I went to CofE schools when I was younger as did a lot of my friends. We were required to sing hymns and go to Church. None of us grew up to become religious bigots. Unless faith schools are actively promoting hatred of other religions I don’t see how they are a problem. I suspect that many children who are intolerant of other religious beliefs have got such ideas from home rather than school.

And, yet again, no representation for the vast majority of people in this country who actually don’t give a stuff about religion and would rather it left them alone…

> The press conference will be held at 9am at the Institute of Education

i.e. when those of us who would fancy attending, but have kids of 4+, are on the school run. Thanks.

Quite true Jennie. This Govt’s policy of promoting new faith schools is wrong. It enforces the segregation already apparent in London and other cities. It’s a policy dreamed up by that religious nutter, Tony Bliar. Separating children at an early age by faith encourages segregation. Making them visit other religious schools once a year is a waste of time; the damage is already done. School should allow children to foster an independence, not enforce the religious indoctrination practised by some parents.

Of course, faith schools – Christian and a few Jewish – have historically played an important part in education, particularly providing schools for the poor. Its an important part of our historical and cultural identity, so it would be wrong to make them secular. However, they should be religious in virtually name only and be not allowed to discriminate against pupils on religious grounds, as they do now. All new schools should be strictly secular.

In my part of London, faith schools are being used by the middle-classes (mostly left-wing) to effectively segregate their children from the lower classes and recent immigrants. As a result, the community schools are awful. The very same people who attacked segregation by ability now practise segregation by wealth and religion. We are soon to get new State Jewish and Hindu schools, which unlike the more open Church of England schools, will be 100% mono-religious. The situation will only get worse. America here we come.

#4
> In my part of London, faith schools are being used by the middle-classes (mostly left-wing) to effectively segregate their children from the lower classes and recent immigrants

Really? Where are the right-wing members of the middle classes down your way sending their kids to school then? Eton?

They play the same game or send their kids to private schools. The generally secular white working classes have mostly left for the home counties or further afield. Depends what you call “right-wing”. Friends, that are 2nd generation, non religious immigrants from East Asia, work long hours to pay for their private school fees, rather than send their kids to the local multi-cultural failing school. They also read the Daily Mail.

The local socialists, however, support and propagate multi-culturalism, mass immigration and comprehensive education. They just choose to opt out. Worth highlighting, don’t you think?

> Worth highlighting, don’t you think?

Well, if it was anything more than biased anecdotal gibberish, I’d tend to agree. Round where I live it would appear that all the “local socialists” who “support and propagate multi-culturalism, mass immigration and comprehensive education” send their kids to the community school, along with mine. Worth highlighting, don’t you think?

Really? I’ll have to take your word for it, but East London socialist MPs Diane Abbott and John Cruddas come to mind as the total hypocrites I refer to. And don’t start me on Billy ‘multi-culturalism is great, but I prefer it in Dorset’ Bragg.

What’s your view on faith schools?

Here in Yeovil, the middle class parents move house (if they can afford to) to get into the catchment area for the best primary schools. It doesn’t really bother them whether they are church schools or not.

Most church schools don’t segregate people by faith – in our local CofE one it’s not in the admission criteria at all, and that seems to be the norm nationally. We can deal with the few who practice selection by religion without scrapping the lot.

I have no problem with people sending their children to “faith” schools. I just object to paying for it through my taxes. If you had such a thing as faith, and thought it was good for your children to be educated in it, wouldn’t you be prepared to pay more for it, rather than expect the government to subsidise your peculiar idiosyncrasies?

“I have no problem with people sending their children to “faith” schools. I just object to paying for it through my taxes.”

People whose children attend such schools also pay taxes. Indeed, if I may be so bold as to be Devil’s advocate, I suspect that being disproportionately middle class the parents more than pay for such schools via taxation.

Richard, I hardly think you are playing Devil’s Advocate, more like the Advocate of the Pious. My argument is not about the level of taxation, it is about using tax payers’ money to fund the spread of irrational beliefs. If we go down that line, we may as well set up schools of Voodoo. Schools are there to educate children, not to pander to religious sensibilities.

CofE schools have never done much “indoctrination” – or if they tried it didn’t work with me when I attended one for 5 years.

I do not support any additional faith schools, but it would be bizarre to close those existing schools which are doing a good job, subject as always to rigorous inspection.

i think this is actually quite an important issue, but should be considered alongside the creation of academies.
I haven’t looked at current research in a very long time, but when I last looked at it (and things might very well have changed), there were concerns that segration by faith also leds to segregation by class (measured by numbers receiving free school meals) due to middle class parents being willing /able to jump through the hoops to get the vicar or priest or other cleric to write ‘the letter’ needed and through selection procedures (recent resarch found a disproportinate number of faith schools at fault in using interviews that seemed to result in bias on class), by ethnicity (complicated in relation to different faiths – but often found to be signiicant in urban areas).

Beyond that there are the ‘invisible’ issues of extensive teaching of creationism/intelligent design and ‘unequal’ attitudes- especially re gender roles. Re the former, if you follow reports in newspapers such as the Guardian or academic reports, this is a growing problem, with growing numbers of ‘science’ students in sixth forms and applicants to university bound to creationist approaches. I don’t know how this is being promoted in detail, but it bears further investigation discussion. In the States you have massive well-funded industries (including radio, tv and publishing) and political movements dedicated to promotion of these views (and very active opposition), but the extent of adherence to these views in the UK -often estimated to be a third – suggests we need to look at this in more detail.

Finally, I think anecdotal evidence is obviously not very useful, but given the unsystematic way schools have been built, grown, etc, there are very different patterns in different local areas, It would be good to have a proper mapping exercise. Faith and ethnicity have complicated overlaps and residential segregation links to school catchment areas in terms of class and ethnicity as well .

But to add to anecdotes, when I lived in Hounslow borough ten years ago, you could see very starkly the pattern of ethnic segration around faith-based schools. Literally across the street or within a few blocks from one another(eg in Heston, Hounslow Central and Isleworth)
you could observe faith=based and county primary schools — the former overwhelmingly white, the latter overwhelming with children of South Asian origin. Hounslow has changed quite radically in terms of its demographics, so I don’t know what pattern now prevails.

Where I live now, there is no non C of E junior school within immediate waling distance: parents who wish their children to go to a non-faith school must travel to do so. In a wider almost walkable setting (across borough boundaries), there is one Catholic, three C of E and one country primary school. Little choice there unless you want a Christian school.

Its easy to dismiss anecdotal evidence, but for many people it’s the situation in their local area that most concerns them. Education policy is determined by a mostly middle-class metropolitan elite. Their circumstances and experience is very different from those that struggle with poor education choices. In London, this ‘elite’ are mobile and wealthy enough to move to ensure the best education for their children. The less fortunate are unable to do this.

I have to echo what chavscum says. The more wealthy are able to, if it pleases them, move to an area that has the best schools for their needs, to do socially what is required to get their kids in to that school…those less well off are pretty much stuck with what they’ve got, so if there is the problem in the local area that choice is not an option then it is ultimately the poorer of our society that are stuck in a “like it or lump it” situation.

“I have no problem with people sending their children to “faith” schools. I just object to paying for it through my taxes. If you had such a thing as faith, and thought it was good for your children to be educated in it, wouldn’t you be prepared to pay more for it, rather than expect the government to subsidise your peculiar idiosyncrasies?”

Yup Martin, I agree.

The religious fundies can pay for their own indoctrination. I mean, should the state build Churches and mosques?

“The religious fundies can pay for their own indoctrination. I mean, should the state build Churches and mosques?”

Do you therefore accept that the fundies should have a tax rebate so that they can pay to send their children to religious schools? after all, why should they be forced to fund secular schools they don’t approve of?

Personally I have nothing against faith schools or secular schools. I think the hostility to faith schools from the Left emanates from an ideological anti-religious mindset. The fact that most faith schools are harmless doesn’t seem to occur to them. I don’t doubt there may be a minority of faith schools which teach religious hatred but that’s hardly a reason to shut down the majority.

I can only speak from my own experience but I am aware of nobody who went to my CofE schools who turned into a religious fanatic. Does anybody know of examples where CofE or Catholic schools in England & Wales have actually led to community divisions? I don’t know enough about Scotland to comment and Northern Ireland is a special case using religion to mask tribalism.

“Do you therefore accept that the fundies should have a tax rebate so that they can pay to send their children to religious schools? after all, why should they be forced to fund secular schools they don’t approve of?”

Can I have a tax rebate rather than paying subsidy for the Duke of Westminster and Prince Charles to run their farming interest? The old tax rebate argument does not fly I am afraid.

“Can faith schools add to community cohesion?”
No, of course they can’t. Don’t be silly.

An example:
Anti-gay bullying is rife in UK schools and it is much, much worse in religious schools. I don’t have the stats here, but check out Stonewall’s recent research on their website for more info. Having been working recently on an education project in partnership with Stonewall, addressed this type of bullying directly, I know from experience that there is a profound unwillingness to acknowledge within religious schools. It seems to me that the government is dishing out lazily conceived communalist policies on the one hand (‘here’s some hate speech legislation to keep the gays happy’) and then propagating that very hatred on the other hand, via this state endorsement of religious ‘morality’ through religious schools.

(Let’s stop calling them ‘faith’ schools – it’s a slippery bit of marketing speak. They’re religious schools. The use of ‘faith’ as a substitute for ‘religion’ is an attempt to make anti-religious views seem ungenerous, inhumane. If you’re against the cuddly concept of ‘faith’ you’re basically no better than someone who kicks puppies…)

“Do you therefore accept that the fundies should have a tax rebate so that they can pay to send their children to religious schools? after all, why should they be forced to fund secular schools they don’t approve of?”

It’s a good point, well put. Ultimately the nation is built on the idea of state funded (through taxation) basic entitlement, be it the NHS or schooling. Like with private medical care I personally believe that having “specialised” schools, faith based or otherwise, should be funded by those that use them. Unfortunately we have also gone down the route with this government and previous Labour governments where schools are actively encouraged to specialise.

Now, I can definitely see the argument you present, as I see and disagree with the argument about private healthcare and rebates on that, but there is an interesting sub point. If I want my child to be…arty, but the only secondary school around specialises in science…is that much better than being forced to go to a faith based school that acts responsibly (Let’s not forget that faith based schools don’t necessarily mean indoctrination, anecdotally I can speak of a few from where I grew up)?

Surely if we’re arguing about tax not being spent on faith schools, we should be agreeing that schools that are tax funded should be absolutely secular with adequate provisions for those to practice faith if they wish, and also to be non-specialised?

“If you’re against the cuddly concept of ‘faith’ you’re basically no better than someone who kicks puppies…”

Hmm…I don’t think the difference between anti-faith and heathen athiests matters much to those that actually think that way. Let’s not get into another fight over semantics 🙂

Freedom of conscience and religion, including the right to express and manifest this through teaching, is a basic human right enshrined in the Human Rights Act. This is only subject to limitation where necessary to protect public safety, public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. So unless there is clear evidence of indoctrination or the creation of segretation in society (a difficult one to prove admittedly) the human right should be protected. Penalising people through the tax system for sending their children to faith schools would be incompatible with this. As Sally points to, there are a lot of things that our taxes go towards that don’t benefit us directly. And the catholic schools I attended received additional funding from the local diocese to cover additional costs associated with being a faith school, for example in providing us with transport to attend the only catholic shool in the county.

Aethiests don’t have the same protection under human rights legislation. The law sees a distinction, maybe a subtle one, between the anti and the pro. If the day comes that atheists win their argument on this distinction, and there can be aetheist faith schools too… what would they teach? My experience of RC schools was that we had the opportunity (a choice) to nurture that particular religion but were also given a very balanced education in other religions, as well as general ethics, respect and tolerance.

“Schools are there to educate children, not to pander to religious sensibilities”
But some people see educating in their religion as an important part of educating their children. You might not agree with it but it’s just prejudice not to accept that different people might have a different view on it and to suggest that their views are irrational or comparable to vodoo.

Personally I wouldn’t go out of my way to send my children to a religious school but I don’t think I would particularly object to it either, if I considered that it was a responsible one. I attended RC schools and was taught by some nuns and other members of the religious orders and I didn’t see anything to concern me in this respect. I have seen evidence of wealthier people playing the system to send their children to what was considered to be a better school but at the same time the school contained an increasingly (in my experience) reasonable balance in terms of class and social/cultural background. And religion too, because this is just a factor in entry requirements. My experience is limited in itself, though, and I would be interested to read the findings of the report.

To clarify, the HRA’s definition of freedom of religion and belief extends to non-religious beliefs and atheism but I think the subtle distinction in this instance would be that in the case of strong atheism (the kind that argues that is anti religion in the sense that it is argued that religion is wrong and belief in gods misguided) it would be easier to bring an argument that putting these thoughts into action (e.g. through ‘faith’ schools) is contrary to the rights and freedoms of others. (Not so for weak atheism or agnosticism of course, but non-religious schools already exist). This would obviously also follow to a religious belief that promoted the idea that all other religious (or indeed lack of or atheist) beliefs were wrong or misguided and schools affiliated to such a religion should not be afforded protection for the same reason. If research shows that there is a danger that faith schools have more of a tedency to have such a negative impact on public safety, public order, health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others than not then there is a good human rights argument for scrapping them completely, given that it would be difficult to regulate on a school-by-school basis.

Sally, can’t agree that this is just about “fundies”. I don’t often think it’s right or helpful to use labels which people don’t apply to themselves, but this aside, I actually mean any religious belief, mainstream or extreme.

I believe it’s perfectly right that kids are given a general education about religion. It was called RE in my days at school. It is an important part of many peoples lives, and has great cultural and social significance, I just don’t believe it is the role of the state to promote it.

There is almost a role for the Church of England to claim established church status and demand a CofE type content to be included in school’ curricula. But they lose that argument as soon as they want non-denominational or multi-religious “faith” to be taught. Its sheer and utter nonsense, especially from a theological point of view, and that is really saying something because most of theology is in itself pure nonsense.

Bishops out of the House of Lords; Vicars, Imams, Rabbis etc out of state-funded schools and I’ll be a happy man.

School assemblies should focus on the works of great philosophers – there’s some super brain food our kids could really do with, not the pap served up by the sky-fairy brigade!

Good points on the specialisation of schools. Personally, I want my children to have a rounded education and I value a knowledge of science and languages. I wouldn’t be happy with an Arts based curriculum. I wonder how much emphasis is on the specialism, as most of Labour’s policies are image first, content second.

On the anti-gay allegation. What faith schools do you mean? I assume you mean Catholic or Muslim schools, as the Church of England is quite progressive in this field. Indeed, the C of E’s liberal approach to religion has probably been its downfall. Tradition is not enough to sustain religion in our modern society, indoctrination is essential. What evidence do you have to support that allegation? Is it just a presumption based on the lack of tolerance of homosexuality shown by some religions? I would suggest that the use of the term “gay” as an insult amongst children is much more prevalent in inner city schools rather than simply faith schools.

Justathought. Why do people, like myself, who don’t follow or believe in a religion, have to labelled as an atheist, weak atheist or agnostic? People who attach themselves to an ‘ism are the same; anyone who opposes a socialist view has to be a Tory. There are some people who are anti-religion and need something to follow, but they tend to be fairly extreme and like simple answers (Sally?).

Would you now send your children on a long journey to the only Catholic school in the area, when there are several equally good or better schools in the area? When I was younger most of the local kids went to the nearest community school, a small number went to a Catholic school some distance away. They never mixed with us. You form friends with those you travel and study with. This is ok for the middle-class, where new networks are formed at university, but at a lower social level it adds to segregation. The influx of new religions and cultures following mass immigration policies has made things worse. Maybe not if you live in Dorset, but certainly in our cities. Some of the newcomers will and have demanded their own faith schools. The white left-leaning middle-class that control policy making will allow this, due to their inherent middle-class weakness of not wanting to offend anyone and the socialist rhetoric of equality. They will ignore the consequences, which will be complete segregation.

“Do you therefore accept that the fundies should have a tax rebate so that they can pay to send their children to religious schools? after all, why should they be forced to fund secular schools they don’t approve of?”

Of course they shouldn’t. Because at some point they will require the services of a professional trained in a state school at the expense of the taxpayer. As was so rightly pointed out by the teacher in Roald Dahl’s Matilda.

Re Chavscum:
“On the anti-gay allegation. What faith schools do you mean? I assume you mean Catholic or Muslim schools, as the Church of England is quite progressive in this field.”

Yes, you’re right. Catholic schools are particularly unwilling to engage with equality issues in terms of sexuality. C of E schools, as you say, tend towards being more progressive – though there is, of course, variation.

“I would suggest that the use of the term “gay” as an insult amongst children is much more prevalent in inner city schools rather than simply faith schools.”

The anecdotal evidence I’ve seen suggests that there is more of a problem in inner city schools than rural schools, but Stonewall’s rigorous research (published in EDUCATION FOR ALL) shows that there is a pronounced difference between religious schools and non-religious schools (all denominations included). Anti-gay bullying is both more common, reporting it is less likely, and anti-gay comments and teaching by staff is much more frequent.

Having myself discussed these issues directly with teachers and head teachers at a total of about 60 schools in London and Greater Manchester, in connection with an education and theatre project I was managing, I have no trouble believing the Stonewall data.

Of the 10,000 or so 11 to 14 year olds whose schools booked the theatre and education project I was working on, not a single one was a Catholic school. A common refrain was ‘we don’t have sort of problem here’. The published research suggests differently.

Martin
>I have no problem with people sending their children to “faith” schools. I just object to paying for it through my taxes.

If you are claiming a right not to pay for “faith” schools with “your” taxes – and thereby insisting that your taxes are dedicated to “non-faith” schools (not worth an argument about definition here), then presumably you acknowledge the right of parents who do want to pay for “faith” schools out of *their* taxes to insist on doing so, following the standard that you want for yourself?

That would end up with a system proportionally reflecting the affiliations of the population, subject to whatever national criteria are deemed appropriate – and faith schools being funded 100% by the state, just like non-faith schools, to reflect the will of the population.

Is that the setup you are after?

Jonathon
>The anecdotal evidence I’ve seen suggests that there is more of a problem in inner city schools than rural schools, but Stonewall’s rigorous research (published in EDUCATION FOR ALL) shows that there is a pronounced difference between religious schools and non-religious schools (all denominations included). Anti-gay bullying is both more common, reporting it is less likely, and anti-gay comments and teaching by staff is much more frequent.

Aha. The famous Stonewall Report and homophobic bullying in faith schools. I first picked up that stated factoid from Johann Hari in the Indy, and it was trailed quite heavily in the introduction to the report etc.

First of all I assume you mean this document “The School Report” which is part of “Education for All”.

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/school_report.pdf

If you check the footnote on page 3 you will see that the sample of people who attended faith schools was exactly 110 pupils.

What is the confidence interval on that size of sample? Can anyone help.

I cannot find anything in the report about confidence intervals and do not recall anything about the processes used to guarantee an unbiased sample, so at present I view that as anecdotal not rigorous – and totally inadequate as a basis for policy proposals affecting hundreds of thousands of pupils.

There is some good stuff in the report, but – unless I have something wrong and I’m open to correction on this – this finding is not rigorous.

Rgds

Chavscum, I agree – I was just telling it how it is. These labels are used widely, and have legal legs too. They aren’t very helpful, which is why they get broken down into further categories which still don’t sum people up. My point was only that some people want to put themselves in a religious category or box – they see a value in the community, identity etc that this gives them. Personally I don’t see it – I don’t want any of the labels either. But just because I don’t see it doesn’t make it wrong so I wouldn’t oppose it unless I saw evidence of harm – on that point I’m undecided because it’s complicated. I wouldn’t ever call myself aetheist. I don’t seem to qualify to call myself religious if I can’t say which one I am, and I won’t qualify for any of the legal protection that goes with that. But I wouldn’t call myself agnostic either because I’m not undecided. I’ve decided that I think there is a spiritual side to life and I’m happy to leave it at that. I’ll explore it and read about philosophy (some of which is founded in one religion or another) but I don’t feel the need to affiliate myself to any particular religion. The fact that I feel this way, despite a strong religious upbringing backed up by a faith school education explains why I didn’t have enough concern in this respect that I would argue to have them scrapped (when this would be in direct conflict with the strong beliefs of others that they should be retained) or that I would go out of my way to avoid sending my children to one. But in answer to your question – no, as I said, I absolutely wouldn’t go out of my way to send them to one either. I’d just be looking for a good school (and if other aspects of some catholic schools e.g. sex education haven’t moved on since my school days they might concern me in this respect, quite aside from whether or not they are socially divisive).

But I accept that other people have different experiences and that there might be evidence that in on the whole they create segregation. Having now seen the report’s conclusions, it has indicated that what I saw of the rich playing the system on a small and not overly concerning scale is in fact a large social problem. My experience was of a city school that included a wider variety of backgrounds than most localised schools (drawing only from that area, be it rich or poor), had quite a high proportion of immigrants and, due to fairly liberal entry requirements (the importance of which the report has pointed out), the chance to mix with people of different religions. Probably not enough though, you’re right. Though having a majority of school friends whose parents happened to be catholic didn’t mean I was just mixing with catholics. And even if they were catholics that may be only a small part of who they are as people. But if I hadn’t mixed with people extra-curricularly and then later at college and university maybe I would have missed out on something.

Matt asks if his poor parody of my position is what I want. It isn’t.

Schools should be there to teach children how to think. Dogma is anathema to thinking. Someone else tells you how to think in a religion. It’s not part of the school’s role to promote any dogmatic belief system, religious, political, social. For historical reasons the church in the UK has had a role in providing education, but I firmly believe the state should be secular.

Anyone of any faith could be educated under such a system, and my taxes would not be spent on promoting someone else’s dogmatic religion. If this didn’t suit some religious persuasions, then they would have to opt out, and provide their own education for their children.

Martin: “Someone else tells you how to think in a religion” – simply not true, whether you go right back to Jesus who used stories repeatedly to try to get people thinking, or the many religious thinkers who try to apply the principles of their faith to practical problems. Religions are not pure dogmatism, and trying to caricature them that way isn’t helpful.

As it is, with one or two exceptions taxes are not spent ‘promoting someone else’s dogmatic religion’. And I’m not convinced either Ofsted or the government are 100% committed to the idea that schools should be ‘teaching children how to think’ anway – the system seems much more geared to producing useful economic units than rounded human beings.

David, I don’t necessarily disagree with you about the teaching’s of Jesus Christ, but what came after was and is organised religion, which is where I do disagree. I used the noun dogma, and the adjective dogmatic, but not the noun dogmatism which seems to be almost entirely pejorative.

Dogma in itself is not pejorative, but it has no place in a state school system because it presupposes that the church, say, is an authoritative voice in matters of the truth or morality. The very first line of my King James version bible says “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” You hardly need bother with teaching science or history if you believe that nonsense.

I have no idea what a “rounded human being” is, save they may have eaten too many pies, so I’ll not comment on this point.

Martin: belief in a creator God didn’t stop people like Newton and Bacon exploring the how and what of creation. I agree that the wrong sort of religious dogma can inhibit science and independent thinking, but there are plenty of scientists with strong religious convictions who’d say that their work and their beliefs complement each other.

And as an Anglican I don’t actually belong to an organised religion….