To say religious state schools shouldn’t exist?

[Mushroo]

This is probably controversial but interested in opinions on both sides!

I attended a catholic primary and secondary school and had a lovely education (my parents are actually quite religious). However, given how increasingly secular the UK is it seems quite antiquated and divisive to segregate schools based on religion?

Where I live, our closest primary school as the crow flies is religious (c of e) and as a now atheist we wouldn’t get a place as we sit at the very bottom of the admissions criteria (other religions are given priority over atheist). This means we’d have to walk past it to get to the non-religious school further away.

This leads to many people ‘finding god’ in the nursery years to get a place which I refuse to do.

I don’t see the benefit of religious schools, surely if you are a religious family, you can learn about religion at your place of worship / Sunday school or equivalent.

I think state school should be secular and teach all religions equally (including atheism as an option) and places shouldn’t be offered based on religion. State school places should be based on particular needs (e.g. adopted children, siblings and then distance only).

Genuinely interested in thoughts, AIBU?

1000% agree OP

Except that is exactly the policy elsewhere in the UK and you don’t get people choosing a school specifically to “disrespect it’s beliefs and teachings”

Yes it’s the same where I live. The secular primary schools are more popular than church ones because the middle class white majority are not religious.

Disrespecting any religious belief is not acceptable in any setting, school or otherwise. In my view, it is fine for schools to have a religious leaning, set certain expectations for students’ behaviours inside the school, and be clear about them (even including some mandatory participation in religious sessions). It’s part of giving choices to the families.

My problem is when they exclude children based on their parents’ beliefs using bogus criteria like church attendance. As said before, some non-religious people will go to church to get a place for their child at the right school, while some religious people might not manage to do so depending on other factors like work or other commitments.

Well then I assume you don't watch TV, or read books, sing nursery rhymes, listen to the radio....
What exactly do you think happens in secular schools that is exclusionary to the religious?

How on earth is an assembly that doesn't include formal worship, "funding discrimination" or "excluding religious families"?
Please think about the current position, whereby children of no religion have to participate in or at least quietly and politely observe Christian worship every schooldays.
Now that does technically fund discrimination - there's a carve out from equalities legislation in order to allow it. And atheist/humanist children have to suck it up, or exclude and isolate themselves during assembly.
Whereas if you remove the religious worship element, and address shared values and humanity, everyone is included aren't they? Why would people of faith have to remove themselves? Nobody's going to be preaching atheism or telling believers not to believe, or think about issues raised through the prism of their religion.
And are you really saying it's not possible to address moral, ethical and social issues without a context of formal religious worship and one religion's teachings?
That sounds very like the senior CofE education dept gentleman who told me that people of faith understand values better than those of us without faith, because they come from God. I imagine you, like he, are being deliberately provocative hence your reference to "woke morals".

A lot of misconceptions on this thread.

There is no such thing as a 'secular' school. Religion is part of the national curriculum and a broad variety of faiths are taught.

In no way do mainstream schools discriminate against children from a particular faith. In fact, they are catered for (provision of Halal food options are common, for instance).

The old myth that religious schools are somehow 'better' than other state schools is being trotted out. It's nonsense, frankly. As is the notion that parents sending their children to religious schools are somehow 'more engaged' than others.

It is, frankly, appalling that state-funded education can employ religion-based selection criteria. It is no more legitimate than selecting children based on their hairstyle, or income, or eye colour.

I'm with you OP. Faith-based schools should not be state-funded. Practise your religion as you wish, but don't cross the line between church and state.

Many posters have hit the nail on the head too by reminding us that’s its selection based on PARENT beliefs not the child’s. Another good reason to get rid as 4 year olds will be facing years of indoctrination at home - they should be able to think more freely at school.

So no- those schools do serve communities- the descendants of those original communities who setup those schools. That the numbers are dwindling doesn’t mean the school shouldn’t exist. If there is a sufficiently large number of children who want to attend a secular or non-religious school, set up a local academy. Run that instead. Why say to the religious they can’t have the schools they setup when the issue is others can’t be bothered to establish their own?

Nobody is saying that they can't have the schools that they set up. They are merely saying that the taxpayer shouldn't pay for these schools.

It's not about non-religious people establishing their own school. I don't think that the state should fund atheist or humanist schools that discriminate against children with religious parents any more than I think the state should fund faith schools that discriminate towards children with non-religious parents.

The point about secular schools is that they would be inclusive of all children. If people want to indoctrinate their children in a particular world view, religious or otherwise, then they should pay to do it privately.

Oh absolutely no issue with religious schools - as long as they’re not funded by taxpayers! Simple. And I did help to set up a new secular school for precisely that reason so I think I can tick that off my to do list 😄.

I'm afraid the status quo will remain as long as the system is so strapped for cash.
If the government closed down schools with a religious foundation, they would then have more pupils needing provision elsewhere.
Some state schools are better than others; selection by faith will be replaced by selection by mortgage,
Not far from where I live, there is an excellent state primary which serves a small estate. I am told that the catchment area has a radius of 500 metres.

Our small rural school just wouldn’t exist without the church. It’s very open on admission ms though as it serves the local community.

it’s quite light touch as CofE and aside from the grumpy vicar who hands out a bible to leavers and Haribo for the Christingle it’s a bit take it or leave it on the religious front (although I love a bit of a harvest festival).

Religious state schools have also helped bridge class divides in certain areas allowing a decent education for non-fee paying families.

I’d rather have good all round state education and ban fee paying class system enforcing schools but it’s unlikely under this cue shower.

Absolutely absurd that public funding would pay for schools whose theological stance is that gay people, for example, are 'intrinsically disordered'.

Imagine being a gay student at that school.

Imagine being a student raised by gay parents at that school.

Those schools don't just discriminate based on religion - they also discriminate based on sexual orientation by being hostile environments for gay people or their families.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves "It's not about non-religious people establishing their own school. I don't think that the state should fund atheist or humanist schools that discriminate against children with religious parents any more than I think the state should fund faith schools that discriminate towards children with non-religious parents.

The point about secular schools is that they would be inclusive of all children. If people want to indoctrinate their children in a particular world view, religious or otherwise, then they should pay to do it privately."

That hits the nail on the head for me.

I'd prefer our state-funded schools didn't endorse and advance a particular religion/worldview. (Teach about all the major faiths and worldviews as part of the curriculum so our kids are literate in navigating a multicultural world, sure, but no worship and no school religion.)

I don't see why people of faith should feel threatened by that. The extent to which some on this thread seem to, and the way they assume that "secular" schools would promote atheism / discriminate against people of faith, is tbh makes me more uncomfortable than I already am with the present system.

There is no such thing as a 'secular' school. Religion is part of the national curriculum and a broad variety of faiths are taught.

Teaching about a variety of religions is fine with most secularists. In fact, many see it as a very good thing, especially for kids who would otherwise only learn about their parents' faith.
Someone can even have a faith and be a secularist, you know - like the founding fathers of the US. There seems to be a lot of misconception as to what the word means in practice.

The old myth that religious schools are somehow 'better' than other state schools is being trotted out. It's nonsense, frankly.

When our dd was school age, DH was somewhat involved with the fair schools admissions campaigns. He did some statistical analysis for schools in our county (he enjoys that sort of thing) - whether a school was 'faith' or not didn't correlate well with league table position but percentage on free school meals did... it appeared that the oversubscribed 'good' faith schools which could apply selection criteria were (perhaps inadvertently) discriminating against poorer kids.

So unfortunately no 'As is the notion that parents sending their children to religious schools are somehow 'more engaged' than others. ' , that isn't nonsense. The pre-school and year 5 epiphanies are a real phenomenon.

If we didn’t have state religious schools most of us would go private and many would home school

Nothing could be fairer, and if you wish your child to receive a more narrow education based mainly on faith that's absolutely your choice to make.
And the point of paying tax is to make services available for all, so if for whatever reason you opt not to use them that's again your choice

When emphasising tolerance you might at least have taken the trouble to get it right when you mentioned that everyone has access to secular schools though ... if only

* No, but there are no 'teachings' in supermarkets or swimming pools*

My kid had lessons in swimming and water safety at a swimming pool.
She was taught about other subjects at school, it's what they are there for. English, maths, science, etc - and also facts about various religions.

The job of a school shouldn't be to indoctrinate a kid in one specific religion, should it?
Is some peoples faith so weak that they cant contemplate having their kid exposed to learning about other religions, science, history etc etc?

So unfortunately no 'As is the notion that parents sending their children to religious schools are somehow 'more engaged' than others. ' , that isn't nonsense. The pre-school and year 5 epiphanies are a real phenomenon.

Ultimately this is true of any school that practises selection on particular characteristics. You give an advantage to parents who can jump through hoops, essentially. So yes, faith schools that select have lower FSM and higher prior attainment,

In faith schools that don't practise selective admissions, their results are much more what you'd expect for their local areas. Faith education itself isn't the magic ingredient. It's selective admissions.

Im on the west coast of Scotland and hate the religious bigotry of the divided school system and how it feeds into society. I went to a RC school in England at one point and know from that experience that it doesn't need to be that way.

It's not the same argument as grammar schools. At least grammar school entry is something to do with the child, tutoring aside.

Religious schools are purely about the parents, and that is wrong.

And the person who talked about sending their child to a Catholic school in Ireland to learn about the Unionists and British is the exact reason why religious state schools should not be allowed. If you want your kids to be indoctrinated with one side of history pay for it yourself.

To be fair I don't think Catholic schools in other areas of the UK are predominately white British, they attract a lot of white non-British as well as other faiths who appreciate the ethos. But a state school should not be turning down kids who live within catchment because their parents didn't pick the right religion for them. 5 year olds don't choose their own religion. I doubt many 11 year olds do either.

@ErrolTheDragon for the absence of doubt I'm in violent agreement with you!

You make an interesting point about RE and teaching about vs instructing in. I was talking to a kid who used to go to our CofE primary and is now choosing her GCSE options at a non-faith secondary. I was surprised that she really wants to do RE but she explained that she loves it because it delves so deeply into the philosophies behind other faiths, reasons for commonality and divergence, etc. Light years away from primary's approach of 'some people believe this (Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc), and here's how they practise their faith, we believe in Jesus and here are some Bible stories that are true facts.'

Those schools don't just discriminate based on religion - they also discriminate based on sexual orientation by being hostile environments for gay people or their families

I hadn't even thought of that but that is another very good point.

I don't have an issue with schools teaching religion - it's important for cultural references and understanding the world. But it should be a spread of religions.

In most other areas of life we do not tolerate discrimination on grounds of religion. It is an abomination that we allow children to be discriminated against.

(I did A level RE)

Oh come on, you must see that it is a much wider issue than that. The West of Scotland bigotry thing extends well beyond schooling - you have entire towns which are extensively either Protestant or Catholic, and anyone from outside the predominant denomination is shunned. You can guess someone’s religion based on which football team they support.

Now I am actively against Catholic schooling (meaning I believe all schools should be non denominational) but if Catholics insist on having Catholic schools, I think the Scottish system of open entry is far fairer than the English one where people can be discriminated against based on their religion (or lack thereof)

I know Catholics who have chosen the non denominational school over the Catholic school (because generally, non denominational schools have better ASN support - ASN bases are normally in the non denominational school) and non Catholics who have chosen the Catholic school (Catholic step sibling already went there, it was closer, friends were going there)

Jessy - yes, there's been a healthy shift over the decades from RI (religious instruction) to RE and RS - and now philosophy, religion and ethics types of curricula.

If you want religious instruction for your kid, do it outside of school lessons, just like you wouldn't expect it to be part of a swimming lesson.