Solving the crisis in state education

[judetheobscure]

Thought I'd start a new thread as the state vs private thread is soooo long; and wanted to focus more on possible solutions.

So, fwiw, here are some ideas (aimed at secondary level):

Abolish private schools
Abolish "religious" schools
Abolish grammar schools, foundation schools, CTCs (are they still called this) and any other form of "specialist" school.

Create across-the-board comprehensive system.

Insist on setting. No mixed-ability classes for academic subjects. Allow plenty of opportunity to move "up" and "down" the sets.

Have units within the schools for problem pupils. Remove them from classes as soon as they become disruptive.

Problem pupils who don't improve and who don't have parents that support the school to be sent to boarding schools. (Not necessarily boarding schools for disruptive pupils but normal boarding schools.)

Restrict higher education to top 20%(ish).
Bring back apprenticeships. (Where's a plumber when you need one).
Money saved on universities can go to restoring student grant and better funding for schools.

Train more teachers and train them better. Don't allow teacher training institutions to spend 90% of the course on educational debates and "gender issues" etc. Classroom management and subject specific skills are far more important.

Anything I've missed (tongue-in-cheek)

I am also v sceptical about Church schools being non-selective on academic ability and achieving good results by their sheer Christian goodness or something. After all, they can accept pupils on the basis of their religious knowledge and understanding - that seems to me to strongly imply an academic bias. After all, what is the ability to express knowledge and understand philosophical concepts but a kind of intelligence test. Also the pupils are likely to come from very 'respectable' backgrounds, if you like, if the parents are either real churchgoers or cunning and organised and articulate enough to convincingly pretend to be in order to get their kids into the school. I suspect this is the real reason why they do so well. They exclude the troubled, the rootless and the downright hapless families and can pick and choose amoung the rest.

I truly don't want to start another religion thread, but just wanted to point out that you can be against the Church for strong moral reasons which I, for one, wouldn't wish to compromise.

And yes, I do believe all schools should be entirely secular with no element of worship. I also don't think RE should be core curriculum subject, though of course aspects of religion should be part of any serious study of history, literature etc.

Its a cultural thing as well though Aloha, all the Uk major holidays are religious festivals.

CAM - I don't think you can really compare the 2. A day off work compared with a hugely discriminatory education system!!?

Aloha - I didn't know that religious schools got state funding! I'm horrified by that.

No I wasn't comparing the 2 as of course you can't but I was speaking out loud to myself about Aloha's reference to teaching RE in schools. I think its important to learn about the British culture at all levels even if you're not actually religious. That's all.

Aw.... I see CAM.

I quite enjoyed RE at my school. It was only 1 period a week.

aloha, if you are such a 'heathen' as you put it, why on earth do you want your kids to go to a religious school anyway ? you can't have it both ways you know. What point are you making, you insist on being outraged at the fact that taxpayers money supports religious schools, but it also supports non denominational schools, so send them there.You cannot simply decide that state funded religious schools are 'wrong' yet also somehow intrinsically 'better' than non denominational schools, unless you want to contradict yourself. Or if religios schools ARE better - ask yourself why exactly that is ?????

Oh aloha is back and firing on all cylinders!

I attend Church. But I agree with Aloha and others (although not as vehemently and not for the same reasons obviously) that Church schools are discriminatory. I am not convinced that there is much point to a religious assembley. I think I will send my DS to the local village school rather than the next nearest (still less than 1 mile) CofE school. To me being easily able to walk to school and with his friends are more important.

In fact I would totally support the abolition of Church schools if it were not for the argument put forward by Tigermoth - that church schools tend to do better because they are more involved in the community and vice-versa. So I think we would be wise to look at them and learn from them before we abolish them.

I think it's helpful to have a broad knowledge of all religions, what i'm uncomfortable with is the current law that non-faith schools must favour the C of e take on things. As for struggling with Shakespeare because of biblical references, surely it's down to teachers to explain this clearly? After all I'm sure that plenty of other references in literature are pretty bemusing to the uninitiated.

I also feel that as a parent it's my job to ensure that my daughter has an awareness of other religions, cultures, art etc. It's part of bringing her up to be a well-rounded, well-informed individual.

Donnie, no, I don't want my child to go to a church school. How many times do I have to say that. What I want is an end to state funding for discriminatory church schools, which will mean, of course, that there won't be any. This is because the church wants to run schools and prevent the children of non-churchgoers from going to them (even if the school is right next to their house, say), but won't pay for them. There is no contradiction, no wanting it both ways, except by the church, which wants my money but not my kids. And why should churchgoers get special schools just for them? And more to the point, why should I, as a committed rationalist, pay for them to have schools which exclude my son? Children of religious parents are permitted in non-church schools, so if all schools were secular then they would be open to all and I really can't see how anyone can have a problem with that. If you want religious indoctrination for your kids, go to church by all means, that's your choice and your freedom, but don't expect me to pay for ghetto schools.

As for the religious schools are better argument, as I pointed out, they tend to be selective schools. Almost all selective schools show better results in exams. It's not because they are better schools with better teachers, it's because they have 'better' raw material to work with - ie fewer children from chaotic backgrounds. That's hardly radical thinking. Or indeed contradictory thinking.

I would be very happy for children to be taught philosophy or ethics, but not RE. I don't see why it is a separate subject - religion is not the only belief system.

I do realise that in being vehemently anti-religious rather than merely agnostic or apathetic I am in the minority, but for me this is a moral issue about education. Schools that are funded by all should be open to all, and not discriminate on grounds of religion. I actually can't work out why it's not illegal, actually.

bozza, i agree with your last point.

aloha, it is simply not the case that all these schools are selective.

Aloha - I am very anti-religeous. I find the whole concept of blindly following rules written by whoever (and nobody will ever know) ridiculous and rather gullable. Whooooops... stop now M2T. Please don't start with a huge religion debate!?!

Any other sort of discrimination is damned by the government, yet they openly support and fund these schools!!!

I hope dp doesn't see this, he's a Catholic and went to a Catholic school.

I'm not going to fight the church-schools-are-good corner, simply because I think the state funding issue for church schools is suspect. From what I've learned on this thread, state fuding also seems to be suspect for state schools as - re good schools getting more funds, bad schools getting less.

Just thinking what would happen if our church school put nearness to the school as top priority. It's a good school, so house prices might well go up, making it a school for children from well off families. So discrimination would definitely follow. At the moment all you have to do is attend church sometimes. Rich or poor, anyone's children are then eligible for the school.

My dd goes to a church school (private, not funded by the state system). We do not find that the religious side of things is 'thrust down' our (or her ) throats. And the school covers all faiths. The children study and celibrate all the major festivals of all the main faiths. The school is also attended by a wide range of religious and ethnic groups. No-one is barred, regardless of religious belief, or lack of them. Neither my husband or I were asked if we were church goers, of had any faith at all.

Oh, and there is no enterance test of any sort, at any stage in the school

I can only speak from my own experience of one church school but to repeat - we were never asked if we were christians or believed in the C of E view of christianty. We were not asked to have our son baptised. While we were being offered a place we were also told we could withdraw our son from the religious parts of the curriculum including school assembly. We were told it was our right to make a free choice. I am not at all sure here, but I THINK the head said the school had to offer this opt out choice in accordance with LEA guidelines.

So IME this is one church school that is not seeking to indoctrinate its pupils.

It's not academically selective, either.

I continue to go to church. My youngest son has a place in January 2004 so there is no 'need' to show I attend church any more. But I like going. So do my sons. Few of my friends understand this. Personal decision - and it's impossible to find a parking space near our sunday morning farmers market

The report to the Archbishops' Council is really very interesting and gives many specific ways the Church of England can develop its schools. It also tells what its role in education is and how the schools play a part in the Church.

Section 3.3 and 3.4:
"The Church's Need to Reach the Young

The Church has a major problem in attracting young people to its services as a means of discharging its mission, and one that causes much concern.
This bears directly on the future of the Church.
In contrast the Church has some 900,000 young people attending its schools. Not all of these schools are everything that they might be, but our experience is that the vast majority give their pupils the experience of the meaning of faith and of what it is to work and play in a community that seeks to live its beliefs and values. We set out in section 4.6 what we see as the fundamental characteristics of a Church school. These include meaningful daily worship and quality religious education as well as a distinctively Christian ethos."

It says many times that the schools role is at the centre of the Church's mission to the nation and spells out what exactly this means (section 3.11 -- see above link to section 3):

"If the Church schools are at the centre of the Church's mission, their work must derive from the mission of the whole Church. In a sentence, the Church's mission is to open up people to what God desires for them: Church schools are places where a particular vision of humanity is offered. More fully, but still very briefly the mission of the Church is:
to proclaim the gospel;
to nourish Christians in their faith;
to bring others into the faith;
and
to nurture and maintain the dignity of the image of God in human beings through service, speaking out on important issues and to work for social justice as part of that mission."

It also has the following in section 4, "Distinctiveness and Partnership" :

"We have argued in Chapter 1 that with the state being a willing provider of education, the justification for the Church's presence in education must be to offer an approach to education that is distinctively Christian."

So the church schools are meant to be distinctively Christian. If schools are failing in this respect, the report has proposals for increasing the Christian character of the school. And, outreach (ie conversion) is certainly one of their goals.

Tigermoth, you're a success story to them. Even if you don't believe or feel that the Christian values are forced on your son, you started attending church regularly. That's definitely good for them. It's the whole "suck people in" thing (ie the hard part is getting people to come once, get that and its much easier)-- you "pay" for your place with your time (church services, etc) and beliefs. For some people, it's too high a price.

The Church is actively asking their schools to move from a Voluntary Controlled to Voluntary Aided basis, so that the Church has more control over the schools. The report notes that (section 4.20 ) :
"The structural benefits of Aided status are outlined in Appendix 1. In brief, this gives a security to the long term Christian character of the school through the structures of the governing body and the role of the governors in shaping the admissions policy. The governing body of an Aided school may also seek evidence of Christian commitment from applications for teaching posts. We recognize the financial implications of any changes to Aided category, but since September 2000 it has been possible for Controlled schools to change their category without reimbursing local authorities for past expenditure."

There are no immediate financial consequences of moving to an Aided status.

This change is in a large part made possible by School Standards and Framework Act 1998. So while the "abolish religious schools" is an interesting argument, it might be an idea to work at undoing some recently done and much appreciated funding. And, while change is being made, quietly introduce some neighbourhood admission quotas. Then go from there. Work toward the goal .. kind of like losing weight. A bit at a time.

Anyway, the purpose of RC church schools (from what I've read, but am too tired to document at the moment) is for the RC education of RC youngsters. That Church has, from the beginning, advised its schools to be Voluntary Aided (at more cost to them) so as to be able to control admissions and curricula (which, while standardized, is still flexible enough to promote and teach a religion). The top admissions requirements for many (most?) schools require that the child be baptized into the church. As I've mentioned before, some RC schools have a max quota of non-RC children (sometimes 0%) in order to retain their RC character -- this is even if the class is not full.

And I agree with you marieluisa, I wouldn't want my son to go to a school where the teacher was a born again Christian either. Not to say I have anything against religion: my mom founded a church school in the US. Almost 25 years later, it's still going strong (I was educated in the state system).

Suedonim, the number 1 million is the average attendence for an average Sunday. According to the National Statistics, 19% of people go to church (any church, not just C of E or RC) at least once a month -- 12% of people go at least once a week.

Sheesh, that's long. Sorry.

There once was a man from Nantucket
Who found a hole in his bucket
How'd it get there?
It's not very fair.
Who cares, I say just .... well, I was just seeing if anyone was reading, really. And you shouldn't know those words anyway.

well aloha, the fact that you use the term 'indoctrination'to describe going to church speaks volumes about your bigotry and total ignorance of a) religion and b) what religious schools or going to church is like. Have you taught in one recently ? I doubt it. Have you gone to church/ synagogue/mosque/temple recently ?How dare you suggest that by sending their children to a religious school parents are guilty of having their children 'indoctrinated'? or that by going to church or taking their children to church parents are 'indoctrinating'their children ? how dare you assume we are all stupid and/or incapable of making proper decisions. You rant on about discrimination but the irony is , it is YOU who are discriminatory - against anyone who happens to follow a faith and to want that for their child.And your point about having state funding for religious schools made illegal is both ridiculous and absurd. Lastly, the fact that you write 'and more to the point, why should I pay', indicates your priorities nicely. Clearly, the issue of paying is, in your view,the main point. Is this the basis of your particular 'moral' code ? the money ?

Can I butt in again?? Good.

Donnie - like it or not, unfortunately it DOES boil down to funding the education system!! So, therefore, it is very dependant on cash availability. Can't really avoid that.