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)

Tigermoth - maybe I've missed something - but is your school able to be so accommodating simply because it is not heavily over subscribed? Surely if it was oversubscribed (as every church school for miles around me is) it would select pupils firstly on the basis that they attend church regularly and - if they still had too many applicants - secondly on how close they live to the school?

I have to say I had no idea that Church schools were so heavily funded by the State. And yes, I do find it extremely warped that we all pay for them via taxes yet so many children are excluded from them. At least with the private sector it's only the parents of the children who attend the actual schools who pay!

Aloha, I'm with you on that one but you're saying it so much better than I ever could. You go girl!

Donnie - I don't have a problem with other people having a faith - but I do have a problem with helping to fund schools that my ds is excluded from, particularly when those same schools are so often better equipped and staffed than their secular counterparts. And before anyone starts arguing "Oh, no they're not" ask yourself why so many people suddenly rediscover their faith at exactly the time that they start to consider which school their child will attend - only to rarely step foot in church again once the offer of a place comes through the letterbox. And before I start WW3 - no, I'm not doubting anyone's faith here - just telling it like it is round here.

willow, I posted something on this a bit further down, but this is a long thread so don't blame you for getting confused. Anyway, yes, the school is oversubscribed and, yes, church attendance is the first priority. But I was never asked by anyone about my personal beliefs, or lack of them. And they told me, I didn't ask, that I had the right to request my son did not participate in the religioius life of the school.

JJ, I suppose I have been sucked in a bit, but it's the community feeling, not the spiritual side that attracts me.

donnie - I'll my own Catholic school as anexample. A Catholic school doesn't give the child an option to be a Catholic, there is not a discussion about all types of faith and non-faith and it is left up to the child to decide at an age when they can make an informed decision. A Catholic school teaches children to be Catholics. I really don't believe that a child can possibly know what religion, if any, it will believe so it can ony really be indoctrination, there is no other option for the child. If there was, why would the child be there, how would it be a Catholic school? I realise that teaching is done about other religions but not in an exploratory way for the puplis.

I can see from the parents' point of view that, as Catholics, they must bring up their child to be Catholic but the child can't possibly be making an informed choice about it, it is simply taught that he/she is Catholic. I suppose you could argue that as a Catholic you might see that as fact and so it is no different from being taught that you are female etc. But, for most people, a belief system is just that, there is an element of choice in that belief (don't want to start another religious thread). Surely to be told something as fact without any discussion of the alternative options is indoctrination.

Oops - Tigermoth, sorry for that. I had mentioned "getting sucked in" as an idea for increasing community involvement in state schools (way back when on this thread) and what I meant was that I think it's a good idea for schools and the Church does this very effectively. I didn't mean it as a bad thing. I also wanted to explicitly point out that the Church (I'm talking C of E here) doesn't mind in fact, quite appreciates people "rediscovering" their faith to put their kids in school, even if they never set foot in the church again. They are actively trying to come up with ways to involve the families in their school, involve the school more with the diocese and therefore give the children more of a view of Christian (their word) culture.

I'm not a fan of "all religion is evil" anymore than I'm a fan of "you're going to burn in hell, sinner". Luckily, most of us are somewhere in between... truthfully, I think I fall exactly where you are, tigermoth, but I don't go to church (although I might if there were a local English speaking one).

The thing that frustrates me is the shouting, yelling and waving of hands-- and not caring that anything gets done. You're not going to effect radical change. You might not know it, but the Church does. To repeal church schools would require a primary law and that is not going to happen. But, it seems, anything less than that is considered a failure.

On the other hand, the Church is very happy with small victories. They have a long term plan which includes creating 100 new secondary Church schools, moving many schools to a voluntary aided status and increasing its control over the individual schools. The first they think is possible because of proposed legislation and anticipated future goodwill of the LEAs and political parties. The second is possible because of recent changes in funding and the third is possible because they've got their act together and have admitted this is a priority to them. While the third is difficult to change -- the first is not and the second just requires repealing (or whatever you do) a 1998 Act (showing my ignorance of the UK system..).

The only groups opposed to Church schools are the British Humanist Society and the National Secular Society. The Church is so not worried about them, because the Church has the support of both political parties and most of the population is either supportive or apathetic, plus those societies want to abolish Church schools (the primary law which will not happen). BUT they have acknowledged that sometimes Church parents will feel uneasy about the fact that local non-religious children are unable to get into the school. Y'know what their recommendation is? "...[in the case parents are uneasy about this, we should be] offering a proportion of places for local children. We [the Church] believe this can be an important factor in winning the hearts and minds of
our prospective partners in discussing proposals for additional or expanded Church schools, as well as furthering the mission of the Church." While I'm all for this, it shouldn't satisfy anyone. But it's a start, right? Take the small victories.

In the above, I'm talking about the Church of England. The Roman Catholic church has a different approach and different priorities. It's misleading to compare the two on a school by school basis. Proposed solutions will have to work for both.

Anyway, to you journalists out there: why isn't the public interested? It's obviously somewhat tedious and boring once people stop screaming, but most news is. I'd love to see one of those cool interactive Flash guides about ... um.. something related to this on the Guardian website. (I love those things.) It could be one of those "Special Reports". They just had "Religion in the UK".. maybe it's time for "Church Schools in the UK" with the associated articles, commentary and, yes, cool Flash interactive thingies.

Went to work for a couple of days and missed all this.

Aloha, delighted to see you back, you have hit the heart of the matter as usual. The state is funding schools with discriminatory admissions and employment policies. For the privilege of discriminating in order to increase their influence on developing minds, the churches are asked to contribute a measly 15% of maintenance costs.

Many that we know of mislead parents about this and solicit additional donations, on which they can then increase their state subsidy by reclaiming our tax as gift aid. (no, robinw, they're not all in one diocese, but what if they were?)

If anyone dislikes the word 'many', by all means substitute '106' or 'one'. Why should any of them get away with it?

This seems to me a misuse of public money regardless of whether the schools concerned are good or bad on academic criteria and regardless of whether they are over- or under-subscribed.

On the church schools have better facilities argument- I think that's because there's less embarrassment about asking parish and parents to come up with more than the 15% required. My brother and sisters regularly come home with book fair catalogues, sponsorship forms etc..There is a cake sale after mass every Sunday and the proceeds go to the PTA. The preschool classrooms were recently renovated by parents with materials donated by a parishoner who runs a DIY shop, the list is endless. I think Catholic schools tend to be seen as part of the parish and the whole parish feels responsible for them, unfortunately this is less likely to be the case in a suburban non-faith school.

Also this debate seems to focus on Christian schools, but how about the moslem, hindu and jewish schools?

Yes, what are people's views on muslim and jewish schools in particualr? Now that is a hot potato

Ah, but Marialuisa, the Hindu, Muslim and Jewish schools aren't funded by the state - as far as I know.
Agree with others that it is good to have Aloha back on board in a fascinating debate. Personally I have always been in favour of the positive contribution that faith-based schools can make to a nation whose entire culture and tradition originally stems from Christianity. I think any child growing up in the UK without a basic knowledge and understanding of the Bible, if only as a highly influential piece of literature, is going to run into problems if he or she wants to study Western history, literature, philosophy or ethics later on. As a Christian, I also welcome and expect that ds will be taught fully about other belief systems such as Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc, because they are now part of our culture too. That's what I understand by RE in schools. And I think the belief systems of Humanists should be covered too.
BUT I do also think that what I've read here about the balance between control and funding is not right and open to abuse in the sense that many church schools clearly are seen as exclusive. So thanks for that, JJ and others, it really has opened my eyes.
I would just say that certainly in my part of SE London church schools are not "just there for the good times", cherry-picking the most committed and motivated families in the nicer parts of town. Plenty of the church primaries and secondaries in my borough are in very deprived areas, working to try and give a decent education to children alongside the LEA, which is frankly struggling. If the Church's main agenda was results-based they would have washed their hands of some of the secondaries round where I live in particular. But they haven't.

jj agree with you on small changes being a more practical approach to this.

Just wondered what would happen if church schools were abolished overnight. Where would all the pupils go, especially in areas where church schools predominate. Whole new schools would have to be built from scratch. Sounds very expensive to me. Who is going to pay for all this? Isn't it cheaper and more workable to change the existing church schools in areas of funding, admissions and religious curriculum?

Marina and CAM agree with your points about our christian heritege. Also agree with Marina that it's important that other faiths are covered in the curriculum of all schools.

RE indoctrination - how many of those who attended a church school as a child still hold the religious beliefs they were taught?

Sorry marina, they are! I admit that the numbers are small in relation to Christian schools but state-funded moslem, jewish and hindu schools exist. More have been approved in line with the govt policy of increasing faith school provision.
So, Liverpool has a Jewish primary and secondary, there are Moslem schools in Birmingham and the hindu school is attached to the temple in Neasden. I think there are/will be Sikh schools too. These are just the few i can think of off the top of my head.

Agree with you about church schools operating in bad areas. I work in H.E. in liverpool and the work that the church schools do in some seriously deprived areas is amazing. incidentally, liverpool has the highest proportion of faith schools in any one LEA, perhaps a reflection of the irish link?

Donnie, why is it absurd to withdraw funding from Church schools? And no, they wouldn't cease to exist, they would merely then become proper state schools open to all regardless of creed, colour etc etc, as I believe is the morally correct way for state schools to operate. I find it morally offensive that there are schools funded by the state that are entitled to reject my son because I do not believe in the dogma of a particular sect. Schools that are funded by all should be open to all. The idea that public money and public morality are not linked is laughable. So the postcode rationing in the NHS is not a moral issue? So the non-treatment of disabled children on financial grounds (cf Jimjams comments re: the NHS) is not a moral issue? Of course where our money is spent - be it on bombs or the millennium dome has a moral issue. In this case I find it morally offensive that my tax money is spent on divisive & discriminatory schools. Look at what they do in N Ireland! Why do we want to encourage divisions in our society like this? As I say, we don't actually live near a church school so this is not actually about my choices, it's a purely moral issue for me, about education open to all. BTW, why do you think you and your religion is so special that your kids should be entitled to a special school that my kids couldn't get into - yet I fund just as much as you do?

I'm sorry, but I think a school which imposes these tight controls on parents & kids is very much a selective school. Entrance exams aren't the only form of selection. Asking for regular (and in the case of a Catholic school in Brixton, that means every single week) church attendance, asking for children who understand religious theory etc are all means of selection, which will ensure a school does not have children from the kind of chaotic backgrounds that are certainly very common where I live. Exclude those kids and it's no wonder your results suddenly look better than the local true state school.

Donnie, what do you think indoctrination means, exactly?

Don't know about all church schools, but the primary one near us has same admission criteria as none church school - i.e. siblings, distance from school, special needs etc. The secondary one doesn't say if you're not a Christian you can't come, but rather, if the school is oversubscribed, then faith is one of the criteria they look at in addition to the others already mentioned.

I suppose the issue I am really talking about here, is why on earth is the the church allowed to run schools at the state's expense. Hardly anyone goes to church yet this organisation has the right to dictate which (state-funded) schools kids are permitted to go to. It's just so clearly wrong to me. I also, BTW, disagree with schools being run by and for and support of Sainsbury's, ICI or The Conservative party. Oh, how about that then, a large, local state-funded school your kids can only get into if you are a member of the Labour party and your parents have faithfully voted Labour at the last two general elections and done some door-to-door leafletting. Or maybe, if they are very liberal in their admissions policy, you merely have to promise to support the socialist ethos of the school? What? You voted Libdem or Conservative or Green? You don't feel in the least bit Socialist? Sorry, you can't send your kids here. How about that other school five miles away? How outrageous does that sound? Well, I'm afraid that's exactly how Church schools operate. And that's why I object to them. As I say, if you are religious, go to church. That's the place for religion, not our state-funded schools.

From Ofsted's Review of Primary Schools 1994-1998 :
64% of primary schools were non-denominational, 25% C of E, 10% RC and 1% other which includes Jewish and Methodist (Chart Two )
62% of primary schools were LEA maintained, 20% voluntary aided, 15% voluntary controlled and 3% grant maintained (Chart 3 )

From Ms Estelle Morris (here under "Jewish Schools" ): in 2001, there were 78 Jewish schools [private and state], 32 of which are maintained [state].

I think that Methodist and Moslem schools are about on the same order of magnitude (ie, more along the lines of 30 odd schools than 300 odd schools). Yes, as funding and gov't support for religious schools increases, so probably will the numbers of Moslem, Sikh, Jewish and Methodist (why is Methodist always in these lists?). I'm guessing the proportion won't increase substantially though. And there have been arguments that state funded religious schools should be Christian only.

It's not very clever, but why not just apply the same criteria to them as to the other religious schools? Anything else would be either favouritism or religious discrimination. When making policy, unfortunately for them, they are too few to have a real impact.

While trawling around the Guardian, I noted a story, education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,596906,00.html , about the proportion of students who receive free lunches in the various denominational schools. While I do believe the Churches do some excellent work within their communities, I think that it can't be taken as a given that the schools are helping the communities via the schools as completely as they could, given the admissions requirements and funding situation (sometimes, I know, sometimes). Yes, they might be doing more than they legally are required, but no, it's still not a fair situation. Plus, shouldn't they do the neighbourhood outreach (non-school based, at least) anyway, regardless of school funding situations? In theory, the Churchs' impetus for doing good is not financial and depends instead on the moral imperative to help others in need.

In case you're wondering, I have a sick little boy who will only stop crying while asleep or cuddled up on me watching movies. As I don't think I can handle seeing Snow White for the millionth time, I'm doing this. But, the "Hi Ho" song is on soon-- that's always fun and a brief reprieve from Snow White's screechy voice.

Go aloha!!!

I'm sorry donnie but if you think that religious schools don't indoctrinate their pupils then you're living in cloud cookoo land. I have vivid memories of being taught that Catholics were the only true faith and that others were doomed to varying degrees of hell depending on how close their doctrine was to the 'one true faith'. Furthest out were the Hindus and Heathens if I remember correctly. After all it was the Jesuits who operated under the dictum of get a child before the age of 7 and you have them for life.

If there was a school near yo that insisted that it would only take children who's parents were Satanists and could that they attended Black Mass regularly, and further more you were supporting this school with YOUR taxes you would be just as outraged as aloha and myself.

Thanks for the info about funding for other faith-based schools, JJ and Marialuisa. I definitely think that while state funding is given to Christian foundations it should also be available to other faiths, and had not realised this was already the case.

Secular state schools linked to community centres. Just wondered if anyone's child gos to this type of school - non religious, with (hopefully) community-spirited staff and parents plus lots of involvement in the local community. If so, is the school good?

I think many parents could say they are funding state schools that they do not want their child to ever attend. For instance, I live near one of the biggest primary schools in England. Many people around here choose not to send their children to this school, simply because of its size.

However, of course this big primary school doesn't disriminate in term of admissons. You just need to live locally to apply.

Yes, but not wanting to go there and not being permitted to go there are VERY different things,surely. Also, I agree with state funding for special schools/units for children with disabilities such as autism though I also think those children should have access to the mainstream system if that's what the kids/parents want. But that's also a different issue as those children often need a very specific and different kind of education and for them, mainstream education is ineffective or even harmful. That's not the case, I think, for normal children from churchgoing homes.

TBH I have no problem with church schools. They only become an issue in areas where all the schools are so oversubscribed- when any selection procedure will be unfair so maybe the issue is not enough spaces in enough schools.

DS1 will be going to a church school. I'm not religious, I haven't pretended to be and we don't live in the area.

I have spent this morning in my local community school (not church) talking to the head and senco. Actually it was a lovely school and would be great for ds2 (although he'll go to same school as ds1). BUT they have serious funding problems. They had to lay off 3 SEN LSA's this term (ds1's school is in a different LEA and doesn't have the same funding problems). It's too big for a child with autism and I'm not sure about the safety aspect (straight out onto a main road- and not enough staff- don't think so!)

I guess what I'm saying is that I think their are bigger issues out there than whether a school has a christian assembly or not.

No-one has a totally free choice in education. At least church shcools provide a choice which isn't based on house prices. People fight like mad to get their children into the school I visited this morning. And whilst I would love to walk to school and the head was great I just felt there were aspects of it that made it unsuitable - evn things like it having lots of stair- ds1 is obssessed with stair and if people dared to stand on them that could cause a real problem.

I would like to see more diversity- state funded Steiner schools for example. There is an attmept going through to set one up in southwick. I think that would be great.

Aloha the problem now isn;t access to mainstream for kidsdies with autism. It's access to special shcool- that's almost impossible to get. Unfortunately many mainstream schools are unsuitable.

Yes, that's what I said. I AGREE with special schools and units - ie special, state-funded provision for those who need it, but not for those who just happen to have particular belief systems.