AIBU to think we need more ^inclusive^ education?

[LoveFoolMe]

AIBU to think we need more inclusive education? If children in a multicultural society such as the UK are educated together surely this promotes more tolerance and better mutual understanding.

So these proposals worry me:

Call to end limit on religious free schools

Considering how divisive and rigid religious attitudes can be, I think it's time to bring children from faith schools into mainstream schools and to encourage these children to mix with more diverse cultures.

Secular schools can still provide fact-based religious education in the classroom and would probably teach their students about a greater range of religions than a faith school would. Parents could, of course, provide a more personal approach to religion for their children outside of school hours if they wanted to.

Let's not further segregate our children by religion.

AIBU to think that reducing (rather than increasing) the number of faith schools in the UK would be far better for our children and far better for our society?

Chances are, especially in London and other cities, the church will sell off the land to the highest bidder = luxury flats, not schools.

Are the churches going to throw their toys out of their prams and stop providing buildings for schools and influencing how they're run, getting money from the state to promote their faith to kids, because they're forced to accept heathens alongside church kids?

I wonder if they'd get a change of use agreed by the council, anyway. Plus I'd love to see a change in the law so that the state earned equity in school premises proportional to its capital investment.

In our area the catholic school is the more multicultural and tolerant. There are children from all faiths and backgrounds, and all religions are taught. The community school is exclusively rich white people (who can afford property prices

That's quite unusual, statistically speaking.

My guess is your school is tolerant in a narrow band of "tolerance".

Explain please?

At the catholic school there are male teachers, black teachers, mixed race, indian, female muslim teachers in hijab's, atheist teachers. Same for children- west african, Caribbean, Polish, non-english speakers, SEN children. High proportion of FSM. The community school is 90% white middle class, with far below average on FSM. All white, female teachers.

When I applied for the Catholic school I was actually asked why I was sending my children to a "black" school, when all the white children went to school x.

Appealing to evolution to solve ethical issues has a lot of problems attached to it plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/ gives some of the background.

Explain please?

do they prefer catholics on admission? if so, do you consider that tolerant? if an employer were to do the same with jobs, everybody's head in britain would explode.

I have never been to your school of course so I can't dispute any of your claims about the ethos. But I am not sure how you can possibly attribute it to being catholic, given that most explicitly discriminate.

Appealing to evolution to solve ethical issues has a lot of problems attached to it

what doesn't?

Yep, I think it's practising Catholics, then practicing other religion, then baptised catholics non practicing, then distance. I chose the Catholic school as I felt it was more inclusive and diverse than the community school, which kind of goes against the o/p, really.

However I don't see selection on faith that much different to selection on financial situation (can afford a house close by), music, sports, ability, or sex. Every secondary school near me has some sort of priority selection where you can jump the queue.

Employers can't do that either, but it's acceptable in schools, apparently.

Just as well I wasn't looking to evolution to solve ethical issues rather than describing where our inbuilt sense of morality of some sort derives, isn't it?

However I don't see selection on faith that much different to selection on financial situation (can afford a house close by), music, sports, ability, or sex. Every secondary school near me has some sort of priority selection where you can jump the queue.

Except that selection by faith, particularly in the case of mixed intakes, tends to concentrate the house price issue. And overall selection by faith also benefits the well off.

I'm of the view that we should tackle inequalities wherever we can, even though they might be difficult, and even if the resulting system isn't perfect. Then we can sort out the next thing with a good idea of the true picture. Would the house price impact be so severe if competition for local places wasn't so intense, partly driven by out-of-catchment faith children?

I assume the community doesn't select on a financial basis officially, does it?

I am not saying the Catholic school isn't in fact more inclusive (I'll take your word for it), but attributing it to being christian isn't justified.

And you are likely going to get agreement from many people that the de facto selection by income isn't great either. But official selection by religion is much worse than de facto selection by income. One actually contravenes laws applied to every other aspect of British life, which are in place for really good reasons. It's easy to see that they are different - just apply them to other things (like employment) and see how quickly you get appalled by official selection of religion.

I wouldn't say that I am for selection by music or ability, but those are substantially different because they are properties of the child that would and should affect how the child is taught.

But official selection by religion is much worse than de facto selection by income

And official selection by religion is also de facto selection by income, just as house prices are.

And overall selection by faith also benefits the well off

How? Selection by musical ability does as you need money to pay for lessons, but you don't need to be wealthy to attend church. Unless you're a scientologist ;)

I think our demographic might be an odd one. We have very few out of catchment children travelling in to any of our local schools. Many children, however, travel to out of catchment grammar schools...

Faith schools that select on faith take a much smaller proportion of students eligible for free school meals than their nominal surrounding catchments; church congregations are disproportionately well off and middle class than the wider population, based on both independent studies and work by the churches themselves.

Both effects are more pronounced in CofE schools and congregations, but still exist in RC equivalents.

I think our demographic might be an odd one. We have very few out of catchment children travelling in to any of our local schools. Many children, however, travel to out of catchment grammar schools

Sorry - meant to respond! It does sound atypical. Grammar schools introduce a whole other level of problem.

I don't find Grammar schools problematic at all, but that's probably for another thread!

I don't find Grammar schools problematic at all, but that's probably for another thread

There was a particularly good one fairly recently! I learned a lot from it.

I dont have the money to pay for tutoring to get into a grammar school (necessary round here). i dont have the money to pay for music lessons to get them into one if the two schools that select on musical ability.

From my own observation id say suburban/ rural areas churchgoers are more well off, but not so in cities.

Is it musical ability or aptitude Micah? Some schools do music tests where they're purely looking for potential and you don't need to have learned music before.

Grammar schools are aware of the tutoring issue and many are now changing their tests to take account of it here If it's still deemed to be problematic I would suggest they put measures in to means test applicants and award places to the best results gained proportionally for each income bracket.

" would suggest they put measures in to means test applicants and award places to the best results gained proportionally for each income bracket."
Yep. Always a good idea to create more work for accountants!

Faith schools that select in urban areas still have low FSM levels.

I can't find data on incomes/class of churchgoers by rural/urban area - data that doesn't include Christians who aren't catered to by state schools is harder to get. (Apparently in London, the majority of regular churchgoers attend other than CofE/RC) churches.

Data on class from Tearfund:

The research confirms the belief that churchgoing is associated with those of higher social grade. Adults in social grades AB (professionals, senior and middle management) have above average prevalence of regular churchgoers (22% and 21% respectively), as well above average proportions of fringe or occasional churchgoers.
Adults of social grade C2, D (skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manual) have the lowest proportion of regular churchgoers (12%) and the highest proportion who are closed non- church (37% and 40% respectively).
Adults in social grade E, which includes those entirely dependent on the State long-term, through sickness, unemployment or old age etc., have the highest proportion who are not currently attending church and yet open to attending in future (8%). (Figure 7 in Appendix 1).
Unemployed job seekers are less likely to be regular churchgoers (7% vs. 15% national average) or to be fringe/occasional attendees (6% vs. 10%). Almost half (48%) of unemployed people are closed non-churched compared with a national average of a third (32%). However unemployed people with past experience of churchgoing are more open to returning than the national average (open de-churched 8% vs. 5%) and less closed to the possibility (closed de-churched 21% vs. 28%).

I'm still waiting for an example of a moral decision a Christian is able to make because of their faith and one that I, as a non-believer, am unable to make.

If you think about it, if you're saying you make a decision based on what you think God would want, that's not you being moral, that's obedience. Whereas I make a decision based on what I think would be best given all the facts I know

AlanPacino it is the basis for decisions that I'm interested in and that is why ethics is such an interesting subject. I get involved in end of life care so these decisions are very real and messy and full of emotion.

It isn't that non believers are incapable of being moral but we go to different places to answer the questions that face us. It isn't helpful to treat Christians as if we are all fundamentalist nutjobs who treat the Bible as if it is some sort of rule book. We don't - well most of us anyway. In end of life care I would be considering consequentialist arguments among others as my faith says that we should care for those on the margins. There are of course problems with consequentialism that but there are issues with all ethical arguments. Altruism as a basis for ethical decisions has problems as does empathy/compassion, utilitarianism, virtue theory and autonomy.

These are complex issues which is why it is important that our children learn about philosophy and ethics at school and about the different faiths and what is important to them.

My church isn't a middle class church at all. We have people on benefits and basic state pensions as well as those who are more comfortably off. Our local aided school does not have a faith criteria in admissions and neither did the one that I was chair of two parishes ago.

Really, I just want an example of how you feel you are able to make more moral decisions? It's that simple. Give me just ONE example.

Caring for those on the margins isn't something only theists can do! I care for those on the fringes because I can imagine how hard it must be for them and that makes me feel sad, and I know I don't like feeling sad so that would make me likely to act. You don't need a belief in a deity to feel this way, just a neurologically typical empathy response.