better then.

[Phil Ware]

Paul - Fair point, I'll concede my mistake. But it does'nt change my overall view that education needs to be secular.

[Paul]

Phil Ware, if you had ever spent any time in Northern Ireland, you would realise that education is NOT, and never was, divided into Protestant and Catholic Schools. Rather there were many schools which became favoured by either Catholics or Protestants and so segregation developed. The schools themselves were not and are not faith schools, with the exception of several private Catholic schools (a minority).

[Phil Ware]

Faith schools should NOT be supported by the state. State education should be secular - if parents want religous indoctrination then it should be pursued in their own spare time. If people want to privately educate their children then they should be allowed to do so, but such schools should NOT recieve a state subsidy.

Just one look at the divisive nature of Northern Ireland and the Protastant/Catholic schooling should tell you that Religious schooling simply breeds intolerance (and I hav'nt yet mentioned Islamic schools..........)

A good secular education should include RE teaching and awareness of all religions. The focus should be on understanding/contrasting the different customs and beliefs. Such an education would allow children to better understand the world in which they live, and should be impartial and unbiased, with no single religeon being given weight over others.

Belief has no place in education - it should be kept strictly out of school and in the home.

[Tony Waring]

Maybe Jonathan Rose never went to any sort of school - to judge from his command of Engklish grammar ! Faith schools are undoubtedly the best form of education and as far as catholics are concerned they were paid for largely by poor parents who wanted to ensure a decent education which espoused moral principles.

[Infidel2009]

The problem is wider than selection by faith - we are also it seems selecting children on the basis of their parents' perceived class, income, occupation etc as well as their parent's beliefs about the supernatural.

It is amusing to hear the religious claim constantly that they are the guardians the poor, the vulnerable and the marginalised in society, yet these same religious people have no trouble justifying keeping these same groups out of 'their' schools.

If people want their children to be Pagans, Muslims, Catholics, Jews, 7th day Adventists, humanists or whatever, then they can manage this process through the home and place of worship. It is not the State's or the taxpayers' job to fund this through the school system.

How much better it would be if we just took religion out of schools and concentrated on them being places where children learned the essentials. Yes, let them learn ABOUT religion too, but there is no need to tell them what they MUST believe.

But maybe it's already too late. Maybe the Government should fund single faith schools for every sect, including humanists, and leave social cohesion and integration to chance. Let's have segregated schools too on the basis of political beliefs, and have schools for Tories, Socialists, Trotskyists etc. Why should religious belief be the only basis on which segregated schooling is permitted? Why not have the TUC sponsor some academies, like evangelical Christian groups do?

One of society's intractable problems is groups of people who actually don't want to integrate for whatever reason - usually religion but not always. Maybe having ghettoes for each sect centred round schools is the right solution.........

[devorgilla]

I think there is something really hypocritical of atheist parents wishing to send their children to a faith school because they perceive it as a good school. Belief should be a condition. But as to whether faith should be of a single faith or all, well, there is only one faith that allows this and that is Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that Muslim schools or Jewish schools allow non co-religionists in; or are prepared to offer non co-religionists their own brand of faith.

[Dectora]

Jonathan Rose: I attended a catholic grammar school and about a third of the pupils were not catholic (varieties of protestantism, two Jewish sisters and two Hindu sisters. Not much segregation by religion there.
Iain Rae: I was not indoctrinated with 'mediaeval religious beliefs'. I ended up knowing more about mediaeval philosophy than you will do in a life time. And I left school an atheist, but a well informed atheist able to do a grid comparison of the synoptic gospels.

[Kevin]

The raging debate about Church schools' admissions reflects one thing.Many (particularly) inner city LEA schools are just not good enough.
Parents who see this grind their teeth at seeing good VA/VC schools nearby.They might deride the "faith" element..but they want the excellent education that goes with it.
But as non-believers they cannot get in...hence the anger.

But don't blame Church schools as scapegoats for the rest.

Every Lefty research think-tank tries to put Church school successes down to a middle-class intake.They are wrong.It is the shared ethos of parents, pupils ,teachers, governors and other staff that make a school.

40 years ago we got rid of all but 170 grammars.

56% of Cambridge entry today is state educated...fine...except that 34% of that figure are from the tiny proportion of state grammar school pupils.
Thus in recent years...a system that educates 93% of the population (comprehensive) can only get around 20% entry into Cambridge.
Why is that?
Diane Abbott Labour MP for Hackney knows why...that's why she advocates comps for all...except for her own son who goes to the City of London Boys' School.

[david manning]

There are no gods. Get over it and move on.

There should be no charitable status for faith schools preferably no faith schools at all.

People pretend to belive for the social and educational benefits. Why have we never had an atheist prime minister for example? Religions have too much power and influence in todays society.

[Vanessa]

As an agnostic, I do not see the relevance of faith schools. However, if we are going to be pro-abolition of faith schools, can we also get rid of Jewish and Muslim schools please. Ta very much.

[Tom]

Why don't we ask God if he is in favourt of "faith" schools ? Has anyone got his phone number? Let's have schools based on star signs while we're funding the absurd and the stupid.

[martin]

There is no place for any faith-based activity in any school.

[jonathan rose]

reading comments makes me want to re comment, Maybe children should be taken from parents at birth, until those parents can prove dedication to not brain washing there children, and only allowed there children back after 6 months of vetting by social services, seeing as there is so many children abused at young ages, as we have seen in previous years news, 3 mainly highlighted cases baby p , the girl murdered in india, and disappearance of child in portugal, though in last nothing proven, but just proves, that there is a bad world out there.

[Alan]

I object to my tax pounds being used to support the brainwashing of children in contradictory supersititions. We should stop all support for faith schools and put much more emphasis on teaching children how to reason and challenge intellectual argument. The recent poll which showed that 1 in 5 Londoners rejects human evoltuion is shocking, and no doubt correlates closely with ignorance of basic science. I might add that it is perhaps no cooincidence that many of our most anti-social youths appear to come from families where religious fundamentalism is most prevalent.

[jonathan rose]

I agree that religious schools are exclusive, my sister sends her sons to a roman catholic school, but doesnt practice it, but, because it has high reputation for good teaching.
Religion, as usual is the bane of ordinary people, because, it creates arguements, it is better, maybe not to be religious,the only thing religion does have going for it,is that there are good people in every religion, its only the fanatics which teach us to avoid religion!!!!

[Robert]

I find it amazing that, as a nation, we seem to consider discrimination on the basis of religion (the parents' religion in fact) to be a "good thing" when it comes to schools, but a bad thing everywhere else in life. If universities selected on that basis, or employers, there would be uproar.

Why on earth do we allow it?

Robert Laws

[Nick]

Faith schools are an outrage. Religion has no place in education, or indeed in any state institution. Children do not have a religion; they have parents who wish to indoctrinate them with their own absurd beliefs. Religious indoctrination of children is nothing short of child abuse.

[Mike]

One way groups reinforce themselves is by scapegoating other groups. Faith schools cannot help but segregate themselves from other religions & people who have no religion. Join the dots [using rational logic] - that's encouraging prejudice.

[Cinders76]

My children go to a Catholic school as I did, and I see nothing wrong with Faith schools. In the school my kids go to, they get classes on various world religons - as well as their own - and often come home singing a Jewish song or they have been celebrating Diwali or another religious festival. How can that be segregating when they are taught about other faiths and to be accepting of them all. Do you think in Muslim schools the children are taught about Catholicism and acceptance? Never in a million years.

[Justine]

It may annoy Joanna that faith schools exist but unfortunately for her that is because religious people exist and they have rights too. Whether she likes it or not. These include the right to bring up their children according to their own religious or philosophical principles and importantly to faith-based education. Seeing as religious people are tax-payers too and have to subsidise under-performing non-faith schools which they cannot use, there can be no reasonable argument for forcibly privatising faith schools.
Aside from anything else, that would truly take them out of the reach of ordinary people since the only people who would be able to afford them would be the super-rich. Such a scenario exposes spurious pseudo egalitarian arguments against faith schools for what they are - cynical and false.
Many of those complaining about faith schools are transparently driven by resentment; faith schools tend to out-perform their non-faith counterparts but their children can't access them. The whingers should be honest about their self-seeking motives and not wrap them up in bogus arguments.
If these people really want their children to be able to go to faith schools they should agitate for MORE not fewer faith schools. Expanding the supply of faith schools would do much to sort out the problem at the demand end. Either way, they've got no business seeking to restrict the choices of other parents simply because they're jealous of them.

[Joanna]

It annoys me that faith schools exist. All of my children went to the only local authority school in our area which was C of E. My husband and I really had no choice. Lots of time in lessons was wasted in activities such as writing 'prayers'. This work given to children who had no faith themselves having never been indoctrinated.

On the plus side there were children of meny religins there. Muslim, Jewish etc.

[Niall]

Oliver,

Most faith schools ARE state schools - that is why it is such a disgrace that they discriminate within their local communities.

Furthermore, ALL state schools are forced by law to provide a daily "act of christian worship" - another disgrace and completely against any notion of inclusion.

[iain rae]

I thought education was to encourage children to think and question,(silly me).Not indoctrinate a bunch of medieval religious beliefs . If faith schools are so wonderful lets have "faith" supermarkets,banks,universities and pet shops etc.

[kirstie]

"You don't want to say prayers in school or be in during Holy Week, go to a state school."

But if the school was funded by the state, presumably they were attending a state school?

[Oliver]

I went to Catholic school all my life, and hated being made feel bad for going to mass by the predominance of non-Christian pupils there.

Faith schools should (suprsisingly) be for those of the faith. You don't want to say prayers in school or be in during Holy Week, go to a state school.

[PC]

I went to a Methodist school in the Far East, and had Muslim classmates whose parents sent them there because they felt that the quality of education was good. Muslim students were excused from the weekly chapel services but in all other ways participated in the school calendar.

One year I went for the annual Founder's Day service, which also functioned as the annual prize giving day. A Muslim family had come to cheer on their child who had won a prize for being top in one of the subjects. The service was modelled after a church service and had prayers and hymns. I watched them stand and sit along with the rest of the audience, just without singing the hymns or taking part in the prayers- they just did it so that they could support their child. I thought that was wonderful.

[Kim]

Tani - that comment about converting Jews wasn't from me! It must be another Kim - or someone mischievously using my name!

Zac - my argument about paying taxes for schools was referring to schools in general, not faith schools in particular. But the thread has gone down various highways and byways, so the confusion is understandable.

[rick]

Jews, Muslims,, Catholics.
And the well to do politicians.
Mecca Tel Aviv and Rome.
Send your privileged few there.
We are //were Christians here.

[Tani]

Oh Kim, I have been following this and not commenting, and my sympathies were with you, but what a gratuitous and really unpleasant comment you've just made about converting Jews! I'm really disappointed in you now.

[Kim]

The general argument here appears to be that as faith schools are better and more desirable than non faith shcool we should ban them. Typical lowest common denominator socialist thinking.

And if Jews want to send their offspring to schools that promote Jesus as Lord and Saviour then I'm glad for the opportunity to convert them to Christianity.

[Zac Smith]

Kim

Your point comparing faith schools to the BBC or roads is not valid. Most faith schools discriminate on the grounds of religion. The BBC does not prevent me from receiving its output because I am Jewish, nor am I prevented from using the Queen's Highway because I am a Jew. However, for some reason it seems to be perfectly acceptable for my son to be denied entry to a specific school because I am a Jew. In what perverted way is that acceptable in the 21st Century?

[Jo]

oh sorry Kim just spotted your post under phils which distracted me. We are having a raging agreement it seems:-)

[Jo]

Phil re-read my posts I actually agree that kids are all different.
Kim - no one is going to thrive at a school like that. However, I tried it at my local comp and I gave up doing anything and never got in trouble, my friend was a really independent worker. This meant she managed fine and ended up at Cambridge I couldn't cope my parents moved me to a small school with very traditional teaching methods which worked better. To make all comps work relatively well (none will ever be perfect) we would need to ban that kind of choice. I am not saying that is good or necessarily bad but that is what would have to happen. I am saying it would cost a lot of money, cause a lot of confusion, anger, time and may still not ensure that the kids who are failing now don’t fail in the future.

[Kim]

"Children are a great mixture of talents and problems and possibilities, frequently surprising and unpredictable. They are not commodities to be neatly packaged and sent in homogenised quantities to identically imperfect schools."

Well, I don't think either of us would say they are commodities to be sent in homogenised quantities etc etc. It's funny, though, how often people find that the school that suits their child is the one that actively excludes other children. You don't hear many people say "I found the perfect school for my daughter - it's an inner city comprehensive where 90% of the intake speak English as a second language, no teacher stays for longer than a term, they can't find a head at the moment, and the GCSE pass rate is 10%".

[Phil Williams]

What utter nonsense, Jo and Kim. Children are a great mixture of talents and problems and possibilities, frequently surprising and unpredictable. They are not commodities to be neatly packaged and sent in homogenised quantities to identically imperfect schools.
And as for teachers...
And as for Education Secretaries...

[Kim]

Sorry, Jo, my fault for posting in haste and not reading carefully enough.

Broadly agree with what you say. Of course it presents an impossible situation for the government because people will never agree to systems of having kids bussed from one area to another (look at the outrage over the proposed lottery in Brighton), and most people tend to think in terms of their own child rather than children as a whole, so any suggestion of banning private schools, faith schools etc. has people up in arms about their right to choose any school they want for their child.

I've come to the conclusion that the education system is a mess it's almost impossible to sort out. to paraphrase an old joke, if you wanted to design the ideal education system, you wouldn't start from here.

[Jo]

Oh, this wont happen though the money to be spent on a complete reorganissation of the entire school system would be huge and I don't theink we have it, or the political will. Plus it may fail and we may end up with more lost generations.

[Jo]

Hi Kim - I agree which is why I said I am happy to pay my taxes. My issue was with people who use the tax issue as an argument against faith schools as I think it is ridiculous. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, sorry.
I also agree with your other point. In my earlier post I said that the reason faith schools often do better is that the parents are very involved in the school and local community. They are more likely to be interested in their child's education as there are often different hoops to jump through. It would be lovely if all schools were great but I don't think it is about money, it is about parental involvement and interest as those are the kids who are more likely to do well. The only way to create these types of schools is to ban all types of school except the local comprehensive and to have quotas of types of children, bus them in from other areas if you have to otherwise people will self select by moving to a nice area. Even this will not be great for children as the school your child has to go to may not suit them, too big, no focus on what that child is good at (sports, maths, music), too small. Would we also ban single sex schools? Some children thrive in single sex, some prefer mixed. Each child is different but the only way to create they type of perfect school accross the board is to treat them the same and hope they all do ok.

[ian]

The problem with children and schools is parents and the local community. Remember that we had a PM who manipulated evidence to justify beating the wotsit out of a much smaller country, and overruled many people who were passionately against it. He was voted in again, afterwards. Lying and bullying- how can we properly raise children when we support such attitude and behaviour from our leaders?

[Chris B]

What really needs to happen is that all religious indoctrination of children, which is really a terrible form of child abuse, needs to be removed from our schools.

The UK is far behind other modern democracies such as the US, France and Japan in not ensuring a strict separation of church and state.

Whether children of other religions (or none!) should be admitted is irrelevant, there should not be any "faith" schools, the term should be regarded as a terrible oxymoron.

[Phil Williams]

Church schools exist, for the most part, because they were placed by the church in communities were there were no schools in order that all the children of that community should benefit from receiving an education. They still exist because (a) broadly speaking they have been judged to be beneficial to those communities and (b) no government has had the will or the mandate (or the money) to buy them into a monolithic state system. Their position, therefore, has its basis in history, not in privilege. Faith schools of other faiths and of more modern foundation are, it seems to me, based on a different rationale altogether.
I am privileged to serve as a governor of a CofE primary school where there are no religious criteria affecting entry: we are open to all who apply and follow, like all the other schools round here, the rules for entry laid down by the Local Authority. We believe, and Ofsted agree, that our school is outstanding. Each child is unique; every child matters; and the care we give to their education is in the context of the love and respect that they have a right to expect from a school of Christian foundation.
There is neither indoctrination nor a tendency to segregation: I simply do not recognise these faults as being in any way characteristic of the many church schools I have known. There is, however, a recognition that there is a spiritual side to human nature, an openness about faith matters, a willingness to share and an encouragement to the children to develop that critical faculty of thinking for themselves that will make them more capable adults.
We are also over-subscribed.

[Ash Rajan]

I'm Hindu. Faith Schools? Simple - get rid of them all.
In this day and age, I cannot believe we have schools effectively promoting segregation. If you don't let your kids mix, they will grow up with a narrow-minded fixed view of others - oh, maybe that is the intention. Keep religion where it belongs - at home.

[Sean Marshall]

Kim valid point trust me im a socialist at heart equal education at source problem is a have seen my local schools in Burnley fail. What do i do send my daughter who is bright to a school where she will be bullied for being bright or where their levels of attainment are wat below average or as i am doing sending her to the grammar school ( we used to fight with them when i was a kid!). It goes against my principles but where my child's education is concerned i want her to have the best. I feel though that throwing money at the issue is not the solution, like you i want the schools to improve their standards but what is needed is for a porper look at society and what we are teaching our children. The values we teach and the morals we pass down effect our children in schools. This being the case faith schols and grammar scools need to be accountable but both have a role to play, we just need a system where we have better investgment in all schools so that everyone as equal opportunities. Trust me if the education plans for burnley which as involved massive investment work then my youngest daughter who is 5 will be going to one of these schools but if not my children are not part of a social experiment or ideological ideals they will get the education they deserve and i will stand as an hypocrite ok.

[kirstie]

"Why should church schools bear the brunt of the criticism?"

Because provision of church schools (for historical reasons) far exceeds the number of practicing Christians. I am not too concerned about state funded Jewish schools (are there state funded Buddhist schools?) because their existence will not leave me scrabbling to find a school place for my son. Almost 50% of the primary schools in my borough have a legal right to exclude my son based on my (not his) religious beliefs.

Presumably there are no state funded atheist or agnostic schools as all schools are still required to organise a daily act of worship. I would also remind all those who are in favour of faith schools that Sunday worship, evensong, Sunday school, prayer groups, alpha courses, bell ringing, youth groups, bible study and family prayers are all completely legal in this country, should they be unaware of opportunities for their children to learn about their faith outside school hours.

[Kim]

Sorry for hogging this thread - it's called work avoidance.

Re: "we are talking also of muslim, jewish, indian religions, buddhist schooling etc. We are talking of Steiner schools, scientology and even atheism and agnosticism as a kind of faith which many espouse."

I'm not aware of any atheist, agnostic or scientology schools. I'm not even aware of any Buddhist ones. I think there may be one or two Hindu schools. Apparently there are 127 Muslim schools. I don't know how many Jewish schools there are but the number is small.

[Sister Petra Clare]

Why should church schools bear the brunt of the criticism? If we are talking of open access to faith schools we are talking also of muslim, jewish, indian religions, buddhist schooling etc. We are talking of Steiner schools, scientology and even atheism and agnosticism as a kind of faith which many espouse. Let us hear what these minority groups have to say for themselves before going in for Christian bashing. If you put faith schools entirely into the private sector how do you monitor - for example - radical Islam taught in home schooling? Is there not a certain public safety involved in tolerance of faith school, rather than forcing them underground?

[Kim]

Jo - the thing about taxes that pay for education is essentially the same as taxes that pay for roads, hospitals, the BBC, public libraries etc. You may not use them yourself but you need them to be there for the public good. Even if you don't have children, you benefit from the fact that other people's children are being educated, because these children are learning to be socialised and, one hopes, to make a useful contribution to society.

Sean - obviously investment in all schools is what is required. The question is how you invest it. This govt has poured a huge amount of money into schools with, arguably, a very poor return.

One's whole approach to education is simply a variant on game theory. If I, as a parent, decide that the best thing for my child is to go to a selective school, whether it's a private, grammar or faith school, that might be better for my child but it's worse for ordinary state schools because they need a good social mix to flourish. If I decide to send my child to a state school, then it might be better for the school but worse for my child, who isn't getting the advantages of a selective education. The solution that works best for everyone is if we all send our children to state schools - no-one gets the advantage of a selective education, but the state system benefits from having a good social and intellectual mix.

I think what a lot of parents fail to realise, when they complain about the local "sink" comprehensive, is that one of the reasons it's a "sink" is because people like them are sending their kids off to private and selective schools. They're part of the problem.

[Tim]

So-called mainstream education and socialisation only produces the same vacant expressions we see on the faces of most young people and the evil gangs we see around our streets. The saying that one bad apple ruins the whole bunch is so true in the political correct madness those schools operate today. Can we image sending every male over a certain age to the local prison to meet, mingle and befriend the harden crimes, for the sake of diversity, socialisation and indoctrination to the habits, methods, moral standing and beliefs of the local prison community? Yet this is what we do to some degree with the local school! Faith schools are stricter; more managed and push a moral responsibility that gives a better than average result. The exception is Islam, being a cult, the results of the education have a tendency is to harm the rest of us. The truth is parents should be forced to be parents, which includes the responsibility for the education of their children, which is more than getting them to school or paying fees. School is a modern aberration that is more about political correctness and trends in political education rather than the 3Rs, manners, responsibilities and building the family and the nation.
School is also very expensive, just see how much we spend per child and how it’s increased in the last fifty years and yet the product produced is far inferior to that produced 50 years ago! Children should be home educated for the many wonderful benefits to parents, the child and society.

[Jo]

Kim - My parent paid taxes that funded my state education. I do not begrudge my tax contribution actually that is spent on various things some good/useful for me at this time others not eg schooling for other people children. If you consider me as paying for my own education through taxes I pay now that I work then I still don't see why people complain about their tax money going to fund state school places their kids can't take up as they aren't paying for them with their taxes - your taxes are not going to pay for your kids but your own education. Not the most important point I made though.

[Sean Marshall]

Kim i find dyslexia i wonderful thing. No i went to a bog standard secondary school. My mum and dad worked in a shoe factory and i came out with 3 o levels why am i not intellecturally the right material to comment here. I am a christian who beleives in Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins but heres the crux i could not gie a monkeys about the arguement about faith schools do you really think it is that important when we have a system of education where we let down the majority of children in favour of a minoirty. If you want to send your children to faith, private or grammar fine but investment in all schools is what is required. If people here have a problem other someones religon then good for you but i suggest you look in the mirror and ask your self what the issue here is. Freedom of choice to send your child to a school of your choosing, lets just have a level playing filed eh. Ps next person to mock my spelling can grow up and mov e out of the school yard ok.

[Kim]

Jo - you don't have children, but you did go to school, right? So why do you think you have the right to a refund?

[Jo]

Oh and any one talking about taxes - I have no kids, I may never have kids so where is my tax refund?

[Jo]

I think that faith schools often do better because the parents who send their kids there are far more likely to be engaged in their childrens’ education and welfare whatever their racial/socio-economi background. If parents are interested and engaged then their kids are likely to do better and the school is likely to have solid parental support. This is also why state schools in nice areas do well.
I have been to mixture of faith and non-faith schools. The faith schools did have a mix of people from poorer backgrounds/recent immigrants. They were involved in their communities encouraged to work hard by their parents and the school and volunteer in their spare time just like the kids of 'middle class' parents.

[Kim]

Oops, wrong link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3174882.ece

(Though it talks about later baptisms in general, rather than year 5s in particular)

[Kim]

@ThetaSigmaMummy: "KIM - you clearly know very little about catholic schools - if you persist in believing that people who suddenly show up at mass in year 5 will get the necessary priests' letter to accompany their secondary school application. You ignored the points I made about the racial/nationality mix at my childrens' school, and continued to peddle your misrepresentation of catholic schools as discriminatory in particular on racial grounds. this is demonstrably rubbish, and also ignores the fact that in socio economic terms a large proportion of catholics, even in this day and age, belong to the 'lower' groupings. It is clear that despite your protestations you do have a particular axe to grind against catholic schools, which is sad."

Interesting you're getting so angry about this. Let's take your points in turn, shall we?

1. I do know quite a lot about Catholic schools, because I have many Catholic friends, and almost all of them send their children to Catholic schools.

2. My information about the Year 5 epiphany came from an article in The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3174881.ece

3. About the discrimination on racial grounds. This is simple logic, really. If you say (as very many Catholic schools do) that children who come to the school must be Catholic, then you are excluding Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Jews. In my book, that is racial discrimination. While it's nice that your children's school has a broad racial mix, it seems unlikely that it is typical. If you look at the Stevenage school I mentioned earlier, for example, this is how Ofsted describes it: "The pupils are predominately of White British heritage, with few pupils from a minority ethnic background."

4. I don't have a particular axe to grind against Catholic schools: I object to all faith schools, though as the LSE report suggests, C of E ones do tend to be more inclusive of other religions than Catholic ones.

I suspect it makes you feel better to imagine that I do have an axe to grind because you seem incapable of answering my points in a calm and measured way. You're getting very angry and using words like "rubbish" and "sad" rather than engaging rationally with the argument. This is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising.

[Barrie Redfern]

Doesn't accepting other faiths somewhat diminish the argument for having faith schools anyway? Surely the the real truth, if only people would admit it, is most only seek admittance to a school of different faith because it has a good teaching standard. The best argument for integration, on the other hand, would be to eliminate faith schools all together.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

KIM - you clearly know very little about catholic schools - if you persist in believing that people who suddenly show up at mass in year 5 will get the necessary priests' letter to accompany their secondary school application. You ignored the points I made about the racial/nationality mix at my childrens' school, and continued to peddle your misrepresentation of catholic schools as discriminatory in particular on racial grounds. this is demonstrably rubbish, and also ignores the fact that in socio economic terms a large proportion of catholics, even in this day and age, belong to the 'lower' groupings. It is clear that despite your protestations you do have a particular axe to grind against catholic schools, which is sad.

[Kim]

Richard, just to answer your point - some faith schools are far more inclusive than others. Quite often in villages the only school is a C of E school, and they have an obligation to offer places to children who live locally.

There's an interesting report here from the LSE on admissions procedures of faith secondary schools in London:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/PDF/FaithSchoolsMay2007.pdf

[Kim]

Sean, did you go to a faith school? Because if so, you're not a very good advert for it. At least at the school I went to, they taught us how to spell.

[Sean Marshall]

The criteria i listed on was admissions for a school in Accrington and they took the majority of their children form the local community so work it out. As for ohter criterai well if you send your child to a certain school you either are sending them their because they have better results, it's local or you have a certain faith. So whats the issue if you dont beleive ok fine move on if you do great and good for you netither one should impose on the other. The hatred for fatih schools is irrational we live in a demmocracy last i looked get over it. Bigger issues that i raised such as sub standard levels of education in deprived areas are of more importance than this debate and this debated is rdundant it's freedom of choice. I also read a comment on Aethism earlier that it is not forced as a doctrine well try telling the millions in communist China and those that lived under communism in Russia, i respect an aethist right to not beleive what is so hard in returning the favour.

[Richard]

A couple of years ago the Government wanted all faith School inc C of E to admit 25% of 'other faiths'. OK... that was before they checked the baptism figures on the CofE website. A quick glance will give you the number of those who have hard evidence that they are even nominal Christians! In some dioceses it's down to 7%. So, what's the fuss about?

[Richard]

A couple of years ago the Government wanted all faith School inc C of E to admit 25% of 'other faiths'. OK... that was before they checked the baptism figures on the CofE website. A quick glance will give you the number of those who have hard evidence that they are even nominal Christians! In some dioceses it's down to 7%. So, what's the fuss about?

[Kim]

@Mike: "Im sorry, but its your choice not to believe and if your child is not allowed to go to to a good school because of it tough!!"

This is such a ridiculous point that I suspect the author of irony. But just in case...Michael, I'm afraid it's not really a matter of "choice". I can no more choose to believe that Jesus is the son of God than I can believe the moon is made of cheese. Perhaps the answer is to make sure that all schools base their admissions policies on a willingness to believe ludicrous things: one school for the children of people who believe in astrology; another for those whose parents believe in alchemy; yet another for children whose parents think that Princess Diana was murdered by Prince Philip in co-operation with MI5.

[kirstie]

Just to clarify things, the choice for the non-believer is not necessarily the local primary or the local comp. The local authorities do not have to provide a non-selective school next to a selective school, so it is highly likely that if you live near a church school you will live too far from the next nearest community school to get a place based on distance from school. Ironically, a place will be found somewhere, but it may be two bus rides away - not great if you have a 4 year old.

[Joe]

So atheism is a fundamentalist religion or set of beliefs, the government is the evil enemy not 4,000 Muslim terrorist suspects who want to murder us, the rest of us are "all Hizbollah now" because we don't like the government, black is white because I say so....is anyone else sick of this rhetorical point scoring not only devoid of truth and intelligence, but a pernicious stupidity undermining public debate.

Atheism is not forced, it is not a religion, it is a neutral intellectual stance DEVOID of blind belief. Secularism is not an ideology, it is a neutral public space within which different kinds of stupidity can be practiced.

As Stephen Fry once remarked on the TV programme QI re. the violence, hatred and stupidity of religion: "we never learn do we. Religion? s*** it".

[kirstie]

"Your logic is twisted, you state the above and want to enforce your atheist beliefs onto my child!"

What makes you think I am an atheist? Perhaps I am a committed Christian who wants to choose my church according to my beliefs, not according to which one will facilitate access to the local school.

I am afraid Mike that if you moved to my area tomorrow your children would be going to school with the 'atheists' as you wouldn't be able to provide a record of attendance at the correct church.

[JG]

I have one daughter at a CoE junior and the other at a local community school. I thought that the CoE school would have the most caring ethos - not one bit of it. They seem to believe that regular visits from the vicar and a reliance on biblical stories is enough to ensure that the children behave properly towards others, whereas the other school seems to put a real effort in to teaching civilised values. I have been amazed at the different approaches to e.g. bullying and inclusiveness and the general attitudes of the teachers at both schools. Frankly, the CoE school seems to work on the inherent 'badness' of children, which is of course the traditional religious view of original sin, whereas the community school seems to regard the children as inherently good and takes it from there.

The CoE school doesn't admit on religious grounds by the way - it's purely a matter of school ethos. The children at this school attend a community infant school first, where the atmosphere is much more like the community school my other daughter attends.

So you can open up admission to other faiths if you like - I don't see it as the main problem with faith schools. A bigger issues is the make-up of the governing body, with CoE schools having representatives of the church, who tend to support the vicar and the status quo as much as possible.

[JMC]

I am a secondary school Religious Studies teacher who is also an Atheist. In the UK we are obliged to teach (not preach) about world faiths. We do not indoctrinate, we educate, and encourage students to have respect for faiths and cultures. However, I believe that teaching them about diverse religions is pre-requisite for their understanding and respect for "another's views and values in life" -wouldn't you agree Andrea? After all we are supposed to preparing our children for the wider world, and it isn't 100% atheist. At our school we have a mixture of students with faith and non faith backgrounds. They are encouraged to debate philosophical and ethical issues and often refer to their personal views, this is human nature. However, they can't do this without knowing the subject, even Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens would admit to that!

With regards to Dragon's comments, Kieran has a point regarding obscurity, we only have one lesson a week, and that isn't enough to cover the predominant ones (no hierarchy intended, simply numbers of followers and so on). However I do teach some Paganism in year 9, as well as drawing on its branches (Wicca, Asatru) at A level. Perhaps you could discuss opportunities for this in your school's RS classes. It is a shame you would want to deprive your children of an area of study that could actually enrich their understanding of their(or your?) own faith. The study of many religions would open his eyes to the nature of faith and the evolution of belief, as well as tolerance and respect (which are important tenets of Paganism).

As far as the debate on faith schools goes, I have also worked in one, and although by definition the ethos was 'Christian' (assembly and so on) the syllabus still covered other faiths with the utmost respect.

USA- Do we really believe they have got it right? It is for that precise reason there is so much fundamentalism -they have rarely had the opportunity to find out about opposing views.

[Des]

One justification for faith schools is that children divided on the basis of their religious at an early age serves to promote community cohesion. This is nonsense on stilts.

[Des]

One justification for faith schools is that children divided on the basis of their religious at an early age serves to promote community cohesion. This is nonsense on stilts.

[JohnW]

M. Wilson came out with the old chestnut that religion was: "...the main cause of every war throughout history."

Not true - man causes war, and in modern times almost wholly due to economic reasons. The only religion that enshrines war in its faith and actively promotes it is Islam.

Iran/Iraq (1980-88) was not caused by religion, and nor was Vietnam - to name but two in recent history. Moreover, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot between them caused the deaths of untold millions, and they were all atheist. Opinion is divided on Hitler - but he was certainly not a devout Christian.

[Alex]

Discriminating between children on the basis of their faith ("their faith" in fact being that of their parents) should be illegal.

I don't understand how anyone imagines segregation and indoctrination helps community cohesion.

I don't understand why school isn't simply for education and indoctrination at least remain confined to the home.

[JohnW]

Well, Sophie - as I prefer not to send my children to the local comprehensive because it has poor results and fails to uphold discipline, why should you deny my right to send them to a Catholic school? If you're happy with the lower standards at the comprehensive, and are quite prepared to sacrifice your child at the altar of social engineering then good for you. I'm not.

[Sophie]

Because, JohnW, you are equally free to send your children to the local comprehensive.

[m wilson]

Religion should be abolished in schools. It is taught a fact when it is fiction. It is the single most devisive subject in the world and the main cause of every war throughout history.

[Joseph]

I think it's time for parents to realise it's morally wrong to indoctrinate their children to a religion. I am educating my children (comprehensive and private) to be of independent thought - but of very good morals. when they're old enough they will be the ones to decide upon religion or otherwise with my support.

You wouldn't call a child a conservative boy, because it would be wrong. why should children be commonly labelled as a Muslim or Christian child? A translation of the latin term 'doli incapax' means mentally incapable of their own decisions.

If parents chose to indoctrinate their children into a non-proven substance then they should pay for this in my opinion. As an atheist I consider that I should be free to object to my tax paying for religious teachings.

[JohnW]

Well, if faith schools shouldn't get state funding, then the parents of the children who go there should receive a tax credit to compensate.

As others have said - why do people who object to faith schools insist on imposing their beliefs and restrictions on others? Such "faithless" parents have the freedom to send their children to the local comprehensive, so why shouldn't I be able to send mine to the local Catholic school?

[mike]

Kirsty, "but if you don't profess the correct beliefs once a week, your child can be excluded from being educated there - isn't that just a little medieval?"

Your logic is twisted, you state the above and want to enforce your atheist beliefs onto my child!

Im sorry, but its your choice not to believe and if your child is not allowed to go to to a good school because of it tough!!

Its the same as a private school if you cannot afford to pay or do not believe your child cant go there! I do not want children who have come from your type of household anywhere near mine! So send them to the local comprehensive!

[Kim]

@William Shepherd: "The answer is not to ban C of E schools. The answer as ever is to make the other schools as good as the C of E's. One has to ask what are these schools doing right? It is not simply a matter of selection."

With respect, William, what they are doing right is almost certainly to do with selection. As soon as you exclude a particular group of people, then you are limiting your intake to people bothered enough to make the effort to do what it takes to get in there. You're certainly eliminating the really difficult elements of society - do you think Karen Matthews would have had the nous to get her children into a faith school, for example?

But if you think that what they are doing right is something different, then I'd be interested to hear it.

[Glen Thomas]

That should be 'helps no-one except for politicians'.

[Glen Thomas]

School results depend largely on the children they take in - schools full of middle class children will usually outperform those with children from poor families.

Is it the school's fault? I think the furore against faith schools is really is really an extension of the everlasting class-envy war. State funding has never been always linked to 'equal access' restrictions - most government funding changes of recent years has been given on the sole basis that it is directed to poor Labour-voting neighbourhoods.

The state should contribute to education for all, but that shouldn't mean that the funding has a 'social engineering' purpose. Disrupting the performance of socially homogeneous schools by importing pupils from across towns will not help failing schools to improve - that will come as the parents of children at these schools aspire to the same things as the parents of children in successful schools, and support the schools in their efforts to restrain and retrain their offspring. Difficult schools are difficult due to the presence of difficult children with unconcerned or apathetic parents.

Making good schools worse by disrupting the social contract between parents and school will help no-one, except for parents.

Glen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Education blog at http://gcthomas.blogspot.com

[kirstie]

"If you don't want your child to be educated in a faith school, then don't send them to one - it's simple, but don't get involved in other parents decisions just because you happen to disagree with them."

To be fair, for many people the choice is go to church so that their child can go to the local school, or involve their child in a twice daily commute to and from whichever school will take them, however far away it may be. Its not just about avoiding sink schools. In many cases, the church school is the only reasonable option for educating a child, but if you don't profess the correct beliefs once a week, your child can be excluded from being educated there - isn't that just a little medieval?

[kirstie]

There doesn't seem to be any standard selection procedure for faith schools. In my borough and the neighbouring borough, almost 50% of primary schools are faith schools. Some seem to select in much the same way as other community primary schools, i.e mainly serving the local population. At other schools you will not get a place unless you have worshipped for a number of years at a named church. Just being Christian or a regular churchgoer won't cut the mustard. Any piddling little hang-ups like preferring a particular vicar or brand of C of E worship must be forgotten if you want to get your child into the relevant school, or more to the point keep them out of the relevant school. Purely by co-incidence, the church schools that are fussy about church attendance tend to be near to 'sink' schools. The less selective schools tend to be share their catchment area with a good selection of community schools.

Its possible to argue that its no less fair to select a nice middle class community of commited parents according to their faith than it is fair to select them according to their postcode. To argue that it is fair is just plain wrong.

I disagree about America being a good example to follow though. Maybe if more of their citizens had been forced to drone out hymns in assembly they wouldn't have such a problem with fundamentalism. We may have church schools in the UK, but we don't really seem to like going to church. (Unless we have children between the ages of 2 and 4 and 9 and 11).

[Rob]

I'm not sure but I think the writer is trying to have some control of private schools and their religions. The same treatment the Public Schools are subjected to everyday. Funding is justified because religious parents also pay tax and their tax is spent on public schools..

[Shaun]

Les & David Griffin - what you regard as 'truth' is yet to be proven. Atheism is just another belief.

On the issue at hand - make faith schools open up any child (but with preference to children from families practising their particular religion - there can't be that many anyway). I'm an agnostic yet attended an RC school which admitted children from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh backgrounds too. The excellent schooling there gave us knowledge and respect for other faiths, and fostered a sense of tolerance. We'd be a poorer society without faith schools.

[Shaun]

Les & David Griffin - what you regard as 'truth' is yet to be proven. Atheism is just another belief.

On the issue at hand - make faith schools open up any child (but with preference to children from families practising their particular religion - there can't be that many anyway). I'm an agnostic yet attended an RC school which admitted children from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh backgrounds too. The excellent schooling there gave us knowledge and respect for other faiths, and fostered a sense of tolerance. We'd be a poorer society without faith schools.

[Shaun]

Les & David Griffin - what you regard as 'truth' is yet to be proven. Atheism is just another belief.

On the issue at hand - make faith schools open up any child (but with preference to children from families practising their particular religion - there can't be that many anyway). I'm an agnostic yet attended an RC school which admitted children from Hindu, Muslim, Sikh backgrounds too. The excellent schooling there gave us knowledge and respect for other faiths, and fostered a sense of tolerance. We'd be a poorer society without faith schools.

[Diana]

Dragon - anyone (pagans, atheists etc) CAN insist that their child does not attend assembly or RE lessons - it is just that a parent can not pick and mix. So a few fundamentalist christians refuse to allow their child to go to RE in case they learn about Islam etc. But most children don't like to singled out in this way. Mine went along to find ammunition to use in discussions to debunk religious belief - or as his report put it "M. understands the role religion plays in the lives of others"

[Diana]

Govt pays for faith schools, it should specify the RE curriculum is that of the authority not the diocese, that there is a mininum of 20% of non faith pupils and that unless the number of free school meals pupils at least matches the authority average, the school loses cash.

[william shepherd]

The answer is not to ban C of E schools. The answer as ever is to make the other schools as good as the C of E's. One has to ask what are these schools doing right? It is not simply a matter of selection. Bring all schools down is wrong. lifting all schools up is.
Until parents in all areas of society learn to be good parents and civilise their children we will not improve the situation in our schools

[Helen]

It's terrible that so many people are so inherently prejudiced regarding religion. Parents have the right to educate their child in their religion, whether is it right or wrong is for them to decide. The way a child grows up and is educated depends entirely upon their parents and if their parents so choose to educate them within their religion then that is their choice.
As to the issue of faith schools; doesn't it just show that many parents are just not bothered by the religious affiliation of the school, given the fact that so many of them are prepared to lie and/or move in order to get their child into a faith school? Perhaps it is not the religion that interests the parents, but their exam results, their ethos and their set of ethics and morals that are important. If there are parents out there who are happy to lie about their religious affiliations and to allow their children to be given education in a particular education then why on earth should everyone else be bothered? If you don't want your child to be educated in a faith school, then don't send them to one - it's simple, but don't get involved in other parents decisions just because you happen to disagree with them.

[Les]

Chris - faith is not a gift. It's a way of avoiding the truth.

[Andrea]

I personally feel that religion and learning should be kept separate and that a child should go to school to learn subjects totally independent of all religious aspect, which is far too dominant in our present day society and really should be taught at home by the parents. I also feel that children should be taught to respect another's views and values in life. If this was done without any religious aspect being thrown in then maybe we would not have any 'cult' following in the young people, such as 'Chavs', 'Goths', etc, which are beginning to cause problems with the first fighting against the other. It promotes an egotistical view of life, that one is better than the another person.