AIBU to expect religion to be taught & practised at religious schools?

[KristinaM]

I am getting rather fed up with the threads that go........

" Although we are not Jewish we have chosen to send our son to the local Jewish school, its got a good ethos and great results. Now he has started we are very angry and upset to discover that they celebrate all the Jewish festivals and have acts of worship with a rabbi present.They even take them to the synagogue.

I don't want to have my child brainwashed with fairy stories.I only want him exposed to my particular beliefs. I am worried he will grow up and have a mind of his own and not believe the same as me. How can I get the school to change to suit me??"

I don't think that religious schools are very inclusive. That is a bad thing.

I don't think that the government should be funding religion in the form of faith schools. That is a bad thing.

Teaching about religion in schools is education which is a good thing. Practicing religion in school is not.

I and my family go to church. Religion is not itself a bad thing. I do not think any child attending my church would be either brainwashed or harmed by the experience. The ceremonial and the spiritual aspects of religion can be missing in secular life.

Fundamentalism is narrow minded and is a bad thing.

But UQD, are you not assuming that faith school wont accept other religions. Don't get me wrong, I am not about to stand behind someone making flippant comments about foxhunting, but I do think there have been great strides forward to assure all children have a chance at being accepted if they apply.

There is a large group of non-Christians at our school. We live in London and according to the Ofsted report, Christians are actually the minority.

I do many things to support the school, I donate my time and money. There is a £25 annual parental contribution. But I have been told that only about 5% of the non-Christians pay, as opposed to almost every Christian family contributing. So that means that some children are getting better supplies and equipment with other parents money. Sometimes I don't think that is fair.

Some people get in a bit of a tangle with their principles. Sometimes, it is better to have one or two well-formed principles than a jumble of trendy words suffixed ist. Tolerance is a good start.

sugarmatches - but it is still a faith school?
I don't know about your school, but the way it works at most faith schools is, yes,m there is a token number of places for non-believers. So people who profess a faith have a first chance at a place and the rest of the places (usually 10-20%) are allocated to non-faith families.

I take your point about the annual contribution although I'm not sure that information should be in the public domain!

Again, I ask myself how things would be any worse if the school were secular. Do you think you'd lose money? At my childen's school we don't have any kind of expected donation (apart from the odd £1 here and there for art materials in Arts Week, etc), but the PFA do an awful lot of fundraising, and school events are always well-supported. If the school has a good communal ethos this will be the case.

Yes, I have one or two well-formed principles.

One of them is that all children should have equal access to the same state education which all of their parents contribute to financially.

And that people who believe in a god - or convincingly claim to - should not have a choice in education which the non-goddy don't.

I don't see that as being at all unclear, inconsistent or "trendy".

caroline- i really dont think that is what ppl want. no one (from what i can see)thinks there should be NO faith schools...but the way it works in some areas is that ppl sont getthe choice... its about fairness, thats all

mimi03 there are numerous posts on this thread and many others on mnet saying that faith schools should be abolished!

Our school doesn't have a 'levy', and it certainly doesn't have lots of parental involvement- indeed last year the PTA committee dwindled to two! Very unsure how many are Churchgoewrs either, tbh- when you apply, as the Governors get total admission decision, you write a letter to the Governor; there is a tiny catchment where they are supposed to take you (in which we live) which is the part of the village that was established in the 1700's when the Will was drawn up. Beyond that, there is total governor / head freedom- so kids with SN can be delected (and oftena re, until recently there was a 0% statement rate); chidlren are often selected however despite a living a large distance away, because of promised financial ocntribution.

Now, either the school is LEA or it isn't?

pigleto i totally agree with your points.

ok bossy kate ill shut up then!

S'ok.
But there are faith schools and they aren't going to go away. I think it is important that some faith schools remain government funded, because that is the only way to make sure they maintain the guidelines.

We have a Jewish school up the road that refuses to accept non-jews.

As I've said on another thread - if parents' faith (real or putative) was simply not an issue in schools, and had nothing to do with selection criteria, and faith was irrelevant to the school a child went to... in what way would this be unfair? Why would it need changing back?

In other words, if faith schools didn't exist, would it be necessary to invent them?

And what if things were not neutral but in fact the polar opposite of how they are now? If there were atheist/rationalist schools, which required people to deny any religious affiliation whatsoever in order to gain preferential admission treatment? And these were many people's local schools? Would religious people be clamouring for this situation to change?

I think we are in agreement that it costs the same for an education authority to education a child in a faith school or in a non faith school? Given that UQD and a couple of others feel that creationist parents and pseudo religious parents are the pits of the earth. Given that faith schools are not better depending on what you mean by better than non-faith schools. Given that in the UK we cannot have one giant school called school. I am really struggling to see why UQD is so desperate for the children of these awful parents to go to school with his children (where it would cost the same and the creationist parents would be terribly unhappy). Who gains?

I really do see what you are saying and I agree.
But some of these faith schools have been around for many years and they are here to stay. The official religion of the UK is CofE, so there are obviously many schools that were created under that ethos. Over the years, the Government has made most of them State schools in order to get them to follow guidelines and allow Ofsted inspection. I think it was the governments way of making the best of the situation. They knew they could not close the schools, but they wanted to make sure the pupils received a proper education.

Like I said earlier, location was my primary reason for choosing our school. I do resent having to jump through hoops by going to church. At this point, not doing it would mean that ds would go to a different nursery, at a different school. I am too scared to rock the boat.

From what I understand, it's only the Catholic churches that can refuse the non-christened lot and if there's any space left after that then they offer out to us heathens - that's certainly the way it is in our area.

I want to have a choice of schools and be able to send my child to one that teaches a broad spectrum of religion not one that does this but then teaches christianity or whatever as what 'we' believe on top of that. I truly would like my son and daughter then to be able to choose whether they wish to follow a particular religion when they are older or simply endeavour to be good people as my husband and I do and do good to others without the aim of 'getting into heaven' at the end of it all.

On the subject of christening, we haven't had our two christened and don't intend to (despite the disapproving comments from the catholic in-laws) as we agreed that as we do not attend church and I am atheist, husband can't decide what he is, then it would simply be a farce to agree to bringing up a child in a religion you have no intention of following - it does just seem to be a good opportunity for a knees up and a load of pressies. H's brother has done this, they had no intention of bringing their boy up catholic, so why have him christened so. H's sis had her boys christened so they could go to a catholic school and my cousin had his son christened at a local c of e church and then at the 'do, openly admitted they had never set foot in the church and don't intend to - but they did make sure to send their eldest son round to snatch all the pressies off the tables (I was actually waiting for an appropriate time to go and give the gift and have a little chat and was most offended when her lad came and spirited my gift away).

I've run away with myself there, but you get the gist....

havent read this thread at all
but if i send my childrento a fatih school, then i would expect them to be taught about that faith.

I feel I am having words put in my mouth here... and I think other people will see this.

It's simple. Not complex - simple.

I don't see the point of "it costs the same for an education authority to educate a child in a faith school or in a non faith school". Whether it does or it doesn't is not the point.

The point is that all parents pay for the state education system through the tax system, and that if people are to be denied having access to their local primary school - because that school favours children whose parents happen to believe a particular Bronze Age susperstition - this immediately puts barriers up and weights the system in favour of religious (or "religious") people.

Why not have state-funded schools just for people who believe in finding pots of gold at the end of rainbows? Or state-funded schools just for people who believe the Royal Family are all lizards and that we should wear turquoise?

"Why not have state-funded schools just for people who believe in finding pots of gold at the end of rainbows? Or state-funded schools just for people who believe the Royal Family are all lizards and that we should wear turquoise?"
Why not? If there is a market for it, I am all for it.

UQD - A separate matter but do you agree with ability streaming at secondary stage?

So if your nearest, local state primary school were run by leprechaun-worshippers, and gave priority places to pot-of-golders, you'd not find this at all unfair... I see...

Although I am American, I am not one to praise every aspect of American life like some of my countrymen (not on mn btw!).
I do think the school system is far superior...in theory.

Every state is divided into counties, similar to English boroughs, and every county is responsible for it's own school system. The wealthy areas of that school district are required to bus in a certain number of children from less priviledged areas.

There is no faith in schools...at all. It is against the law.

The only schools that can discuss faith are private, independent, fee-paying schools.

But the difference is that the school in the US were set-up based on the no religion law. In the UK, some of these schools have been around for hundreds of years and it would cause all hell to break loose if they tried to close them.

There is no simple answer to this issue.

Ability streaming is a separate issue and needs its own thread. It's a difficult one. Wherever I've seen it in action it has worked.

(If you;re going to jump on me and say "so if you think that why don't you believe in segregation by faith, then?" please be aware that it is a totally separate issue. For one thing, ability can be tested, and streaming can be shown to benefit everyone.)

So do you believe in Grammar schools, just out of curiosity?

My Sister despises religion- really turned against me when i satrted my degree (where's the assumption that studying = religious? not that its any of her business what i believe, don't think she has a clue tbh) but has miraculously been converted since realising the only school in her area with after school care is the religiously selective one. So she now attends Church, is booking a baptism but planning on a sickie on the day itself- her Dh who is mildly religious will attend for both of them . Now, I can't see whys oemone who is prepared to lie about their faith should get a priority for a pace, which in some palces is what the system boils down to from what I can see..... equally though I can't see why LEA's etc allow a sutuation where only schools that can select have certain, int hsi day and age essential facillities (like the after school care). If poelpe want a situation where school sel;ection is fair then facillities haev to be sahred and accessible to all, not just those who are prepared to lie, or who do ahev a Faith- its not something you choose really, after all. You either believe or you don't. I strongly beleive that communities should be kept together geographically- and that kids should mix. That doesn't have to mean no faith based schools, but it does mean a shared selection criteria that allows children to be considered on the absis of catchment as much as professed faith. And i think that when a school is faith selective, it should at the least be compelled to accept children with regard to no other criteria than faith or catchment / siblings- a school that has a limited community profile needs to be extra careful to include a representative sample of Sn, income groups, nationalities etc. As far as I can see, this can't be achieved whilst governing bodies and Heads have selection responsibilities, and therefore that should pass to the LEA as part of their portfolio (I know that happens in a few areas, but not all).

I went to a grammar school so I am probably slightly biased on that! But yes, I do lament their passing.