To ask for your opinion on faith schools?

[Syrinx89]

That's it, really. In this day and age, it seems strange to me.

The vast majority of parents are happy(ish) with the schools available to them.

Free schools do exist. The barriers are not insurmountable unless your school preference is so idiosyncratic that you can’t get other people to pool expertise with you.

^The vast majority of parents are happy(ish) with the schools available to them.

Free schools do exist. The barriers are not insurmountable unless your school preference is so idiosyncratic that you can’t get other people to pool expertise with you.

First, the barriers to opening a secular school are insurmountable - they are not permitted by law. The act of daily worship is a legal requirement.

Second ‘not insurmountable’ is both a pisspoor test of fairness of a system and demonstrably false in practical terms for the majority of individual parents: who do not have expertise in the many areas demanded by the free school application process, for which limited funding is available, and which is a years-long and arduous process. You could start the process the day your child was born and every chance the school wouldn’t open until after they were school age, even if everything ran smoothly.

And frankly, the running of schools should be done by experts, not by individuals driven to desperation by an admissions system that stacks the deck against their children.

Pretending that this creates a true, fair choice to be compared with those pontificating about ‘right to choose faith education’ where those individuals have preferential access to schools of their faith, and if they don’t fancy those equal access to other schools (ignoring that faith selection has already fucked up catchments for the non-faith schools in high demand areas) is a nonsense.

Do you have a citation for school satisfaction with the admissions system?

Individual parents create home schools all the time. If you want a bigger school, you need to create a group with a shared educational ethos and pool expertise.

No, it isn’t fair that the church has over 1,000 years experience of educating the English and a bunch of parents don’t. But that’s one of the reasons people join religions. If you’re representing a new way of life you don’t have all of that tradition behind you, but you can’t smash up what other people have simply because you don’t feel your own group is capable of running itself.

There's a lot of talk on this thread about "choice". Do those posters realise that about 25% of primary schools in England and Wales are C of E schools? In many areas that means no actual choice at all of a non-faith school. In other areas, it might mean no actual choice that doesn't involve shipping your child to a school in another village miles away.

DS goes to one of those Hobson's choice C of E schools. I like many things about it. Things I or DS don't like, we mostly find a way to navigate and I work hard to provide the wider or different perspectives at home.

But I do wish we had a system in which state-funded schools were all fully secular, and religious worship was for the family/individual, in their own time.

There also seems to me something deeply flawed about the notion of segregating children by faith or denomination for their education. That's not an obvious way to build an integrated, mutually tolerant society - better we educate all the children of the community together, surely.

That was what my original quote, Fanny.

yes I didn't think I needed to point out that philosophy was important in teaching philosophy. Point is, why should RE be obligatory if philosophy isn't.

I can't find any figures for the numbers of children who do study philosophy BTW but one 2019 initiative boasts of reaching 6000 pupils in 52 schools. Hardly comparable to the impact of religion in schools.

I wouldn't send my children to a faith school. In fact before we moved here we home educated as all the local schools were catholic and I would never send my children to one as we are scientists and athesist. I can't stand religion frankly. Luckily out local school is secular so my eldest goes there. We still home educate the rest though as they are 6 and under and too young for school imo (a whole other thread).

What’s a faith school?

Hi everyone, thanks for providing such interesting debate - it's been a good read thus far. Just to clarify that I'm not a parent (I'm a visiting teacher), so no plans on where to send my kids. I visit multiple schools and see a huge difference in the ethos of both faith and secular state schools. In my opinion, a publicly funded educational institution should NOT present a greater opportunity for one family based on their religious beliefs as opposed to another , especially in an area where the only options seem to be schools with a religious undertone. Although I'm an atheist myself, I have no disrespect for people with religious beliefs, but believe these should be practiced away from the public educational sector, and therefore schools should be secular (however, welcoming children from all backgrounds).

And you don’t think enforced secularism gives atheists special treatment?

Self-evidently not, because it doesn't mean that atheism in itself is being promoted in the same way as a particular faith is promoted in a faith school. It basically leaves children and their families free to make their own choices.

Close the lot of them. Religion should have no place in education.

Do you know the history of Catholic education?

The Catholic Church was the first provider of schools and universities in England...

That was because of the huge influence that the Catholic Church had historically, because of its wealth, and to a large extent because it was seen to be in the church's own interests. Yes, it was also beneficial, particularly in poor communities. But I don't think that gives the Catholic or any other church an indefinite free pass to accessing millions of pounds of public funds every year whilst limiting access to their schools and insisting on promotion of religious practice throughout the educational process.

@Endofthedays - there is a huge difference in teaching RE/RS as a subject and then obviously you teach the beliefs but as a matter of fact like you teach in history hat Oliver Cromwell banned Christmas and Charles I tried to rule without parliament and you can do a paper arguing if it was right or wrong.

But in my case the CoE school teaches religious beliefs as "we belief" not "Christians belief" and not only in RE but throughout all subjects. And this is utterly wrong. Yes, they do cover Judaism, Hinduism and Islam in RE but in a very small percentage compared to Christianity, they really just do the absolute minimum.

If the family is religious all education in faith should be done by the parents and within their religious community, not via a state school. All CoE churches we visitied for services as part of a baptism had a normal Sunday school and all children took part.

@Oulu but we have a Christian representative in House of Lords, the crown represents the head of the CofE and we have parishes all over the country that participate in local community initiatives. My point is that this country is Anglican in nature if not practice and these elements will need to be unpicked first and a replacement set up. Then the schools can actively socialise the children to the law and culture of the land. At the moment church schools are simply a reflection of the larger state apparatus. It is a good thing that children have this option else we would just have the public/private schools running everything.

I keep saying this but the argument is poised to attack the very mechanisms that function for ordinary families with minimal compromise. The alternative will be much worse.

We are not going to undo the nature of Christianity in this country whilst we have a monarchy and a state church (C ofE).

That doesn’t mean I ‘m a republican , btw - I am just trying to point the link that exists between the two.

Also, the free schools option was exactly what people wanted and were given. The guidelines exist so that you are not completely alone and can access practical expertise (it is public money after all). You were given an absolute gift that doesn’t exist for those who would be deemed appropriate for church schools ironically.

I think some people want to tap into what makes something a success without sharing the responsibility of what goes along with that. There is no way round that in. Church communities - you are either in or out.

Also, just for reference - my parents were part of a group that set up a primary school in London in the 70s. The local priest wanted a school for parishioners children. My dad helped with the building - most of the men gave of their time and labour free (and these would have been men who worked 6 day weeks in heavy labouring jobs with very poor conditions.

It was a happy but strict school and I think the teachers knew that if they got us to a particular standard we would be able to access some very good secondary schools. Church schools by their nature aren’t for everyone - mine was very academic in character but only the top class appeared to be taught (and they all had professional parents).

I wish people who criticise them would recognise the 2 tier system that existed in many communities in the 60s/70s/80s and that some of these initiatives were designed to equalise out the disadvantages many people experienced. Instead we are getting attacked for wanting a level playing field. We are not all the Oratory/Cardinal Newman, etc.

I am really surprised by the suggestion of RC children been seen as other. This was never my experience growing up in a regular church going (my DDad went to mass everyday if he could) Irish Catholic family. I went to RC primary and secondary schools.

I sometimes got a sense of some of the RC congregation seeing themselves as a people apart but this was limited and I am sure is found in all religions equally.

@Chaz

I agree - I think this is more invented as a way to position people as other since the gov’t interventions.

I grew up in the 70s and was very well integrated into society through friends I met in jobs. It really saddens me to see the way we have become pushed out.

I also think there needs to be greater distinction between private and state church schools in these debates. State church schools absolutely have to adhere to state guidelines on educational matters. We learn about evolution (which is a supported theory in RC) and stick rigidly to government rules.

But that’s one of the reasons people join religions.

If people truly do join religions to get a leg up in the state education sector, rather than for reasons of twitch, it’s a fairly damning indictment of both the state education sector in question and the religion.

I wish people who criticise them would recognise the 2 tier system that existed in many communities in the 60s/70s/80s and that some of these initiatives were designed to equalise out the disadvantages many people experienced. Instead we are getting attacked for wanting a level playing field. We are not all the Oratory/Cardinal Newman, etc.

Sure - but that a two tier system operated in the past and the community worked hard to iron them out is not a great reason to perpetuate a different two tier system that disadvantages many children who happen to be of different faiths or none.

Pulling up the ladder behind you isn’t a good look.

There is a choice between individuals driving small, incremental changes that :9!5 solve the structural issues of religious segregation and selection-based discrimination, or whole-system change that tackles those and delivers a more level playing field for all children.

I’m looking at this from a societal perspective, not my own children - which is just as well

The ‘open your own school’ argument is directly aimed at perpetuating inequality and segregation and increasing the barriers for those not of their faith to achieve equality in access to state services.

If to achieve equal access to state education services one family has to work for years, organise across the community, jump through bureaucratic hoops and invest significantly of their own time and resources with no guarantee of success, and another has to practise their own faith - then that is not equal access.

(Totally ignoring the fact that even if all these non-secular but not religious free schools were magically opened in places that don’t meet criteria because the children are currently hived off into CofE schools, then the CofE and Catholic churchgoers would still have equal access to those free schools. So still not a level playing field. It’s a crap argument on a number of fronts.)

Also, the free schools option was exactly what people wanted and were given.

I take massive issue with this being presented as factual - it simply isn’t true.

It’s not what the campaigners for secular education or fair admissions wanted - it was a Tory ideological position to remove local authority involvement in education, in an election where they did not achieve a majority. Support had never been high and even after implementation was pretty low - 26% in 2015 for example.

Saying it’s exactly what people wanted is like saying that no-deal Brexit was exactly what the public wanted in 2014.

The problem with faith schools, all religions teach females are less equal to males, surely in the 21st century this shouldn’t be taught to children anymore, it has a very damaging effect.

The problem with faith schools, all religions teach females are less equal to males, surely in the 21st century this shouldn’t be taught to children anymore, it has a very damaging effect.

The hoops my high-achieving girls’ faith school had to squeeze itself through to try to pretend that the ‘girls can do anything!’ mantra could be reconciled with the teachings of the church were a sight to behold. ‘Except clergy obviously, because God doesn’t think you can do that. Also, obviously the New Testament should be believed and followed implicitly - but just don’t pay close attention to what Paul says about women, yeah? Obviously Paul is totally right the rest of the time but on women he’s of his time, etc.’

That was because of the huge influence that the Catholic Church had historically, because of its wealth, and to a large extent because it was seen to be in the church's own interests. Yes, it was also beneficial, particularly in poor communities. But I don't think that gives the Catholic or any other church an indefinite free pass to accessing millions of pounds of public funds every year whilst limiting access to their schools and insisting on promotion of religious practice throughout the educational process.

Before the reformation when they were suppressed and existing schools re-founded. And as a result of how they were treated, Catholics suffered deeper levels of poverty than the rest of the population. The church often prioritised building schools over churches, in particularly deprived areas as educating the poor was their priority. The Catholic Church have contributed massively to the education in the U.K. As I said before incorporating Catholic schools into the state’s education programme finally allowed Catholics to feel that they were being classified as equal citizens by the authorities. This was a historic moment - more than 100 years of progress would be reversed by abolishing.

I think all schools are massively under funded. Our local Catholic school can't even afford new reading books so there's enough for all the children. I don't know what you think they are spending this millions of pounds of public funding on - it's certainly not religious propaganda.

What the taxpayer money used to subside private schools?