Faith Scools - No Thanks!
Around a third of all state-funded schools are faithschools or have a religious character. This number is growing, with some minority religions and Christian denominations running new schools, or takingcontrol of increasing numbers of schools in the state sector, or of academies.
It is widely assumed that faith schools are a good thing. Indeed, faith schools have been enthusiastically supported by the DfES and the Prime Minister, as well as his predecessor, on grounds of their distinctive ethos and perceived academic success. The Government green paper Schools Building on Success (2001), welcomed Church of England proposals for a hundred extra church secondary schools because “they have agood record of delivering a high quality of education.” Since then theGovernment has encouraged and funded more schools run by religious groups on the grounds of increasing parental choice and diversity of provision in education. The Tony Blair Faith Foundation is adding impetus to this expansion,but under an imminent Conservative government, this number is likely to growradically. Michael Gove, Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Children,Schools & Families, has said that his “party is planning a big expansion of Islamic schools and faith schools generally.” Likewise, Nick Gibb, a Conservative Shadow Minister for Children, Schools & Families, has also assuredthe Church that “there would be a great many more religious schools under theTories.”
What I want isto see an end to the proliferation of faithschools, discrimination in faith schools outlawed, a comprehensive curriculumacross all subjects including beliefs and values education, sex andrelationships education and citizenship education to be taught objectively inall schools. Ultimately, all faith schools should be absorbed back into thesecular schools sector, becoming inclusive community schools beginning no laterthan 2015. The state school system should be inclusive and secular, wherechildren and young people of all different backgrounds and beliefs can learnfrom and with each other.
A number of myths have developed regarding the value of faith schools, which need to be comprehensively dispelled before the debate on theirvalue and position in the state education system can move forward. Consequently,the expansion of faith schools in the UK appears unstoppable, despite vastswathes of public opinion and the overwhelming body of evidence against them.Faith schools are exclusive, divisive and counter-intuitive to social cohesion. In 2005 two dedicated mothers of Conisbrough fought a passionate battle toprevent the replacement of their local community comprehensive to an academyrun by fundamentalist Christian Peter Vardy.[1] Faith schools can be stopped, they have been stopped and they will be stopped.
Myth No.1: “Church schools get good results.”
Any selective school can achieve better than averageresults and faith schools are highly selective. They usually take a less thanrepresentative sample of deprived children and more than their share of thechildren of ambitious and wealthier parents. This covert selection goes along way towards explaining their apparent academic success. A spokesperson for Ofsted stated that “selection, even onreligious grounds, is likely to attract well-behaved children from stablebackgrounds.”[2] Likewise, Dr Sandie Schagen, Principal Research Officerat the National Foundation for Educational Research told the ParliamentaryEducation and Skills Select Committee in 2003: “on the basis of our research,looking exclusively at achievement, there is not any evidence at all to suggestreally that increasing the number of faith schools will improve the level ofachievement. Our finding is that basically, when you apply value-addedanalysis, that advantage all but disappears, which suggests that the differenceis based on intake. Interestingly, you can hypothesise that if they do havebetter ethos and better behaviour and so on that would lead to betterachievement, but we did not find any evidence that that is so.” This sociallyor academically selective education has been brought in by stealth and in a waythat benefits only religious minorities.
Myth No.2: “Church schools serve the whole community– they don't discriminate or proselytise.”
Despite claims of inclusiveness, many have controlof their own admissions, creating school populations that are far from representativeof their local populations in religious or socio-economic terms. Many alsodiscriminate in their employment on grounds of religion, barring teachers whoare not of the right religion or because of their sexual orientation. Inaddition, many faith schools, instead of teaching a Religious Educationsyllabus of the kind taught in community schools, they have their own programmeof RE, which the law permits to be confessional and which does not have toinclude learning about other religions or about Humanism. The ArchbishopsCouncil report recommended reserving places for Christians and that Churchschools should become more distinctively Christian, with a mission to nourishthose of the faith; encourage those of other faiths and challenge those who haveno faith.[3]
When only 7.4% adults in England go to church on anaverage Sunday,[4) such overtly Christian schools cannot serve the wholecommunity. Neither do they respect the autonomy of children in the vital matterof choosing their own religious and value commitments. Religious Education and worship in Church and other religious schools are not generally as broad-based and multi-faith as in community schools, and faith schools discriminate against everyone not of their faith - in their admissions and employment policies,their curricula, and their ethos and assumptions about their religion and theworldviews of others.
Some faith schools will not even try to serve the wholecommunity, and will divide children not just by religion but also ethnically –especially if Muslims, Sikhs, Seventh Day Adventists and other minority religions and denominations get more than the tiny handful of schools they havenow. For example, a Court of Appeal judgment recently found the admissions criteria of the Jewish Free School in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976. NorthernIreland and Bradford are also examples of what happens to communities wherechildren are educated separately and grow up knowing little of each other.Similar divisions have been endemic in Liverpool and Glasgow both in schoolsand in the wider community.
Most people, whether religious or not, oppose religiousdiscrimination in state-funded schools. A number of high-profile religiousrepresentatives have recently also called an end to discrimination instate-funded faith schools in a joint letter to The Times. Nine members ofdifferent religious traditions, including Jewish, Muslim and Christianrepresentatives, describe exceptions in the Equality Bill 2009, currently before Parliament, that allow state-funded faith schools to discriminate inadmissions and employment as in breach of human rights and are religiously offensive.
Myth No.3: “Faith schools increase parental choice.”
Choice is rarely feasible in small communities, and evenin larger ones choice for one group is usually at the expense of another. Faithschools choose their pupils, rather than the other way round, and aproliferation of faith schools will decrease choice for the majority of parents, unless they are prepared to join, or pretendto join, a religion. A report of the Education and Skills Select Committee in May 2003 stated: “in practice parents have found that the reality of school diversity and choice can act to limit rather than expand their options for their children's education.” Likewise, in 2005, the Select Committee found that: “in oversubscribed schools, the satisfaction of one person's choice necessarily denies that of another.” A plethora of differentkinds of school – specialist, trust, faith-based, and academies, will notnecessarily increase choice or raise standards.
Though religious leaders and organisations wantmore faith schools, poll after poll finds that parents and the general publicjust want good all-round neighbourhood schools. A survey for Bella magazineby NOP in June 2000 found that 79% said separating children according to religious belief is as wrong as separating themaccording to colour or accent; 72% believed that children should never beexcluded just because they're of a different faith, or of no faith at all; 55%said single-faith schools create a divided society; 37% said the proper place to teach religion is in Sunday School; 8% of parents who had sent their childto a religious school admitted they attended church just so they could get themin. In addition, a 2005 ICM/Guardian survey found that 64% of people opposedgovernment funding for faith schools, fearing their impact on social cohesion. Furthermore,in 2005, 96% of New Statesman readers thought that Tony Blair should end hissupport for faith schools.
Myth No.4: “Faith schools have a better ethos thancommunity schools.”
Religious schools tend to have a religious ethos, andtheir teachers do often have an enviable confidence in their moral values andinvaluable moral support from parents. However, teachers in community schoolsfrequently have these too, and the values and successes of community schoolsare too often underestimated. Moral education is too important to be leftsolely to religious schools. A schools ethos and values can be based on sharedhuman values rather than on religion. There is no magic ingredient in faithschools, as the head of a C of E school revealed in The Independent on 15/6/01:“The fact that we select those who are supported by parents is the key definingfactor in the kind of pupils we send out into the world.”
Faith schools that operate genuinely inclusiveadmissions policies in difficult neighbourhoods often share the same socialproblems and poor discipline as other schools. For example, the school outsidewhich headmaster Philip Lawrence was stabbed intervening in a pupil gang fight was a Roman Catholic one. Churchschools do sometimes get poor Ofsted reports and are put on special measures asThe Way ahead: Church of England schoolsin the new millennium admitted. Many ordinary state schools get excellentOfsted reports for their ethos and values. Likewise, Ofsted reports onthese non-faith schools continually show that they provide excellent social,moral and spiritual education without being committed to any particularreligion or to any religious faith at all. One hasto doubt the commitment to truth and integrity of schools that encourage parents to take up religious observances simply in order to get their children into a religious school. The head teacher of an Oldham C of E school was reported in the Times Educational Supplement of 22/6/01, as “happy to admit that many Church of England parents actually attend services with the expresspurpose of winning a place at his school.”
Myth No.5: “Religious minorities need their ownschools in order to preserve their culture and beliefs.”
It is understandable that, with 6840 publicly funded Christian schools, members of other faiths are demanding public funds for theirschools, but community needs should not be allowed to override the needs ofchildren for an education that opens windows onto a wider world. Culture and beliefs can be transmitted at home.There is often a gulf between the religious segregation that older generationsand community leaders want, and what young people in those groups want, as Lord Ouseley's report on Bradford noted. “What was most inspiring was the great desire among young people for better education, more social and cultural interaction... Some young people have pleaded desperately for this to overcome the negativity that they feel is blighting their lives and leaves them ignorant of other cultures and lifestyles..."[5] Young people realise that being taught in religiousghettos is not a good preparation for life in a multi-cultural society. The Ouseley report also observes “signs that communities are fragmenting along racial, cultural and faith lines. Segregation in schools is one indicator of this trend... There is virtual apartheid in many secondary schools in the District.”
Other well-informed commentators criticise the multi-culturalist orthodoxy. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, social researcher, journalist and Muslim argues that ”...traditional multiculturalists believethat equity means that funding Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewishschools must also mean state funding for Muslim and Hindu schools where thereis sufficient demand, as there often clearly is… We need to take a different approach, to fairly represent the society we live in without breaking it upfurther into minority groups aided and abetted by the State... There should notbe state-funding for state schools of any religion."[6] Women of Asian heritage have been amongst thoseopposing the expansion of religious schools and arguing that “…single faithschools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and out communities as a whole."[7] A 2005 Islamic Human Rights Commission surveyfound that only 42.9% of Muslim females and 49.7% of Muslim males preferredMuslim schooling. Clearly, satisfying the demands of some members of minoritygroups, often within minority groups themselves, should not take precedenceover working towards a cohesive and tolerant society.
Myth No.6: “Parents have a right to educate theirchildren in the faith of their choice.”
We should respect the rights to freedom of beliefand to education, and understand the desire of parents to bring up theirchildren with the family's beliefs. However, it is not the job of publicly funded schools to instil a religious faith in children, and states are not obliged to provide schools catering for every shade of belief or philosophy. “It is one thing for parents in private to bring up their children to believe what they, the parents, think true and important. It is quite another for parents toexpect that the state should undertake the role of transmitting such a belief. The state has its own interest in ensuring that children grow up to beresponsible and capable citizens. It must design a system of educationthat serves that end, as well as promoting the interests of children.[8]
Groups lobbying for religious schools sometimescite the First Protocol, Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Part 2, whichstates that “no person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” However, Amnesty International UK has stated that “this article guarantees people the right to access existing educational institutions; itdoes not require the government to establish or fund a particular type ofeducation. The requirement to respect parents' convictions is intended toprevent indoctrination by the state. However schools can teach about religion andphilosophy if they do so in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner."[9] The curriculum in some private faith schools wouldcertainly appear to contravene another human right that “the child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds."[10]
There is an ever-growing body of evidence which showsthat if faith schools achieve better exam results, it is because of theirsocially selective admissions policies and not because they provide a betterstandard of education than inclusive community schools. Furthermore, divisions are created in our society when many faith schools discriminate against andsegregate pupils on the basis of religion. Social cohesion and higher standardsof education for all are best achieved in inclusive and accommodating communityschools where pupils from different backgrounds learn with and from each other.This has again been confirmed in a new report from the University of London when it found that faith schools engage in social selection through their admissions procedures and that such schools do not improve educational standards.
A new report by the Institute of Community Cohesion on segregation in Blackburn with Darwen.The study found that faith schools were one of the causes of segregation in thearea. It argued that the “level of segregation in schools is high, growing andmore extensive than the level of residential segregation would suggest.”Although the report recognised initiatives were undertaken in Blackburn’s schools to improve community cohesion, they were also insufficient. ProfessorTed Cantle said that faith schools in the area remained “automatically a sourceof division which have to be overcome.” The report recommends that the councilcould challenge “faith schools to reconsider their admission policies in lightof the impact on cohesion.” The report, however, noted that some schools in thetown indicated that they did not intend to change their admission polices,which discriminate against pupils on the basis of religious belief. By discriminatingagainst and segregating pupils on the basis of religion, faith schools help towiden, rather than over come divisions in society. Social cohesion andpreparation for life in a multi-cultural society is best achieved in inclusive community schools, where children from different backgrounds learn with andfrom each other.
[1] ‘What acreation…’ Guardian 15/01/05
[2] Times Educational Supplement, 16/2/01
[3] ‘The Way ahead: Church of England schools in the newmillennium’ (2001)
[4] Religious Trends, 2002-2003
[5] Community Pride not Prejudice, Bradford Vision, 2001
[6] ‘After Multiculturalism.’ The Foreign Policy Centre, May2000
[7] London Development Education and South Asia SolidarityGroup, Autumn 02
[8] Humanist Philosophers' Group, Religious Schools: thecase against, BHA, 2001
[9] Amnesty (September - October 2000)
[10] Article 13, Convention on the Rights of the Child,adopted by the UN, 1989
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124552663408
It is widely assumed that faith schools are a good thing. Indeed, faith schools have been enthusiastically supported by the DfES and the Prime Minister, as well as his predecessor, on grounds of their distinctive ethos and perceived academic success. The Government green paper Schools Building on Success (2001), welcomed Church of England proposals for a hundred extra church secondary schools because “they have agood record of delivering a high quality of education.” Since then theGovernment has encouraged and funded more schools run by religious groups on the grounds of increasing parental choice and diversity of provision in education. The Tony Blair Faith Foundation is adding impetus to this expansion,but under an imminent Conservative government, this number is likely to growradically. Michael Gove, Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Children,Schools & Families, has said that his “party is planning a big expansion of Islamic schools and faith schools generally.” Likewise, Nick Gibb, a Conservative Shadow Minister for Children, Schools & Families, has also assuredthe Church that “there would be a great many more religious schools under theTories.”
What I want isto see an end to the proliferation of faithschools, discrimination in faith schools outlawed, a comprehensive curriculumacross all subjects including beliefs and values education, sex andrelationships education and citizenship education to be taught objectively inall schools. Ultimately, all faith schools should be absorbed back into thesecular schools sector, becoming inclusive community schools beginning no laterthan 2015. The state school system should be inclusive and secular, wherechildren and young people of all different backgrounds and beliefs can learnfrom and with each other.
A number of myths have developed regarding the value of faith schools, which need to be comprehensively dispelled before the debate on theirvalue and position in the state education system can move forward. Consequently,the expansion of faith schools in the UK appears unstoppable, despite vastswathes of public opinion and the overwhelming body of evidence against them.Faith schools are exclusive, divisive and counter-intuitive to social cohesion. In 2005 two dedicated mothers of Conisbrough fought a passionate battle toprevent the replacement of their local community comprehensive to an academyrun by fundamentalist Christian Peter Vardy.[1] Faith schools can be stopped, they have been stopped and they will be stopped.
Myth No.1: “Church schools get good results.”
Any selective school can achieve better than averageresults and faith schools are highly selective. They usually take a less thanrepresentative sample of deprived children and more than their share of thechildren of ambitious and wealthier parents. This covert selection goes along way towards explaining their apparent academic success. A spokesperson for Ofsted stated that “selection, even onreligious grounds, is likely to attract well-behaved children from stablebackgrounds.”[2] Likewise, Dr Sandie Schagen, Principal Research Officerat the National Foundation for Educational Research told the ParliamentaryEducation and Skills Select Committee in 2003: “on the basis of our research,looking exclusively at achievement, there is not any evidence at all to suggestreally that increasing the number of faith schools will improve the level ofachievement. Our finding is that basically, when you apply value-addedanalysis, that advantage all but disappears, which suggests that the differenceis based on intake. Interestingly, you can hypothesise that if they do havebetter ethos and better behaviour and so on that would lead to betterachievement, but we did not find any evidence that that is so.” This sociallyor academically selective education has been brought in by stealth and in a waythat benefits only religious minorities.
Myth No.2: “Church schools serve the whole community– they don't discriminate or proselytise.”
Despite claims of inclusiveness, many have controlof their own admissions, creating school populations that are far from representativeof their local populations in religious or socio-economic terms. Many alsodiscriminate in their employment on grounds of religion, barring teachers whoare not of the right religion or because of their sexual orientation. Inaddition, many faith schools, instead of teaching a Religious Educationsyllabus of the kind taught in community schools, they have their own programmeof RE, which the law permits to be confessional and which does not have toinclude learning about other religions or about Humanism. The ArchbishopsCouncil report recommended reserving places for Christians and that Churchschools should become more distinctively Christian, with a mission to nourishthose of the faith; encourage those of other faiths and challenge those who haveno faith.[3]
When only 7.4% adults in England go to church on anaverage Sunday,[4) such overtly Christian schools cannot serve the wholecommunity. Neither do they respect the autonomy of children in the vital matterof choosing their own religious and value commitments. Religious Education and worship in Church and other religious schools are not generally as broad-based and multi-faith as in community schools, and faith schools discriminate against everyone not of their faith - in their admissions and employment policies,their curricula, and their ethos and assumptions about their religion and theworldviews of others.
Some faith schools will not even try to serve the wholecommunity, and will divide children not just by religion but also ethnically –especially if Muslims, Sikhs, Seventh Day Adventists and other minority religions and denominations get more than the tiny handful of schools they havenow. For example, a Court of Appeal judgment recently found the admissions criteria of the Jewish Free School in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976. NorthernIreland and Bradford are also examples of what happens to communities wherechildren are educated separately and grow up knowing little of each other.Similar divisions have been endemic in Liverpool and Glasgow both in schoolsand in the wider community.
Most people, whether religious or not, oppose religiousdiscrimination in state-funded schools. A number of high-profile religiousrepresentatives have recently also called an end to discrimination instate-funded faith schools in a joint letter to The Times. Nine members ofdifferent religious traditions, including Jewish, Muslim and Christianrepresentatives, describe exceptions in the Equality Bill 2009, currently before Parliament, that allow state-funded faith schools to discriminate inadmissions and employment as in breach of human rights and are religiously offensive.
Myth No.3: “Faith schools increase parental choice.”
Choice is rarely feasible in small communities, and evenin larger ones choice for one group is usually at the expense of another. Faithschools choose their pupils, rather than the other way round, and aproliferation of faith schools will decrease choice for the majority of parents, unless they are prepared to join, or pretendto join, a religion. A report of the Education and Skills Select Committee in May 2003 stated: “in practice parents have found that the reality of school diversity and choice can act to limit rather than expand their options for their children's education.” Likewise, in 2005, the Select Committee found that: “in oversubscribed schools, the satisfaction of one person's choice necessarily denies that of another.” A plethora of differentkinds of school – specialist, trust, faith-based, and academies, will notnecessarily increase choice or raise standards.
Though religious leaders and organisations wantmore faith schools, poll after poll finds that parents and the general publicjust want good all-round neighbourhood schools. A survey for Bella magazineby NOP in June 2000 found that 79% said separating children according to religious belief is as wrong as separating themaccording to colour or accent; 72% believed that children should never beexcluded just because they're of a different faith, or of no faith at all; 55%said single-faith schools create a divided society; 37% said the proper place to teach religion is in Sunday School; 8% of parents who had sent their childto a religious school admitted they attended church just so they could get themin. In addition, a 2005 ICM/Guardian survey found that 64% of people opposedgovernment funding for faith schools, fearing their impact on social cohesion. Furthermore,in 2005, 96% of New Statesman readers thought that Tony Blair should end hissupport for faith schools.
Myth No.4: “Faith schools have a better ethos thancommunity schools.”
Religious schools tend to have a religious ethos, andtheir teachers do often have an enviable confidence in their moral values andinvaluable moral support from parents. However, teachers in community schoolsfrequently have these too, and the values and successes of community schoolsare too often underestimated. Moral education is too important to be leftsolely to religious schools. A schools ethos and values can be based on sharedhuman values rather than on religion. There is no magic ingredient in faithschools, as the head of a C of E school revealed in The Independent on 15/6/01:“The fact that we select those who are supported by parents is the key definingfactor in the kind of pupils we send out into the world.”
Faith schools that operate genuinely inclusiveadmissions policies in difficult neighbourhoods often share the same socialproblems and poor discipline as other schools. For example, the school outsidewhich headmaster Philip Lawrence was stabbed intervening in a pupil gang fight was a Roman Catholic one. Churchschools do sometimes get poor Ofsted reports and are put on special measures asThe Way ahead: Church of England schoolsin the new millennium admitted. Many ordinary state schools get excellentOfsted reports for their ethos and values. Likewise, Ofsted reports onthese non-faith schools continually show that they provide excellent social,moral and spiritual education without being committed to any particularreligion or to any religious faith at all. One hasto doubt the commitment to truth and integrity of schools that encourage parents to take up religious observances simply in order to get their children into a religious school. The head teacher of an Oldham C of E school was reported in the Times Educational Supplement of 22/6/01, as “happy to admit that many Church of England parents actually attend services with the expresspurpose of winning a place at his school.”
Myth No.5: “Religious minorities need their ownschools in order to preserve their culture and beliefs.”
It is understandable that, with 6840 publicly funded Christian schools, members of other faiths are demanding public funds for theirschools, but community needs should not be allowed to override the needs ofchildren for an education that opens windows onto a wider world. Culture and beliefs can be transmitted at home.There is often a gulf between the religious segregation that older generationsand community leaders want, and what young people in those groups want, as Lord Ouseley's report on Bradford noted. “What was most inspiring was the great desire among young people for better education, more social and cultural interaction... Some young people have pleaded desperately for this to overcome the negativity that they feel is blighting their lives and leaves them ignorant of other cultures and lifestyles..."[5] Young people realise that being taught in religiousghettos is not a good preparation for life in a multi-cultural society. The Ouseley report also observes “signs that communities are fragmenting along racial, cultural and faith lines. Segregation in schools is one indicator of this trend... There is virtual apartheid in many secondary schools in the District.”
Other well-informed commentators criticise the multi-culturalist orthodoxy. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, social researcher, journalist and Muslim argues that ”...traditional multiculturalists believethat equity means that funding Church of England, Roman Catholic and Jewishschools must also mean state funding for Muslim and Hindu schools where thereis sufficient demand, as there often clearly is… We need to take a different approach, to fairly represent the society we live in without breaking it upfurther into minority groups aided and abetted by the State... There should notbe state-funding for state schools of any religion."[6] Women of Asian heritage have been amongst thoseopposing the expansion of religious schools and arguing that “…single faithschools will mean more discrimination and a greater stranglehold of the most conservative, anti-women and communal individuals over our children's education and out communities as a whole."[7] A 2005 Islamic Human Rights Commission surveyfound that only 42.9% of Muslim females and 49.7% of Muslim males preferredMuslim schooling. Clearly, satisfying the demands of some members of minoritygroups, often within minority groups themselves, should not take precedenceover working towards a cohesive and tolerant society.
Myth No.6: “Parents have a right to educate theirchildren in the faith of their choice.”
We should respect the rights to freedom of beliefand to education, and understand the desire of parents to bring up theirchildren with the family's beliefs. However, it is not the job of publicly funded schools to instil a religious faith in children, and states are not obliged to provide schools catering for every shade of belief or philosophy. “It is one thing for parents in private to bring up their children to believe what they, the parents, think true and important. It is quite another for parents toexpect that the state should undertake the role of transmitting such a belief. The state has its own interest in ensuring that children grow up to beresponsible and capable citizens. It must design a system of educationthat serves that end, as well as promoting the interests of children.[8]
Groups lobbying for religious schools sometimescite the First Protocol, Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Part 2, whichstates that “no person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and teaching, the state shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.” However, Amnesty International UK has stated that “this article guarantees people the right to access existing educational institutions; itdoes not require the government to establish or fund a particular type ofeducation. The requirement to respect parents' convictions is intended toprevent indoctrination by the state. However schools can teach about religion andphilosophy if they do so in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner."[9] The curriculum in some private faith schools wouldcertainly appear to contravene another human right that “the child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek,receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds."[10]
There is an ever-growing body of evidence which showsthat if faith schools achieve better exam results, it is because of theirsocially selective admissions policies and not because they provide a betterstandard of education than inclusive community schools. Furthermore, divisions are created in our society when many faith schools discriminate against andsegregate pupils on the basis of religion. Social cohesion and higher standardsof education for all are best achieved in inclusive and accommodating communityschools where pupils from different backgrounds learn with and from each other.This has again been confirmed in a new report from the University of London when it found that faith schools engage in social selection through their admissions procedures and that such schools do not improve educational standards.
A new report by the Institute of Community Cohesion on segregation in Blackburn with Darwen.The study found that faith schools were one of the causes of segregation in thearea. It argued that the “level of segregation in schools is high, growing andmore extensive than the level of residential segregation would suggest.”Although the report recognised initiatives were undertaken in Blackburn’s schools to improve community cohesion, they were also insufficient. ProfessorTed Cantle said that faith schools in the area remained “automatically a sourceof division which have to be overcome.” The report recommends that the councilcould challenge “faith schools to reconsider their admission policies in lightof the impact on cohesion.” The report, however, noted that some schools in thetown indicated that they did not intend to change their admission polices,which discriminate against pupils on the basis of religious belief. By discriminatingagainst and segregating pupils on the basis of religion, faith schools help towiden, rather than over come divisions in society. Social cohesion andpreparation for life in a multi-cultural society is best achieved in inclusive community schools, where children from different backgrounds learn with andfrom each other.
[1] ‘What acreation…’ Guardian 15/01/05
[2] Times Educational Supplement, 16/2/01
[3] ‘The Way ahead: Church of England schools in the newmillennium’ (2001)
[4] Religious Trends, 2002-2003
[5] Community Pride not Prejudice, Bradford Vision, 2001
[6] ‘After Multiculturalism.’ The Foreign Policy Centre, May2000
[7] London Development Education and South Asia SolidarityGroup, Autumn 02
[8] Humanist Philosophers' Group, Religious Schools: thecase against, BHA, 2001
[9] Amnesty (September - October 2000)
[10] Article 13, Convention on the Rights of the Child,adopted by the UN, 1989
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=124552663408
Views: 6
- Attachments:
-
-
n124552663408_7685.jpg, 13 KB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Sefton on -
I agree, some Lib Dems are accused of being illiberal if they oppose faith schools (even though many European Liberal parties support secular state education), I think parents should still have the choice of sending their children to a faith school but we should withdraw all state funding from faith schools (except the pupil premium which will be given to any school which lets in pupils from poorer backgrounds), I believe the state should keep as much distance from religion as possible, and that includes state-funded faith schools. I would also like to disestablish the Church of England- there should be separation between church and state if Britain is a country of many faiths.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dave O'Neill on -
I agree pretty much totally.
Religion is a personal beleif, based purely on an unprovable faith.
In my view religion is essentially for consenting adults only. (In private?).
It should not be subsidised by the state.
It should especially not be subsidised to ram totally unquestioning beleif in the literal interpretation of the Bible, eg world created in 7 days and that evolution etc is rubbish, into vulnerable young minds.
That is what the Churches own "Sunday Schools" were for.
Equally, whilst I do not in any way seek to belittle those of a religious faith, I expect them to debate the issues robustly rather than use the courts to defend their beleifs, and our schools to inculcate them in others.
Dave
Blasphemy is the only victimless crime known to man. -
-
Permalink Reply by Leon Keith Greenwell on
-
I think, personally, that British education is far too tied into monasticism, yet. This has ended up with a gulf between the 'practical', uninformed by science, though it often thinks different, and the purely 'intellectual', with no practical experience for theory to be founded in
I, personally, got on much better in old-fashioned CofE schools, than I ever did in State, just the thought of which raises the Angel of Homicide
My personal loathings in education are 1) handwriting - what is the fad this week?, and 2) Pronunciation - the Pronunciation Department's fashions should be carved in machine code on Arthur's Rock, and new variations subject to a public flogging -
-
Permalink Reply by Leon Keith Greenwell on
-
To the extent we've got a 'state religion' it's certainly not the CofE, more a sort of non-conformist atheism
The kingdom is another matter, it was set up by the Church founded by Augustine of Canterbury, and based on the customs of the Franks. I'm quite happy with the 'Glorious Revolution' - no individual within it is capable of monopolising power
The state, rather, is facing the opposite situation, the career of Gordon Brown illustrates this. As Vince Cable is famous for pointing out, Stalin in No11 is miraculously transformed to Mr Bean in No10. It wouldn't surprise me if Gordon Brown regrets ever having taken the job
Michael Sefton said:I agree, some Lib Dems are accused of being illiberal if they oppose faith schools (even though many European Liberal parties support secular state education), I think parents should still have the choice of sending their children to a faith school but we should withdraw all state funding from faith schools (except the pupil premium which will be given to any school which lets in pupils from poorer backgrounds), I believe the state should keep as much distance from religion as possible, and that includes state-funded faith schools. I would also like to disestablish the Church of England- there should be separation between church and state if Britain is a country of many faiths. -
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Shore on -
Michael Sefton said:we should withdraw all state funding from faith schools (except the pupil premium which will be given to any school which lets in pupils from poorer backgrounds),
Technically what you're asking for is for Churches to withdraw funding from state schools. I know it sounds picky but the view that the state subsidises faith-based education is historically inaccurate. The education system in this country was fully-funded by churches until 1871 (or something). After this the state 'plugged the gaps' in church education provision. The 1944 Education Act effectively allowed the state to take over the running of church schools. "Faith schools" are in fact Churches and institutions of other religions contributing to the building of new state schools in return for some influence in the schools government. The notion that the state is somehow funding the church is a myth. If you got what you're asking for the state would have to cough up to the church.
Just wanted to clear that up!
I work in a private Christian school. I would be happy for the church and state to go their separate ways if we're not wanted. No-one likes to outstay their welcome. What I dislike is the current lobby punching far above their weight. I'd like to see an honest survey of parents of children in these schools and the matter settled through public debate, rather than partisan behind the scenes lobbying of parliament (I know Christians are guilty of this as well). If parents are happy with the status quo then as taxpayers and voters they should keep it, and we as liberals should let them. -
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Stallebrass on -
The 'choice' element is really a fantasy, a false perception. In my experience I have found that there is rarely choice. Likewise, if there is choice then the competition should drive up standards and this has not been the case. Indeed this was recently demonstrated in a study by the London School of Economics. Parents are not the owners of their child, they are simply their guardians. However it is rationalised, however way it is cut it is the indoctrination of the parents faith into their child. I am naturally against such practice but there is only so far we can currently go and if parents wish to inculcate their children with their comfort blanket fantasy then it should be done at home or in their particular place of worship. It should not be done in schools and certainly not at tax payers expense.
The poor backgrounds justification too is not accurate many of these faith schools do not take in children from poorer backgrounds. This too has been found to be the case by looking at the number of free school meals offered to children, from these poorer backgrounds, in faith schools. Furthermore, many faith schools claim or are expected to take a percentage, usually 10%, of pupils from other faiths but this is only implemented if sufficient places are available. Faith schools are incredibly oversubscribed, which means they very rarely if ever take in children from other faiths. Again this is supported by evidence. Pick a faith school, at random in your area and check out there admissions criteria. I did this only yesterday and I found that after children with special educational needs the child's particular denomination was always of the highest priority.
Now that we have a coalition government with the Tory party it is only a matter of time before more faith schools are introduced or the scope of existing faith schools dramatically expanded. Just have a look at the Tory agreement to see for yourself how this will open the way for what I have suggested. The time has come for another major push to end state funded faith schools in this country. I am going to do what I can locally by submitting a motion to oppose any further expansion of the faith schools sector in my city. I hope other Lib Dem parties around the country will do the same. I also hope that the HSLD will play a much larger role in trying to get this on the Party's national agenda. It should try to run a 'coalition of the willing' of its own by working closely with other organisations such as the National Union of Teachers which ran a campaign back in 2006.
We need to work together!
Michael Sefton said:I agree, some Lib Dems are accused of being illiberal if they oppose faith schools (even though many European Liberal parties support secular state education), I think parents should still have the choice of sending their children to a faith school but we should withdraw all state funding from faith schools (except the pupil premium which will be given to any school which lets in pupils from poorer backgrounds), I believe the state should keep as much distance from religion as possible, and that includes state-funded faith schools. I would also like to disestablish the Church of England- there should be separation between church and state if Britain is a country of many faiths. -
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Luton on -
That pretty well nails the argument. The politics is, of course, a different matter entirely. MPs will be concerned about faith groups voting en bloc.
-
© 2012 Published and promoted by and on behalf of the Liberal Democrat
Powered by
