Faith Schools

[Quillan]

There was an item followed by a brief discussion about faith schools on this mornings BBC Breakfast show (31/08/08) which I found rather alarming.

Basically as of Monday 1st Sept faith schools will be able to employ staff and select pupils based on their faith as against just academic qualifications and ability to teach. By this I mean a Jewish school can legally employ only Jewish teachers and staff excluding all other teachers not of their faith and advertise as such, the same goes for C of E, Catholic, Muslim etc, etc. The same goes for the pupils, they can be selected purely on faith, two children, same academic standard but the one who matches the faith of the school gets the place. There is an article about it HERE .

I personally found this very worrying as I believe it to be discriminatory against those of an alternative faith and in turn teaches children to be discriminatory as well. I mean, is it important what religion a teacher is let alone the school cleaner or caretaker is for example. Surely what parents want is good teaching regardless of the religion, ethnic background or sex of the teachers.

Perhaps the easiest route to go is the way France has gone and ban religious schools. Perhaps we should be doing more to teach religious tolerance to children rather than segregate them in to religious groups? How can a child of 6 or 7 make a decision on their religion, it's the pushy parent syndrome surely, I am C of E therefore my son/daughter WILL be as well?

I don't think the UK government has really thought this through and in particular what the implication may be in later years.

I also feel that it legitimises people who for example want to say I am white I will only employ white people or we are all women here so we will only employ women they would be hauled of to court and probably prison as well; I see no difference between this and faith schools. Is it not time we put religious bigotry behind us and moved on?

[Callie]

Interesting subject, Quillan.   I remember that we had Jewish, Moslem, Buddist, RC and Protestant girls at school.  They didn't have to attend morning and evening prayers or go to church.  To be honest, I don't think any of us gave any thought to their religion and I have no idea whether they had private religious instruction either.  What they felt about their religions, again, I don't know, but for the rest of us, what a person's religion was seemed to be totally unimportant.  It was the person that mattered.  We didn't discuss other religions (a pity, because it is interesting) and we obviously didn't feel that any of us were any different from anyone else !   By the way, this was in the swinging, tolerant, peace man 60s !

[Quarmby]

I'm not sure there's anything new here - faith schools have always been able to discriminate on religious grounds. One of their advantages is that they can get rid of disruptive pupils far more easily than maintained schools, which is why many irreligious parents choose them. Far more worrying are these faith academies, where any fruitcake with his own ideas on evolution etc can put down 2 million quid and own a school. They were the idea of Tony Blair, the well-known Christian and warmonger.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Quarmby"]I'm not sure there's anything new here - faith schools have always been able to discriminate on religious grounds. One of their advantages is that they can get rid of disruptive pupils far more easily than maintained schools, which is why many irreligious parents choose them. Far more worrying are these faith academies, where any fruitcake with his own ideas on evolution etc can put down 2 million quid and own a school. They were the idea of Tony Blair, the well-known Christian and warmonger.[/quote]

Yes but the schools I am talking about are also state funded.

[Frederick]

Qullan .........Faith  schools are too popular to ban  ......lots of people have moved house just to get their kids into one .......suicide for any governement  to go down that road ....and the lot in now will need every vote they can grab at the next election ...wont happen

[tegwini]

Quillan

Basically I agree with you.   Thinking of, for example  Belfast,   it's easy to see how the people were  so divided. Perhaps they still are?

But, in the case of most state Cof E and RC schools they get some funding from their church parent bodies. I don't know if Muslim schools do, but I expect the Jewish ones do - and the latter has very few state funded schools.

Some C of E primary schools occupy buildings and  land belonging to the C of E, which also funds building and extensions and other costs too. 

It's quite possible to work in a school if you are not a member of that faith.   I have done just that, as it is not always possible for schools to find the right teacher within their particular faith, and in some areas and schools this may prove impossible.  

Independent schools are not part of this as they rarely receive any state funding.

But,  faith schools do get better results, and are often considered to be better schools because of this.    Clearly, there are many advantages in the French system - or most other countries in the west which have a secular education system,  and  often have higher standards than the UK.

Tegwini

[Quillan]

[quote user="tegwini"]

It's quite possible to work in a school if you are not a member of that faith.   I have done just that, as it is not always possible for schools to find the right teacher within their particular faith, and in some areas and schools this may prove impossible.  

But,  faith schools do get better results, and are often considered to be better schools because of this.    Clearly, there are many advantages in the French system - or most other countries in the west which have a secular education system,  and  often have higher standards than the UK.

Tegwini

[/quote]

The 'message' put over today was that some faith schools were rubbing their hands because they no longer were obliged to employ staff on their ability. Now they can ensure that all the staff are of the particular faith, in fact governors can insist upon it. The argument put forward, by a governor of a C of E school was this would deprive children from (possibly) getting the best teacher for the job.

I also was under the impression that faith schools did a better job but apparently this is not always the case. This was explained by the C of E governor who said basically that if his board decided to only take C of E teachers the kids could end up being even worse off than they already were and that faith schools in general did better was a myth. Personally I have not had time to go digging around on the Internet to get statistics and find out if this is correct so I can only go on what he said.

 

[The Riff-Raff Element]

This is pretty much a non-story I reckon. Faith schools -state funded or otherwise -  have long been compelled only to take pupils not of that faith if they are unable to fill all the places from their own catchment area.

Which, normally, they are able to do since parents will move mountains to get children into a good school and faith schools have, generally, very good results and discipline. They'll even go to church, if that's what it takes. I suspect that the governor quoted was just trying to play things down to avoid trouble.

As for the staff...jobs are seldom given based solely on ability in any line. Employers  still consider the personality of applicants: acres of qualification does not overcome a complete inability to deal with the public, for example. For a faith school I suppose this means that an attractive personality includes, well, faith.

[odile]

I am also concerned Quillan. the topic of faith schools (and private) has fascinated me ever since I came to live in the UK from Switzerland 37 years ago! When our daughters went to primary school, I believed they were just going to the local village school - but soon found out that the vicar came to endoctrinate them on a regular basis - and he (very elderly) + the church members, were making major decisions on the childrens' education on a regular basis. I was really shocked. I then discovered that many of our friends acquaintances were starting to go to church regularly, and all had the children baptised, although they were clear agnostics or atheist. I feel it is utterly wrong to NOT have the choice of sending your children to a secular school - I would have had to take the children miles away to the City centre to do that - and aleniate my children from their environment and friends. I really felt it was wrong, however good the school/teachers were. I realised then that if CofE and Catholics in the area could have their own schools and select, then migrant groups would request the same- thus fragmenting society more and more, and alienating ethnic/religious groups further. I really feel this is absolutely tragic - and there are now fundamentalist Christian anti--Darwinian schools opening too-  Desperately sad and worrying. Doing what is 'better' for your child in the short term is normal of course - but if the result is a fragmented society where our children will have to live behind electric fences for protection - and without knowing about each other-is not progress in my view.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I suppose

that atheists could start their own faith schools. I know that they might not

regard their beliefs as faith but rather as the "truth," but that's

normal for fundamentalists.

They could all be named after famous atheist theologians such as Richard Dawkins.

Or the Rt. Reverend Dr Jenkins, bishop of Durham.

[Will]

It's a typical bit of Daily Mail-ese stirring, and, as rightly pointed out, a bit of a non-story, typical of so-called 'news' in August. In any school, or any employment, there is far more than just a candidate's 'ability' (however that might be determined) that determines whether he or she is appointed to a post.

Most schools are linked to some sort of 'faith' organisation, be it the Parish Church in an English village, the Catholic Church in a French town, or the local synagogue or mosque in many European cities. Taking part in religious education or prayers is certainly not compulsory, at least in Britain. What is often called 'indoctrination' is nothing more than basic social education in how to live together and get along with each other; the sort of teaching that can be found, for example, in the Ten Commandments of the Christian or Jewish faith or the Islamic Prohibitions. None of these are likely to tell you to treat women as second-class citizens, destroy those who belong to other faiths, disciminate against gays or any of the other reasons given by the dafter end of the liberal spectrum for avoiding so-called 'religious' teaching. It cannot be denied that once you get deeply into the study of most religious texts - for any faith - passages can be interpreted in those ways, but that takes us beyond basic education and principles into fundamentalism, which is another subject altogether.

[allanb]

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]I suppose

that atheists could start their own faith schools. I know that they might not

regard their beliefs as faith but rather as the "truth," but that's

normal for fundamentalists.[/quote]

I can't let that go unchallenged.

I think it is very unlikely that Father Christmas exists.  If someone can produce some evidence, I'll reconsider it, but until that happens, I'll live my life on the assumption that there's no such thing. 

Equally: I think it is very unlikely that God exists.  If someone can produce some evidence, I'll reconsider it, but until that happens, I'll live my life on the assumption that there's no such thing. 

This is neither faith nor fundamentalism.

Faith says "X" is absolutely true, without the need for any evidence.

Fundamentalism says that the truth is to be found in a single source (a single book, the teachings of a single teacher, some gold plates found in a cave, etc).

Neither is a good basis for educating children.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="allanb"]

Neither is a good basis for educating children.

[/quote]

You won't catch me disagreeing with that. [:D]

Some

people, not me, but other people, would say that the evidence for the existence

of God is all around us, not least in the existence of “holy” books that are

supposedly divinely inspired. Pretty shaky in my view, but then so is casting

out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural when the hypothesis

cannot be disproved.

As for

atheist fundamentalism, I think it is becoming more widespread – people like

Dawkins (for whom I used to have a lot of time until he started twittering on

about “Darwinian misfires” in an attempt to explain away things that didn’t fit

too conveniently – very dodgy approach to science, that) refusing to even enter

debate with those who don’t share his views.

And,

frankly, that is just as dangerous in my view as schools teaching creationism

as fact without entertaining other views. Both need to be presented. It’s all

about balance. That  doesn't to my mind preclude the  practice of faith-based education. But if they're taking state funding there must be balance.

[odile]

Will -  5 year old returns from local village school in tears, asking if she has been babtized. We reply quietly that she hasn't and why. |She explains vicar came to school and talked about baptism- and wouldn;t believe that she hasn't been. told her her parents couldn;t possibly not have done it, as it would mean she wouldn;t be able to go to heaven if she died. Nightmares for a long time! Two Hindu girls in her class at next school, vicar came on Diwali day totell children that they shouldn;t beleive in other gods, and that worshipping light, etc, is very bad and that they woudn't gain access to the Kingdom of God. Girls go home in tears, Diwali celebrations ruined, nightmares for months. the list goes on - how can this not be endoctrination or even worse.

AlanB couldn;t have put it myself better. In my view, holding on to traditional faith schools means that it will be impossible not to allow other faiths to do the same, including creationists- The most tragic thing about his may not be then endoctrination- as I agree there are varying degrees of this- but the framentation of society and the formation of closed groups with little access or knowledge of others. Very sad and possibly very dangerous.

[Scooby]

IMHO religion has absolutely no place in schools.  It is divisive.  If parents want to bring their child up with a particular set of beliefs then they should be taught in the home / their chosen place of worship.  We deliberately chose not to have our children baptised because, for us, it meant imposing our choice on our children.  In our view, the choice is theirs to make when they are old enough to understand and make that choice of their own free will.

[Quillan]

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]

I suppose that atheists could start their own faith schools. I know that they might not regard their beliefs as faith but rather as the "truth," but that's normal for fundamentalists.

They could all be named after famous atheist theologians such as Richard Dawkins. Or the Rt. Reverend Dr Jenkins, bishop of Durham.

[/quote]

They have, they are called comprehensives [6] .

[Quarmby]

Good article by Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/02/education.labour

[allanb]

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]...as for

"atheist fundamentalism"...[/quote]

I'm glad we have a measure of agreement on the basis of education, but I can't let you get away with that phrase.  Either you don't understand atheism, or you don't understand fundamentalism.

Atheists may have various reasons for being atheists, but there is no "fundamental" source that they claim.  No holy book, no inspired prophet, no infallible representative of a deity, no revelation in the wilderness, no visions, no tablets of stone.

[Will]

Not a bad article from the Guardian, certainly not the stereotypical soft-leftist stuff expected. But hardly well-balanced, the author being the self-confessed president of a humanist body which, by definition, takes a contrary position to religious bodies, through the basic ethical and moral principles seem to be much the same as those preached by the major religions. Although the route taken by humanists is based on ethics rather than more dogmatic teachings, the conclusion is very much the same.

What is interesting is that there seems to be no argument about the 'faith' schools offering higher perceived educational standards than 'secular' schools. But probably if a humanist schools exists, and it probably does, it too would operate to similar standards.

Perhaps the Brighton model described by Ms Toynbee is the way forward - where places at over-subscribed schools are decided by lottery, thus apparently ensuring a fairer distribution of abilities, wealth and social background among all the city's schools. Though it seems one Catholic-run establishment has managed to stay outside the system.

[allanb]

Will: I generally respect your opinions, but I am irritated - no, infuriated - by your description of Polly Toynbee as "the self-confessed president of a humanist body".  Why "self-confessed"?   Would you talk about a "self-confessed mathematician" or a "self-confessed plumber"?

Are you implying that there's something shameful about it?   Well, yes, you are, whether you intend it or not.   Please give up the practice.  Otherwise I will start referring to you as a self-confessed forum contributor.

[Will]

[quote user="allanb"]

...Otherwise I will start referring to you as a self-confessed forum contributor.
[/quote]

Which is exactly what I am [:D]. Particularly when I ought to be doing more important and lucrative things.

Seriously, as she says in the linked article that "...a new campaign was launched to oppose segregating children by faith. The Accord coalition brings together surprisingly disparate interests, with some teaching unions, the British Humanist Association (of which I am president) and Ekklesia, the Christian theological thinktank" I thought the comment was appropriate - had I not mentioned the fact that she drew attention to the fact herself, I am sure I would have been taken to task by somebody for mentioning that she was a humanist. If there is any shame in the fact I don't think Ms Toynbee sees it, and neither do I.

She does go on to say that Ekklesia can expect some fury from Christian demoninations for being associated with this. I can only speak as a self-confessed Anglican [:P] and from that viewpoint I certainly don't agree with her. The present-day Anglican church (Ekklesia's directors are Anglicans though contributors are drawn from all denominations) is much less dogmatic and more open to free thought than even in the recent past. Although the conservative element is still strong, it seems to be stuck on opposing women and gays rather than looking at more important issues like education.

Incidentally I do like Ekklesia's description of itself as 'subversively orthodox' which definitely strikes a chord.

I also disagree with Ms Toynbee that homophobia is necessarily more of a problem in faith schools. Some faiths, certainly, are fundamentally anti-gay, but again homophobia is definitely against current Anglican philosophy. Homophobia is regrettably everywhere, in all sorts of schools. To find areas where homophobia is particularly rife, you need to look in other areas like employment, or certain sections of the police force.

[allanb]

[quote user="Will"]I thought the comment was appropriate - had I not mentioned the fact that she drew attention to the fact herself, I am sure I would have been taken to task by somebody for mentioning that she was a humanist.[/quote]

I see your point.  Sometimes you just can't win.

I'm now trying to think of a context in which I could refer to Rowan Williams as the self-confessed Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Will]

I think that describes him rather nicely. [:D]

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="allanb"][quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]...as for

"atheist fundamentalism"...[/quote]

I'm glad we have a measure of agreement on the basis of education, but I can't let you get away with that phrase.  Either you don't understand atheism, or you don't understand fundamentalism.

Atheists may have various reasons for being atheists, but there is no "fundamental" source that they claim.  No holy book, no inspired prophet, no infallible representative of a deity, no revelation in the wilderness, no visions, no tablets of stone.

[/quote]

Fundementalism has no need of holy books, nor prophets, nor tablets of stone. They are just props. All it really needs is a totalitarian streak, a lack of tolerence and an unwillingness to engage. I stand by what I said: atheist fundamentalism is alive & well and is just as pernicious as its theastic counterparts. I am sure that if you do a web search you will find the term is in current usage and is taken to mean that which I have described.

[thunderhorse]

[quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]...Some

people, not me, but other people, would say that the evidence for the existence

of God is all around us, not least in the existence of “holy” books that are

supposedly divinely inspired. Pretty shaky in my view, but then so is casting

out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural when the hypothesis

cannot be disproved.[/quote]

It's very easy to cast out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, especially when there is no testable evidence to support such a notion. The onus of proof is on those who assert that the supernatural exists.

Following your argument, should we accept the possibility of mermaids and unicorns, and teach similar idiotic ideas in schools, seeing as how the hypothesis cannot be disproved?