To think faith schools are great and it’s only the admission cheats that make them unfair?

[Wondermule]

My second controversial post in a few days. I don’t need a hard hat at this point, I need a bunker and full ghillie suit. But here goes.

Inspired by a thread, where a poster happily shared that they lied about going to church to get their kids into a Catholic school, before denouncing the admission system as deeply unfair...

I would like to put to the good people of mumsnet that actually, admission by religion is a really good idea. And it is only the people that cheat the admission system that keep it unfair for others.

Religion is a great criteria for school admissions. It doesn’t indicate intelligence; it isn’t an indicator of wealth; it would keep sibling groups together; and the ethos and PSHE would be generally in keeping with the parents’ beliefs.

The reason why faith schools are ‘better’ are because of non-religious people with intelligent kids cheating the system to get their kids a place. This then perpetuates the cycle - the kids perform well, the school becomes more desirable, so more people cheat to get their kids in.

So aside from depriving genuine applicants of school places, they are contributing to a system that they denounce as unfair. Whereas if they stopped playing the system, schools would actually be more mixed in terms of demographics, more equal, and there wouldn’t a stampede for just a few of them.

Phew! Thoughts please?!

[quote Justajot]@ihatefish

Sorry, I think you are just being intentionally goady. You don't give any evidence that I abhor Christianity, probably because there isn't any. I don't object to the teaching of Christianity in schools, providing it isn't taught as fact.

You claim that understanding Christianity is of vital importance to understanding science, but don't seem to know all that much about science education. I'd argue that science education is pretty fundamental to understanding of science.

As for:
Do you have a view on the need for understanding Christianity for the more important subjects like Literature history and art?

Yes, absolutely understanding Christianity is important for those subjects. That's one of the reasons that schools are required to teach RE. Are they the "more important" subjects? That's just you being goady again, isn't it?[/quote]
@Justajot not being toady at all, I have been asking reasonable questions thanks. Maybe it is just your sensitivity to something which challenges your very narrow philosophy that has interpreted these things as goady.

You keep saying I don’t understand the teaching of science yet offer no evidence, nor do you seek to enlighten me. Is this some kind of Hermetic secret known and knowable only to initiates?

It is my opinion that these subjects are certainly more important to humanity, the fact that you have a different view is perfectly fine, but don’t try and undermine my perspective by accusations of being ‘goady’again. It is a perfectly valid perspective held by many.

I thought I had already addressed the point of Christianity being taught as fact, but maybe I didn’t explain this well enough. We teach children many things as “fact” which in fact aren’t. Everything from Santa through to information about the English Reformation. Is the information given to year 2 children on a scientific subject the same as that given to science graduates? No! It’s simplified very simplified, yet do we sit there caveating this to a 6 year old? No. As knowledge expands and minds develop we are capable of looking at different perspectives. Surely you can see the parallels?

@turquoisewaters

Also the higher up the academic ladder you climb the less and less religious people you will find

Lots of generalisations on this thread that are simply not true

The idea that the top of the academic tree does not contain religious people is fundamentally laughable. It just seems a thinly concealed attempt to say all clever people reject religion. Mind you one of the collective members of the humanist soc here also thought there was no advancements of note in the Dark Ages so possibly not to be relied upon on such matters.

@KeflavikAirport

Do you have a view on the need for understanding Christianity for the more important subjects like Literature history and art?

I do, and I suspect you're not going to like it. This always gets trotted out on these threads like some kind of gospel truth gotcha but actually there's very little backing for it.

a) the smattering of RE you get in secondary school is not going to suddenly persuade a bored 15 year old to start listening to the St Matthew Passion instead of Ariana Grande or whatever kids that age listen to

b) if it's that important, nothing stopping you reading up on it outside school

c) exactly the same argument can be applied to other subjects that are not routinely taught in UK schools (most obviously philosophy)

d) other countries don't teach about religion and still manage to produce people who enjoy art and music.

Well congratulations on undermining the whole concept of educating children. On the same basis why bother teaching a bored 15 year old about the effects of channelling light through a prism, it’s not going to enable them to immediately contribute to the space programme. Why teach some bored 13 year old about the rain cycle? Are they suddenly going to be able to solve droughts? No all education like this is a building block. Surely you can see that??

My problem with faith schools is that they are funded by the state yet the school can exclude state children purely on religion.

And staff. You might work as a teacher in an RC school but you will never become head of department.

I read another thread where a child was baptized in Portugal and attended regularly but that it wouldn't be recognized at their local faith school in England which sounds outrageous to me. (I'm an atheist with kids at non-religious schools) If it's because foreign baptism certificates are easily forged or can't be checked then I'd say that was an unfair hurdle for a genuine family.

It used to be you needed to be baptized to get into RC schools, when mass migration from Eastern Europe began you suddenly had to be baptized as soon as possible and before 6 months at the latest.

Guess where it is common to baptize children at 1 year old? Even if you do want to get your child baptized ASAP but you want grandparents and other family involved you may want to take the baby to Poland (or wherever) which involves getting the baby a passport, booking flights etc.

My old RC school guarantees places to children from a list of RC primary schools, one of them is in another town.

[quote Justajot]@keflavikairport

I did wonder about your first point. There are some obvious bits of art and literature that tie into bit of religion that are taught - the last supper springs to mind. But you're never going to cover all of the references to religion in art and literature in RE, so aren't you better off teaching them alongside art and literature?[/quote]
You’re obviously not an art fan either. Just to prevent any confusion or claims of being goady I will present my evidence below:

If you understood art you would understand that much of it contains religious symbolism which requires a knowledge of religion. Art with religious meaning is not limited to pieces depicting a scene from the Bible as any art lover would know. I therefore conclude you are not an art lover

(Hope the above format satisfies your apparent criteria for answering questions).

I don't think you understand my point.

It's impossible, given the depth of RE teaching as it currently exists in schools in the UK, to cover enough Christianity/biblical content to truly understand the depth of its influence on art. The obvious pieces of art that an average person might understand from their RE lessons to be linked to religion (like the last supper) barely scratch the surface. So the influence of religion on art has to be taught in the context the art that is being studied.

Literature, history and art are not confined to Christianity! Why just one religion. What utter tosh.

@PresentingPercy - Isn't that just an example rather than the extent of it? If the teaching of Christianity in RE is insufficient to understand the impact on western art history, then the teaching of other religions in RE is going to be woefully inadequate to understand their impact on art.

But the teaching of literature, history and art in the UK are likely to be skewed towards English literature, british history and European art, so the gap there is more obvious.

Not sure who you're referring to as not an art fan here Ihatefish but I actually make my living writing about art. Nice to see you addressed one of my four points, but I'm not quite sure you understood it. Teaching children about the main religions because it's important general knowledge: OK. Teaching children about religion because it'll give them a finer appreciation of art: in all likelihood fruitless.

@KeflavikAirport

Not sure who you're referring to as not an art fan here Ihatefish but I actually make my living writing about art. Nice to see you addressed one of my four points, but I'm not quite sure you understood it. Teaching children about the main religions because it's important general knowledge: OK. Teaching children about religion because it'll give them a finer appreciation of art: in all likelihood fruitless.

The art point was meant for Justajot. So not you.

I think I addressed all your points as they are all basically depressingly unoriginal variations on a theme but just to help you out a little.

Point 1. I assume you think this point was addressed please revert if not, happy to spell out for you.

Point 2. Let’s drop say physics shall we? Well if you’re interested in physics you can always read up about it outside school. In fact let’s just teach English and maths shall we?

Point 3. Oh I would love it if they taught philosophy in schools, in fact it’s far more important than most of the stuff they teach there. I would 100% support philosophy forming part of the STEM curriculum, to this end it would be good to see sociology brought into the mix too.

1. Which specific countries were you talking about? It would be helpful to be more specific. I can’t actually remember specifically mentioning music though.

Thanks

@Justajot

I don't think you understand my point.

It's impossible, given the depth of RE teaching as it currently exists in schools in the UK, to cover enough Christianity/biblical content to truly understand the depth of its influence on art. The obvious pieces of art that an average person might understand from their RE lessons to be linked to religion (like the last supper) barely scratch the surface. So the influence of religion on art has to be taught in the context the art that is being studied.

Oh I understand, I’m just not sure you understand my answer.

The point is with most of our schooling is not to produce people who can have deep knowledge of everything, it’s an overview to give them a background knowledge, therefore knowledge learned at school gives a basic understanding in which the individual can build for life long learning. Having a familiarity with the basics enables the individual to build, like any subject.

Your answer was "you don't understand art, you're not an art lover". I do understand that answer, but it doesn't make it true.

Could anyone explain what areas of learning at school should be replaced by an in-depth teaching of subjects like the 'Christian' history of art, the 'Christian' history of music, the 'Christian' history of everything etc? The school day only has so much time in it!

I don’t think the comments about teaching of various subjects understand the English curriculum at all. Even less university teaching. The agreed syllabus for RE in schools covers the main religions in this country. The vast majority of schools follow it. No one wants in depth religion in schools apart from a few nutters. Of course the curriculum shouldn’t be changed to accommodate them. Deeply religious people can get what they want outside the school gate.,

English literature in schools has choices of texts within it and these books, poems and plays are chosen because they are great literature. Religion has nothing to do with it. Nor should it. Ditto any study of art. My DD2 did A level art and no link to Christianity at all. Why would there be?

Schools are required to have “a daily act of worship” and very many schools use this to link to a “thought for the day” and mildly use religion to get the point across. Also to reinforce kind behaviour and thinking of others. Other schools of religious character will do more. Parents have every opportunity to find out what schools teach regarding religion. The vast majority of parents seem to be happy with the current situation. Having been a school governor, I’ve never seen a complaint about teaching of RE nor a request for more Christianity in subject teaching.

My DD studied MFL at university and she chose an options Islamic art and literature. Friends that did History of Art didn’t solely confined themselves to Christian art. Why would they? There’s a whole world of art and literature that can be accessed by an engaged student.

No one wants in depth religion in schools apart from a few nutters

The 'nutters' bit is unnecessary

Actually, no it’s not. We, as a nation, want all DC to have a well rounded education in schools. Not a biased religious one. We tolerate faith schools but have set up mechanisms for an agreed RE syllabus. We have a daily act of worship. We don’t need more in school. It is only religious “nutters” (over the top fanatics) that want more. It’s unacceptable and curtails the quality of education for the vast majority.

By all means do what you want in your own time. But stay away from the curriculum and more religion in schools. For most, it’s ok as it is.

We as a nation... eeerm are you the Queen?
There is no we. There is a difference of opinion and different choices available that reflect those different opinions. Religious schools are not ‘ just tolerated’. The government have been keen for more Catholic schools to open and discussions have been ongoing . It’s the church who have resisted.
The ‘stay away ‘ comment is a bit strong since no one is suggesting interference in the non faith schools. The interference and attempts to impose control is firmly in one direction.

The interference and attempts to impose control is firmly in one direction

I agree

@newstart1337

Could anyone explain what areas of learning at school should be replaced by an in-depth teaching of subjects like the 'Christian' history of art, the 'Christian' history of music, the 'Christian' history of everything etc? The school day only has so much time in it!

But it’s not those things, it’s providing a broad knowledge as a base for future reference for those things. So RE is probably the best subject for this. Maybe it would be best to say that RE should predominantly teach Christianity

@turquoisewaters

The interference and attempts to impose control is firmly in one direction

I agree

And I third the view. Apparently anyone who disagrees with the humanist society are now mentally unstable!

RE is probably the best subject for this. Maybe it would be best to say that RE should predominantly teach Christianity

Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as it was one of the GCSE options that children have to opt into or out of. You would probably have to offer GCSEs into the history of several other religion's as well, just to be fair.

Absolutely it should not be purely Christianity.

I don’t like increased faith in schools. I don’t want to see faith academies. I dislike selection by faith. I would prefer to see all schools follow the agreed RE syllabus and do light touch daily act of worship or none at all.

However RE is an important subject to promote tolerance an understanding. But it cannot be taken over by people who want more of one religion or that it permeates other subjects in an unhealthy way.

We find, generally, that few people are truly exercised about RE or religious schools in the uk. A thread on MN hardly represents general tolerance of the status quo. And there is. In fact many people want religious schools but don’t get into them. Not because of the religion, but because they are well led good schools. It’s that simple.

Has anyone commenting ever read an agreed syllabus on RE that is based on input from all the leading faiths? Probably not.

@PresentingPercyj
Yes, as any teacher with a range of experience would have. Why do you ask?
Have you ever read the RE syllabus of a faith school?

All schools are required to teach a range of faiths and all schools are obliged to recognise section 375 of The Education Act meaning their syllabus needs to reflect that the main religious tradition of Great Britain is Christianity. That could be done in many ways and doesn’t necessarily mean that their curriculum can’t mainly focus on another religion.
You keep saying ‘ we’ yet your opinions don’t match with government attitudes ( that includes previous Labour governments too) so I’m not sure who you are claiming to speak for. Since roughly 10% of children are educated in faith schools, you are not speaking for parents either.
Reading this thread actually makes me seriously doubt if we are doing a good enough job of promoting tolerance in schools. Their seems to be a lot of intolerance here of religious faith. Some have raised absolutely valid concerns such as parents who have limited choices due to location however others are clearly just suspicious and intolerant of religion in general.
In terms of discriminatory practices in state funded institutions, people need to think very carefully before heading down that path. The state funds a lot of things that are accessed by specific groups ( women as an example). We have a wide population with differing beliefs and attitudes. Personally, I think that is quite healthy

There seems to be a lot of intolerance...
My phone predictive prefers their.