to believe Faith schools should be privately funded ?

[Peetle]

I should explain my interest. The nearest primary school to my house is about 250 yards away and involves crossing two not very busy roads. It is a faith school. The next nearest is about 300 yards away, across a major road and in the middle of a council estate. It's ofsted report full of phrases like "higher than average English as a second language", "higher than average free school meals", etc, etc. Other local schools are over a mile away and we're likely to be out of their catchment area.

To get into the faith school families have to attend our local place of worship regularly for two years, know the officials and prove regular financial donations to the establishment. Of course, once these families have got their first child into the school they stop attending and donating. I also know of families of different and even contradictory faiths attending purely to get their children into the school. And I frequently see people picking up their children in cars, suggesting they live considerably further from it than we do.

We have no hope of getting into this school, not being hypocrites and not wishing to give our children the idea that it's alright to be dishonest about something if you want it badly enough.

My point is that I don't mind people wanting to give their children an education in their chosen faith, but I object to my taxes funding a school I can't use and which encourages parents to profess a religious belief they don't hold purely for the purposes of entry.

kistigger, Dawkins doesn't want all religion removed from schools. He has frequently said that he feels it important that RE lessons continue as, if nothing else, a lot of world culture is based on religious belief.

But there is a big difference between an RE lesson saying "Christians believe..." and a religious assembly where the children are expected to praise god.

true enough

"Where we used to live the local school was a CofE and it's population was 90% Asian so it is not always true that faith schools are going to create divide or exclude different faiths or non-faith people"
That is just bonkers - a christian school is the only community option for a majority Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist population - were the other 10% atheist? Nice to see a school reflect the local community!

sorry I'm not sure what the other 10% were other than white!

It wasn't the only school either, there was a catholic just up the road or two non-faith schools a little further away down the road!

In fact come to think of it there was also a local muslim school too, but I have no idea whether or not they were state funded or what the rules of entry were!

"Christians believe..." a lot of very different things.

I really object to teaching RE in schools.

mathanxiety - You don't think it's helpful for children to have an understanding of the basics of the major world religions? I mean it's quite handy to know how you need to mention to that there's bacon in the spag bol.

I tell you what, though, the scientist in me is now itching to go and draw up a graph of 'church attendance' and 'age of children' for areas which have over-subscribed faith schools, versus areas that don't...

YANBU at all. But....
(1) The greatest factor influencing academic achievement is social class.
(2) The reason that any school, and faith schools in particular are more successful is that they attract a higher than average proportion of middle class children/parents.
(3) The only sensible option in my view is banding, as recently recommended by Bernados. This would mean that all schools would have to take a proportion of children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

The advantages to everyone are manifold. But a few would be:
(i) All schools share the burden of poverty/social problems.
(ii) each child would be able to access to a good quality, and broadly similar education, rather than the present, unacceptable system where some children receive a fabulous education and some an unsatisfactory eduction.
(iii) All children have daily contact with children of different backgrounds which will foster acceptance of others.
(iv) This would also deprive religious schools of their most important asset, which is NOT moral goodness or ownership of school premises, but the ability to pick the children who are already predisposed the educational achievement by virtue of their social class.

I don't agree with faith schools, or any link at all between religion and education. I would welcome the wholesale abolition of state funded religious schooling, but realistically this is not going to happen under this government, and probably not under any government.

The best and fairest way to address the problem is banding, and given the professed moral beliefs of most religions in terms of acceptance of others, charity to the disadvantaged etc, how could they possible object?

I mean Barnardos, obviously.

TheCoalition -- A basic misunderstanding of the world's religions is a much more likely result of any teaching of RE. Social studies or geography or history would be much better areas of study for the imparting of basic facts about the world's religions, imo.

There's so much more to most religions than what you can and can't eat, what are the major holidays, what are the customs. To a lot of believers, their religion is Truth. If you can't impart that in a RE class (and how can you) without insulting the beliefs of the others or making it all look like six of one and half a dozen of the other, you miss a major point about religion.

talk about throwing the baby with the bath water, don't faith schools have an envious reputation, with some high level minister wishing to bottle their ethos.
it's a bit similar to catholic adoption agencies having to close down because they won't place a child with same sex partners, despite all the good work their adoption agencies do....

OP, YA so so NBU

Like lots of posters, I also strongly disagree with religious schools.

We had a choice of 4 primary schools for ds1, and got none of them, but instead were allocated a (failing, in special measures) C of E school. I do not see how the council can make a child attend a school like that. we looked around and every class had a christian display up. yes, of course he needs to learn what good friday means, but also why sikhs wear turbans and what ramadan is.

the thing i objected to the most was being told it wasn't much religion, just teaching the children to be nice to each other and how to live in a community, as if you can't do these things if not a christian. my friend was allocated an (also failing) catholic school for her ds and is not married, would the teachers tell the boy his parents were sinners?!

we got a place at a non faith school through the waiting list and my friend moved elsewhere.

Seeker - I wouldn't be so sure that not many people want to set up their own schools. It's a new concept and one that carries much responsibility, organisation and cost. I don't think people who are thinking about doing this have anywhere near had the time to formulate their plans yet.
Schools don't teach underage sex as normative, but they accept it as such. My husband coordinates PSHE at a leading girls school (amongst teaching other subjects) and he says a lot of the materials he gets sent assume sexual activity amongst school aged children.
You can also be sceptical of RE teachers having a less than sympathetic attitude towards childrens' beliefs, (ok, you don't believe me is what you're saying, lol), but I know what I've experienced amongst colleagues and in my last school I had 2 year 9 girls come to my lesson in tears because (their words) their RE teacher had "laughed" at (something to do with - I forget what exactly) their faith. The conversation I reported actually happened. Maybe most don't ACTUALLY laugh AT the kids, but many teachers are far from the PC crowd they like to pretend they are once they get in the staffroom. Don't worry though, it's mostly the Christian views they find most ridiculous;-) They seem to have more time for other faiths. But then that's like the wider culture we live in...

I agree banding is the best way but that would mean also abolishing grammer schools and bussing kids around the area. It would would be difficult in rural areas although previous governments have tried to do this by introducing community housing into rural areas..

When that happens noone will care about faith schools which will also have to be banded too. Fully equal education for all. When that happens I will be well in my grave and my kids will be looking at the education of their grandchildren.

In the meantime, people will still chose what they feel is best for their kids or home educate. At the moment I think faith schools are getting hounded because the results are better in many areas, predominantly in more working class areas where the local school is underachieving. Perhaps the authorities should start to look at why faith schools are doing better before they are abolished.

Coalition:I agree that it's good for children to exposed to a range of views. I'm unsure how the school can "ensure" a neutral framework. Generally teachers with a faith are a lot more careful NOT to bring their personal faith into lessons for fear of being accused of trying to proselytise etc than those without a faith, who in practice are free to be more open.
That you think that evolution is a fact highlights my point exactly, but macroevolution (that humans evolved from sea creatures etc) is still a theory. A competing scientific theory is Intelligent Design and that's gaining a great deal of ground in parts of the scientific community in the States. If your teachers presented evolution to you as fact and not theory, then I would hardly call that a faith neutral position. As a UK taxpayer also I don't want my children to be sold a theory as fact either and would rather they were taught honestly about evolution, to explore the ideas it expounds but also the flaws in those ideas and other scientific theories as well, instead of the brainwashing that currently goes on.
Regarding testing of faith, that's also important. However, it must be done gently and appropriately to a pupil's age, bearing in mind that the relationship between student and teacher is not an equal one. The teacher is in a position of power and it's easy for the teacher to impose their views on a student, by disagreeing with the student on these matters in too dogmatic a way, thus somehow undermining the personal faith of the child. We train our children to have faith in their teachers, that teachers know things, that they are mostly right about things by virtue of being educated adults. But the line between facts and opinions can get blurred in a classroom, because ultimately people are complicated and even teachers are human, .

Wouldn't banding be a little hard to assess?

Oh, I do lose patience with Christians doing their "Oh we're such persecuted victims" routine. Just try being a Muslim for a while in this country and you'll find out what it's like to experience prejudice.

ID isn't even a theory. It doesn't make testable predictions. It hasn't gained any ground in the scientific community. There is no controversy.

If one assumes the existence of the supernatural then ID is plausible. But in that case so are werewolves.

Presenting evolution as fact is as faith neutral as presenting gravity as fact.

Anyway, yes, it's bound to be difficult for schools to be neutral. It's hard for them to be inclusive already, whether faith or non faith. But they should try, and they should be assessed on it.

Your points about teachers and pupils and faith and authority are well made and I don't disagree with any of it. I think it applies equally to faith and non-faith schools though, even where the teacher and the pupil share a faith, and it's really about good versus bad teachers.

fsmail - faith schools do better because they have better pupils.

LSE resarch - sorry to repeat.

Summary

Full paper

Sorry, they are bloody pdfs.

Sorry to c and p my own words of wisdom but I can't be arsed to write out again the very simple reason why faith schools get better results. Note I don;t say "are better" because I don;t necessarily agree that they are. But they do generally get better results.

"Faith schools are not "better" because they are faith schools. They are "better" because parents have to jump through a hoop to get theri child into them. This automatically excludes the children of parents who don't or can't care, or who find it so hard to understand the system that they don't consider sending their children there.

Any school that has a "hoop" to jump through, whatever it is, is likely to have better results than a school which doesn't. Requiring all parents to be able to juggle would produce the same effect. One of our local schools has significantly better results than all the others. Its hoop? It is beyond walking distance for the majority of families so you have to put your child on a bus."

Henny1995 - would it be presumptuous for me to inquire if you yourself attended a faith school?

seeker you are quite right re the 'hoops'