Religious schools discriminating against atheists

[MNersanonymous]

Dh and I are just having a discussion about this. The best state schools in our area are all religious and we, as atheists, feel discriminated against.

Could we take action against our local council under the religious discrimination legislation?!

Just curious really.

Exactly Threepoint.

Likewise those people who say, 'Why don't all schools follow what faith schools and or private schools are doing right' are missing the point in a fairly desperate way.

The reason private schools and faith schools get better results is because they select by ability, by ability to pay, by ability to work the system, by faith ...

Even if you don't think it is immoral for faith schools to prioritise the children of certain faiths over others or over none(and, as I've said if the NHS or public transport system starting doing this there would be uproar so why is it ok for schools?), there is plenty of evidence which tells us that the number of free school meals and students with special educational needs in faith schools is well below the national average and will almost certainly be less than the local comprehensive or local community primary school 1/2 mile down the road from the high performing church school.

Exclusion is not something I would want replicated across all schools. It would also not be possible to replicate it across all schools because by definition not every school can exclude the most deprived, the faithless, the children with unsupportive parents unless you don't want them educated at all.

If my nearest school suddenly started excluding any children which didn't fit its agenda (and in so doing excluded many children who were living in poverty, or had unsupportive parents, or had special educational needs) I am quite sure that it would start soaring up the league tables too 9it would also have to stop educating its currently largely Muslim and deprived intake and they would go?).

As for faith schools being better at instilling morals into children, this is frankly quite offensive. The 'morals' that I try to pass on to my children are to be tolerant or rather respectful of people regardless of faith, academic ability, wealth etc. My local state schools would certainly reinforce these values.

In the area where I teach there are so many faith schools which have divided the community not only by faith but also by social class and ethicity that the schools have had to start having a day a year where they bus in children from one sort of school to another so that the children actually get to meet another child of a different faith, ethicity etc which they otherwise wouldn't. How incredibly sad is that? And divisive schooling has largely been blamed as the reason for rioting in the community in recent years.

I wonder what the values are that you think that non-faith schools 'indoctrinate' children in that you do not agree with Smiley.

I also find it odd that you should say both, 'I also want them to be educated in an institution with similar values to myself (or indoctrinated as some of you believe)' and that you yourself are not a 'believer' in God I'm assuming. Because some would call that hypocrisy.

In our area the most mixed schools in terms of race and religion are the private schools which are really great melting pots. The state schools are much more polarised. Amazing you have to pay to get the integration and mixtures of children in some senses because of the way the state sector has panned out since grammar schools were abolished.

Most people know that there will be in Catholic secondary school in the land which is anywhere near the top 20 fee paying schools in terms of results. So it's all a matter of degree. State religious schools just don't compare with the best private day schools because they don't select on IQ/exam entrance test. So if you have a clever children you want educated with other clever children it's best to pay.

Werry Well said both fivecandles and threepoint.

OK, I'll bite. How does selecting by faith mean you get better results? What is the secret that Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Jewish children have which means they do better academically? Better parenting? More discipline? More sense of community? Because that says something pretty depressing about our secular community, doesn't it?

There are children in our local CofE school who have been rejected by other schools in the area because of their special needs. I'm talking children who wee on other children's clothes. Children who sexually assault other children. Children who attack other children with scissors. Children with IQs so low that they were, basically, incapable of recognising the intitial letter of their own name after years of teaching.

If this is discrimination I'd love to see a non-discriminating school.

Bridie, we have quite a few of those in the Catholic schools my dc have attended: children who crawl on the floor and bark like dogs; children whose parents are in prison; children who are over-sexualised from witnessing their mum bringing punters home. Alongside children whose parents are journalists, bankers and medics.

But that's not what people want to hear about church schools, so they tune it out. In the end, the schools were founded by the church, in land and buildings owned by the church, to provide a catholic education for children from catholic families. If there were no demand from catholic families, they would take non-catholics, but they are always over-subscribed by 3:1 by Catholics. Quite a few of the families don't actually attend church much, but are given priority "for pastoral reasons", ie. the priest knows that these kids' lives are so stuffed already, that admitting them to the school may be the only chance they get for a stable and positive influence in their lives.

In the end, the ethos of the school comes from the fact that the families, the staff and the governing body share a common vision that draws together the very different types of families and underpins everything that the school does. Religion isn't currently fashionable or sexy, but that's what it comes down to. If the school was not allowed to prioritise children from that faith, the whole point and ethos of the school would be lost.

Bridie, whatever your personal experience, there is clear evidence that faith schools have less children with SEN and who receive free school meals than the national average.

It is well known that -pushy- supportive middle class parents play and are more able to play the system to ensure their kids get the best education that they can afford or their principles allow. This may mean that they pay for private education, it may mean that they buy a house in the catchment of a desirable school, it may mean that they pretend to have a faith that they don't or exploit their faith to give their child advantages that an ill-educated or unsupportive or poor parent could not take.

As I said earlier, if any school was able to select and exclude (while the majority were not) it would almost certainly start to move up the league tables. Would this make the school a 'better' school?

Anecdotes of a few difficult children accepted by a church school don't outweigh stats that show that CofE schools generally take a lower percentage of children with special needs than the national average.

Take children of alcoholic or drug-addicted parents - those parents are much less likely to be together enough to be church attenders even if they technically believe in God (so less likely to end up with a child at the good and competed-for church schools), AND are not likely to be as involved and supportive of their kids at school in general (so those children won't do as well academically). Because the church school with its selective admission policies is much less likely to take those children of substance-addicted parents, it's going to appear to be giving a better education on paper.

It's nothing to do with being religious versus secular - or mostly won't be. (Being religious does have certain advantages for people, although that's no reason for anyone to decide to be religious if they don't actually believe that the God in question exists, which is after all the important question!)

You don't need essential differences between religious and secular people to explain the apparent greater success of some church schools - bog standard covert/indirect selection tending towards taking more middle-class children or those with involved and supportive parents will do the trick just fine.

Supportive parenting can be correlated with religious behaviour without being caused by that religious behaviour.

And however wonderful your C of E/ Catholic/ Jewish/ Muslim school may be it DOES discriminate. It discriminates against those who do not have that faith or have none.

This is wrong. As wrong as if there were C of E/ Catholic/ Muslim hospitals or buses which gave priority to people of the appropriate faith and left the rest of us to queue up in the hope of any extra places.

Frogs - and what those schools are doing is washing their hands of children who don't have religious parents, regardless of their needs, how close they may live to the school, and so on. Regardless of how far they may have to travel to reach another school or how it may separate them from other children in their local streets. They're saying: you can come if your parents profess to believe in our God - if your parents don't, you can't come here: we don't want you or your parents.

It's discrimination, plain and simple (though you may prefer to tune that uncomfortable thought out). Perhaps legitimate (if distasteful) when funded by Catholics for Catholics; totally unacceptable when state-funded.

But the state didn't provide the schools in the first place - the church did, through donations from its parishioners. All the state is doing is paying for the education of the children, which it would have to do in any case, even if all church schools were abolished.

All abolition would do, is deny non-affluent religious families the right to have their children educated within the context of their faith.

And who were those parishioners who so kindly paid to educate the local children? Just the people who happened to live there at the time. Which is why the people who live there NOW should be able to go to their nearest school.

Anyone who tries to defend separate schools for separate religions should think about Northen Ireland.

No, parishioners who felt so strongly about wanting a school for their children where they would be supported in their faith that they dug deep into their pockets. Which is pretty much how people now feel about having their children educated in an environment that will support what we are teaching them at home.

As I understood it, parishioners paid for schools because there weren't any other schools at the time. Except for really rich people.

Fivecandles,
I can't agree with you more. It is discrimination. But we all accept it as a society by claiming that our children belong to a certain faith in order to get them a place in a particular school rather than saying 'hang on this is outrageous'. Parents are pushed into having a faith by the existing system. It angers me so much because I don't agree with taking my child to church just to get them in a school. But I cant judge someone who does because one day I might have to make a decision like that myself if I live in an area with crap schools as well as good ones, which lets face it is probably most off us. Not all schools are perfect. But I believe that the time when churches were the provider of education has long gone. It is now the state. Therefore all religions should be learnt in school but not imposed in schools.

No, we have a London Board School over the road which started up at the same time. One of dh's colleagues went to my dc's school in the 1960s, when it really was just Irish and Caribbean working families, living in one room. The middle-class input is much more recent, dating to the gentrification of parts of east London in the 1980s and 1990s.

Except nowadays those parishioners apparently don't feel quite as strongly about it or they wouldn't need to be taking the state's money as well.

It's a matter of principle IMO - once you start taking the state's money, you should start taking all the state's children, not just the ones whose parents tick your personal religious box - unless a genuine need for a specialist state school can be shown - and being educated in a particular religious environment is not an educational need. It's a want that religious people have for their children, and not one that the state should be fulfilling any more than the state should be funding schools that prioritise white children or hospitals that prioritise Catholics.

But the cost of educating the children is the same as the cost of educating them in the other school over the road. The state is not paying for anything it wouldn't be paying for anyway -- most of the children in my dc's school would certainly not be in a position to opt out into the private sector, however strongly they felt about wanting a Catholic education for their kids. And non-Catholic parents frankly would not want the heavy-duty RE that goes with it being a CAtholic school.

God-who-doesn't-exist, spare us from choice. The worst decision ever made about education. Whoever said upthread that we've been "sold a pup" is spot-on.

I've been on record here many times saying how much I dislike state faith schools.

My declaration, it's fair to say, has never been tested. I'm lucky enough to live in a decent "normal" catchment so we haven't had to consider other options. I wouldn't like to be one of those parents forced to choose between their principles and their children's education.

So I suppose a fair representation of my stance is to say I don't think anybody should be put in that invidious position. And it's appalling that successive governments have thought it acceptable to do so.

Frogs, it's not about cost per head, it's about discrimination. Church schools take taxpayers' money but turn round and say 'only some of your children can come in'. That's plain wrong.

And there is a huge opportunity cost that they impose on the rest of society, by their not-so-subtle social engineering. They leave other schools with a disproportionate number of disadvantaged children.

For most Christian schools, I'd guess the parishioners who originally contributed are long dead and beyond caring about admissions policies - or are unable to make their views known, at any rate.

'All abolition would do, is deny non-affluent religious families the right to have their children educated within the context of their faith. '

I'm wondering exactly what some people thinks goes on in a non-faith state school that would actually conflict with whatever faith is practised by the parents.

Remember, that we still live in a Christian country where every school is supposed to have a collective, daily act of worship.

State schools have a duty to teach children right and wrong and educate them about all religions so what's the problem? State schools do not prevent children from practising their faith and actually often support these values.

It's well-known that many parents don't pick a faith school because they have a particular commitment to their faith and some, as someoene posted earlier, don't even believe at all. Pure hypocrisy. Yet, I don't blame the parents. Middle class parents will always work the system. And it's the system that's at fault.

I'm also thinking that discriminating against people because of their faith or lack of is actually not very Christian. Even if I was religious I wouldn't want my children going to any school which did this.

As mentioned earlier faith schools encourage intolerance and ignorance towards other faiths and divide communities.

Like I said, I work in a community where faith schools have so divided people not only by faith but by class and ethnicity that a day a year has been set aside so that children are bused from one school to another just so they get to see a child from a different faith and ethnicity.

There is no justification for this scenario.

One of the three secondaries in my town is a VA comp. I went to the open evening and found the headmaster a complete chump - his statement was "give us your child and we will turn him into something" I was so cross as my children are already something and don't need changing into anything at all. The information you needed to provide separate to the LEA form was ridiculously invasive. How does me being an atheist deprive my son - who actually does believe in God - of a place at that school? I just don't get that bit at all. Laughably, the selection criteria changes in the sixth form - atheist prospective pupils and parents are encouraged to apply - so long as they have 6A grades at GCSE. I was in half a mind to apply for a place and then make a big point of rejecting them, in my dreams in a whole page spread in the National press, for being bigoted when it suits them.

I don't know about the related school, but our local church was built by public subscription over 100 years ago. As the school was founded in Victorian times, I wouldn't be surprised if it was also funded by the local great and good.

I am certain, however, that the church-going profile of the local population has changed since then, as have many other things. The school was founded almost 50 years before women got the vote. I think many C of E schools are an anachronism.

Fivecandles, I'm afraid that's simply not the case

Our CofE school has Muslim children. They leave assembly if it turns religious.

The four or five other I know in the area also accept anyone who applies.

Bridie, it IS the case that faith schools prioritise applicants who (can prove) they have the relevant faith. This means, of course, that they are discriminating against those people who do not share this faith. Just how much priority/ discrimination goes on depends on how oversubscribed a school is so some schools will insist on letters from the church etc and some (the least popular) will be able to be more lenient. The fact that your Cof E school accepts some Muslim students means very little. And how very sad that they are excluded from assembly (which I believe to be an important means of uniting a school as a community with shared values) because they are not C of E.

Okay - I've been thinking about this. Can I give you an imaginary scenario as a way of helping you walk in others' shoes?

Imagine a parallel world. In this world, there are "normal" state schools and schools which have been funded by a section of society who are completely anti-religion. Many of them are excellent schools and are popular in their communities. The problem: if there is any sign that a parent has any religious affiliation then their child is not allowed to be educated there.

Some of the less popular schools throw a sop by permitting those with religion the last places, once everyone else in the community has been served. But they're not permitted to participate in several of the schools events and don't really feel a part of the school.

Many religious parents have to turn to private education, or put up with substandard education in the area - travelling long distances daily to get their children there. Others go underground - go to house churches, or secret bible studies, hiding any outward signs of religion in order to get their children into the better schools. They constantly feel hypocritical, ashamed and afraid they'll be caught out at any moment, but they feel they must do what is best for their children.

Those that already enjoy the benefits of the anti-religion schools can't work out what the fuss is about. "But there are other schools" they say... "and you wouldn't fit in here anyway - why would you want your child educated in an establishment which despises your way of life?" ... "Besides, I know of a school which very charitably brings in loads of poor and disadvantaged religious children in order to help them see the error of their ways". And so the divide continues.

--

As I say, completely hypothetical imaginary world.

For the record, even as an atheist I would totally oppose the imaginary system too. I'm an "I'm alright Jack" too in that we're lucky our local primary is good (secondary school is a whole other nightmare, but still a long way off thankfully) but I still think there is no place for an education which divides by religious belief or the lack thereof.

The only fair way is education for all and religious/political ideologies left at the door or discussed in a neutral way in certain lessons.