Why do faith schools dominate the league tables?

[benetint]

I looked at the league tables for primary schools in my area (nottingham) and I was surprised to see the top few were not schools in affluent areas bur were all catholic schools. Many of them are actually in quite deprived areas. So what is it catholic schools are doing to get such excellent results? Is it that they can be more selective about who they take? Are they just exam factories? Ate they stricter with their kids? Or are they just better in general than secular states?

TheNaughtiestGirl, actually the school Grindon Hall altered what they were going to teach because they were pulled up on it. They were at first going to teach creationism as a science, then upon being challenged on the legality of doing so changed it only to teaching it in RE. After our press release they updated their website and message, leading to journalists telling us we were wrong... thankfully however, we were able to get a snap shot of what it DID say via Google cache, along with downloading their policy before they changed it. I am at home now and have no access to it as it's at work, but they clearly stated that they would in fact be teaching it as a science, which if unchallenged they would still be attempting to do.

Here is the original piece:

"And today, the BHA is also revealing that Grindon Hall Christian School, a group backed by the DfE last October to open a Free School from this September, has a 'Creation Policy' in which they advocate teaching creationism in science alongside evolution."

The school stated the following:

"We will affirm the fact that ?God created the world and everything in it?. We will affirm that he did so ?ex nihilo? ? out of nothing.

We believe that God, as sovereign Lord of the universe, is capable of creating the world in a few 24-hour days, or over a period of millions of years.

we vigorously challenge the unscientific certainty often claimed by scientists surrounding the so-called ?Big Bang? and origins generally.

We believe that no scientific theory provides ? or ever will provide ? a satisfactory explanation of origins, i.e. why the world appeared, and how nothing became something in the first place.

We will teach evolution as an established scientific principle, as far as it goes.

We will teach creation as a scientific theory and we will always affirm very clearly our position as Christians, i.e. that Christians believe that God?s creation of the world is not just a theory but a fact with eternal consequences for our planet and for every person who has ever lived on it.

We will affirm that to believe in God?s creation of the world is an entirely respectable position scientifically and rationally."

The whole policy can be downloaded in word format from: www.humanism.org.uk/_uploads/documents/creation-policy.doc

So, add to that the following:

?Exemplar ? Newark Business Academy?, was from a creationist group that last year had its bid rejected by the Government due to concerns around teaching creationism. When rejecting that bid, the DfE said that Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove ?was unable to accept that an organisation with creationist beliefs could prevent these views being reflected in the teaching in the school and in its other activities?. However, Mr Gove approved the same group a year later, after they promised to only teach creationism in RE, not science.

And there we go, action had to be taken to stop them from teaching it in science. If we weren't highlighting these issues in the "witch hunt" then the school in Sevenoaks and countless others would be teaching it in science also, instead of accepting that they can only teach it in RE (which is still madness and will still likely be passed off as fact, yes people have a right to learn anything but you wouldn't teach astrology or scientology in RE, so why teach something that is equally absurd).

I will leave you with this: tinypic.com/r/2h394w6/6

B&B, you stated this:

"Steve, you surprise me.

So you see Judaism as a race not a religion, I assume?

And you are happy to identify as the former but virulently anti- the latter?

How strange."

How is that strange? How is it any different from anybody of any other race who is an atheist not practising their races traditional religion?

I don't "see it" as a race, not a religion... Being Jewish is a race and a religion. You have insulted my intelligence numerous times, elevating your own as if you have great knowledge on the subject in discussion, but then fail to know that you can be Jewish by race and not religion. Quite a basic thing to know.

That I "identify" as the former and not the latter is not strange at all, are you suggesting that because I am not religious I should then deny my ancestry and pretend I'm a different race??

Here is a list (aside from my entire family) that also must be very strange:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_atheists Some names you'll no doubt recognize, which may make you realise that it's really not that strange at all.

FYI: The Stalin thing, I meant you hadn't named Stalin until after that comment, you didn't name him in the comment and yes I didn't see the others until after I'd posted. I should have known due to the other references but my point remains as I said earlier, I didn't miss the name from not reading your post before posting myself, the name wasn't there to miss... I did however jump the gun and confuse gulags with the German equivalent.

"And moving need not cost 'tens of thousands of pounds' unless you are fortunate enough to own your own house and determined never to rent."

Home ownership in the UK is currently about 65%. Not an insignificant percentage. And I would have thought the percentage is higher for parents of school age children, and they are the ones least able to say 'oh we'll just take a chance with our finances and move house because the choice of local schools is pretty shit'. Can you not see why people are angry at being discriminated against in a school admissions system which is already overcrowded?

Abs, I think due to my own inability and lack of knowledge on that I'll have to take your word for it and concede, but only in part. Stalin may well have been driven by a hatred of religion to do some of the things he did, but he only disbelieved in one less God than most theists, who are all atheistic about the nearly 4,000 other gods in existence... so that lack of belief is not the motivation, the hatred towards religion was (atheism and hatred towards religion are not the same thing as I'm sure you'll agree). Aside from that, as you said there is no doctrine, so whilst Stalin did terrible things and was, according to you doing so through this hatred of religion, there was no scripture commanding him to do so, or telling him that he was righteous in doing so. You see that comes therefore down to the man, a terrible man who did terrible things. Unfortunately people like that will exist, theist and non-theist. I think this quote from Steve Weinberg sums up what I'm trying to say: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil?that takes religion. "

I'm going to be a little childish here and say, not of the last comment from me but the two before that... Pwned! :D

Nd the point people persist in avoiding is the fact that in order to fully participate in the life of any state school in this country you have to be at last a nominal Christian. There are no scular schools. All schools have Christian prayers.

Historically, the church was a major provider of education, and many schools are in buildings originally built by the church. However, very little of the funding of faith schools comes from the church- they are almost entirely funded from the education budget.

Imagine if there were NHS hospitals, funded from taxation, that gave priority treatment to Christians. How is education any different? Aft all, the Church used to run hospitals, too.

Seeker, it's off topic but as you've mentioned it, the NHS does pay for chaplains all the while paying nurses below what they deserve, cutting nurses jobs, closing down hospitals and not buying needed equipment. Also, there are homoeopathy treatments on the NHS, which have no evidence that they work (lots of evidence that they don't) except for the placebo effect. Madness!

IMO, the church should pay for the hospital chaplains, they have more than enough money.

People don't seem to grasp the fact that there are no secular state schools-they are non denominational and there is often very little difference between that and a faith school-depending on how the Head interprets the various education acts.

Don't even start me on hospital chaplains!

But I would like a faith school supporter to address my hospital point.

If people are upset and worried in hospital it is lovely that they can call on a chaplain and they will see them whatever their faith or lack of it. Especially useful when someone dies I would think.

"You send your kids to the perfectly nice other school.
Your kid can only attend one school at once. What is the problem?"

b&b - I missed this earlier, but are you not troubled by the 'I'm all right Jack' attitude in your statement?

And when you say "I don't think the state should fund any organisations that promote particular religions" do you think religious schools don't fall into that category?

Re hospital chaplains, yes it's obviously a comfort for some people in dire circumstances to have that support, but if the NHS is stumping up the cost then you have to question whether the 'chaplain budget' should also accommodate comforters of different religions, or indeed trained psychological therapists / counsellors.

Iamsteve - so, one (private) school, a year ago applied for Free School Status.

The application was turned down and one of the reasons given was it's published views on the teaching of Creationism. The school goes away and re-writes it's policy.
Applies again and is approved as a Free School. BHA the try and make waves, despite the fact that the school's expressed curriculum has already changed.

Yes, I can see why the BHA think it's role was so very important.

As for your Pwned comment - sorry, did not realise I was conversing with a 10 year old, but I guess it is the school holidays.

I have a lot of sympathy for those worried that their only option is a faith school if that is not what they want. I don't have experience of that though as where I live the community are fighting for a faith secondary school as there is not one available locally.

I honestly think, despite what the BHA would like people to believe that for most parents who are not looking for a faith school for their children, their concerns about local provision come out of an understandable fear of inadequate alternatives. If all schools were excellent, it would make no difference that there were faith schools because those without faith would just not feel the need to choose them.

No you have that wrong, there are two different schools discussed there, one of which was declined a year ago, one was wasn't and is due to open soon but was intending to teach creationism as science until it was addressed a couple of weeks ago. That's what you asked for right? You said that no school taught creationism as science. You asked me to show you one school that did, asserting that I could not, so I have. Are you now backtracking and adding factors onto that requirement?

The pwned comment, I believe I already said I was going to be a little childish there as a precursor, it was light hearted but if you feel the need to still use it then fine I guess.

I am having so much fun listening to this. And am so glad that it's all a moot point for me these days as my atheist child and my god fearing child both have an equal opportunity for education despite their Jewish Atheist mother (I even have a piece of paper proving me to be jewish by race because of my dna (both mitochondrial and otherwise) because they live in America. ....I love the way the Europeans turn their nose up at the religious fervor in America....but the reality is that I have experienced much more prejudice, religious persecution, classism and racism in the UK, England and France than I have ever seen here.

Wow, Steve, when I said talking to you was like talking to a child I was not wrong.

Go on, how old are you? I have never conversed with a teenage boy before on mumsnet - how on earth did you find us? It does rather explain the lack of logic - I daresay when you've done your GCSEs, you'll learn how to construct an argument.

You entirely misunderstood my post about your Judaism. What I thought was strange was not that you could be racially but not religiously Jewish; that is obvious.

I was just struck by the extreme vitriol in your attitude towards religion which seemed rather odd and indeed sad in one with such a heritage.

breadandbutterfly....steve is really quite capable of defending himself, but I really have to put my 2 cents in here. Your constant insults make it difficult to enjoy the debate. Can't you have a discussion with someone that you disagree with without calling them names and insulting their intelligence? Must you try to convince yourself and everyone else that your opponent is less intelligent than you in order to achieve your point?

If bread had a point, she would make it. She doesn't, so she uses insults to obfuscate. I posted 4 times. She insulted the first, ignored the second, insulted the third and ignored the fourth. So this ones due for an insult. Will I be childish or thick, I wonder.

Sofia, please accept my apologies for the reference to American Evangelicals. I was actually just last week chatting to an American girl who works here, and she was explaining that the media focusing on the extreme cases tends to make America look more extreme than it is, that along with the fact that people like Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin have such public platforms provides outsiders with a mis-representation. I meant no offence, and also I'm sorry to hear that you suffered persecution here in the UK.

Anyway, you're quite right, you reminded me of this video, where Hitch makes a good argument that America is by far more secular than the UK:

B&B, to answer your questions. I'm 31, and I found this thread whilst doing some research. BTW critical thinking is taught at university level, not GCSE, so learning to construct an argument properly is far more likely to take place there... especially if like myself your hobby whilst studying was debating (and still is). I will try to ensure that I add a full disclaimer next time I attempt a light hearted comment, since even though I made it clear that was the case, you still chose to focus on it (illuminating, any points will do?).

You do like to throw around accusations of a "lack of logic" quite loosely don't you?! Whilst you can tell me I'm wrong about some things, I fail to see how I have displayed any lack of logic. Could you provide one specific example in anything I've said?

Upon my stating that Trotsky was an atheist, you replied that he was Jewish... at least seemingly inferring that I was wrong. You then stated this:

"So you see Judaism as a race not a religion, I assume?"

I explained that being Jewish IS a race AND a religion. That you asked, and that you challenged Trotsky's atheism with the fact that he was Jewish demonstrates that you didn't know the being Jewish was both a race and/or religion.

An obvious backtrack took place with "What I thought was strange was not that you could be racially but not religiously Jewish; that is obvious."

TheNaughtiestGirl

I think I've overcomplicated matters so will simplify it. Forget there being two schools that I showed, let's focus on just one.

You said: "can you show me any UK school which teaches creationism as a science? I know you can't but would be interested to see you try"

I then provided you with a school that has a "Creation Policy" which wanted to teach creation as a science.

They are currently private but will soon be state funded, that's what the whole objection to them teaching creationism is about.

After the objections and press coverage a couple of weeks ago, they have altered their policy.

The BHA's role in this wasn't a point of discussion, even though it was the organization that uncovered the issue and then petitioned for action on it. The point was, that there are schools that at least try to teach creationism as science, that the BHA and other organizations are successful in stopping this from happening before it happens in cases such as this, I'm sure you'll agree does not detract from the actual point of the argument.

In a situation such as this, I personally am happy to be provided with evidence that I'm wrong about something as it means I can learn from it. So now it's it up to you, you can either deflect and manipulate it, changing the argument you originally made or focusing on some small part, ignoring the main issue so that you can feel you were not proven wrong... or you can do what I would hope any clear thinking, reasonable person would do, and accept that on this one item you were incorrect, but that does not mean anything other than the fact you're a human being like the rest of us and we're all occasionally wrong (especially when there's a lot of misinformation out there on the topic, which there is).

Steve....apology accepted. I have traveled a lot and each time I go someplace I learn something new about the country I'm in and the country I've left (usually how wonderful America really is....ok I'm a bit of a fan). I am quite fascinated by the meeting of religion and atheism in a secular academic setting here in the USA. My dd has several friends whose families are devoutly religious (muslim, christian, catholic and jewish). I have had great conversations and interactions with them about their religion and my lack of one and it does't keep our dd's from being friends and therefore surely must result in more tolerance and less bigotry. When I lived in London I worked in an office with other educated professionals and I was the first Jew (racially) that several of them had knowingly met...(they too could not get their head around me being racially Jewish but religiously atheist).

I do remember seeing that clip when it first came out. I used to watch Bill Maher all the time, but ended up getting a bit bored with him...he does go on and on and on about the same things and doesn't really seem to listen to anyone else's opinion, which makes him boring because there is no expectation of evolution of thought (there's a joke in there somewhere).

Haha, yes Maher was recently on some list of the top 5 most annoying atheists, I quite like him but that might be because I haven't seen all that much of him. Strangely, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were also on the list though, which I cannot understand why since they're both genuinely incredible and kind people. I think with Sam he gets misquoted and a lot of what he says gets taken out of context, resulting in misunderstanding.

I've never been to the US but have long wanted to, maybe even to live one day if they'd let me.

I know what you mean about the race/religion Jewish thing. I once was told by a rather ignorant chap that I'm not Jewish, because if I was then I would be wearing a little hat. As if that's the qualifier, regardless of where your ancestors hailed from.

Oh dear, don't know what he would of my dd's synagogue which is full of lesbians wearing "little hats."

I'm sure you'd be allowed to live in the USA if you are highly educated or very rich or highly talented in your field (have a British friend who just got a green card in record time because of his creative talents).