FAITH SCHOOLS! If you don't agree with them, step this way, my dears.

[onebatmother]

What can be done?

It seems to me that many of us don't agree with them, and some of us (not I) are quite knowledgeable about the ins and outs.

Could we not start a movement?

It's all so wrong, really, isn't it?

Are they?

By ScienceTeacher on Mon 07-Apr-08 07:30:13
It's about evangelism, MP - reaching those children whose families do not tell them about the Christian faith

well if one third of state funded schools are faith schools, then yes they do, don't they....

Doesn't the government fund them to deliver the national curriculum, then? Are they failing in that duty? Are they failing to comply with the Education Act?

Let's not forget that parents are fighting each other for these school places, so they are obviously providing a preferred form of education for them.

Well I agree with MadamePlatypus that those things can really be done at home or in after/pre school clubs. I have no problem with children singing in groups, but it should not be religious or political propaganda, just songs.

I think those saying that faith schools are harmless to the wider population should take note of the comment above "It's about evangelism, MP - reaching those children whose families do not tell them about the Christian faith"

the government (i.e. the taxpayer) funds them to provide an education, yes. they use the money to evangelise, somtimes. sometimes, they use it to segregate, and sometimes to discriminate against chilren on the grounds of the grounds of their parents' faith
they find time to do this as well as providing an education

im anti

How much does it cost to evangelise then? Come on, in pounds?

If the government required children to go to a clinic for eye tests I would not expect them to be taught religion while they are there. Any suggestion that some eye clinics could be used that way would be laughed at.

I have absolutely no idea Science Teacher.
I wouldn't know, not being one of the evangelisers

actually, I would be very interested if you could find out ST, how much school time is spent in converting children to the particular religion. that would be very relevant I think

I doubt that it costs any more than it would cost if you substituted secular activities into whatever time they spend on Christian activities.

Prayer is free! And singing is fairly cheap (bit of music, or perhaps a CD player if they don't have a piano player on staff).

I teach in a Catholic independent school, and my boys attend a different Catholic independent school. I honestly do not see any money channelled into religious activities. As I said, prayer is free.

Once again if it's that minor then it can be done at home or at church. If it's a major part and vital in order to ensure that the children become god fearing then you've proved they are not suitable for the general population

ohg od all the nutters are on THIS htread then

I am astonished that anyone would assert that evangelism should have a place in any school, let alone one funded by the state.

I admire ST's honesty. Most evangelists would instinctively understand that this would be seen by any reasonable person as the end of the argument.

Hmmm - yes ... I am in favour of faith schools and cringe at the evangelism point. Not how I see it - and definitely not my experience of the way faith schools work.

I must admit I don't get the hostility here to faith schools and wonder if people in RL are GENUINELY concerned about "indoctrination" or if it just a hypothetical thing that they like debating ... My RL experience is of everyone trying to get their children into the particular school regardless of their faith!

Having said that I understand why people who don't have faith don't want their children to go to faith schools and respect that. Nor do I believe that where a church school is state-funded that it should select only the "faithful". People should be able to choose the kind of education their children get.

The problem with saying that religion should be taught in the home is that not every parent who sends their child to faith schools is a teacher so how does that qualify them to teach religion?

Stillstanding, I know what you mean about hypothetical , but in my case it is genuine concern. In seriousness it's not like "how do you feel about litter or inflation" but more like "how do you feel about racial hatred or child abuse"

Nametaken they SAY that they don't teach it. They only do a few hymns and the odd prayer. It can't be both ways.

Yes the parent would need to be a teacher if the school is currently teaching the religious version of all lessons.

Greyriver, I'm not sure I understand the analogy to child abuse and racial hatred?

I was defining the seriousness of my disapproval. You might say "tut" at litter, but not deeply care yes?

Aah - I get it - thanks. Not sure why faith schools fall at the child abuse/racial hatred end of your spectrum but will read the thread properly before commenting ...

Then you can send your child to classes at church nametaken. That's what my children do.

They probably don't for everyone. Somewhere in the middle I expect for most people.

But in my parish the priest doesn't do any classes in church. And he's not a qualified teacher anyway, he's a priest.

However, if there were no faith schools, then presumably the churches would take more responsibility for the teaching.

And does it really require a qualified teacher?

schools could still teach about religion(s), as part of the wider curriculum.
religious education i.e. being taught about religion, is part of the curriculum.
that is very different from what we are talking about here.