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?

So you don't think that giving people of faith a choice of 33% more tax funded state schools than people without faith is a problem at all?

It feels like intolerance to begrudge people faith schools

But isn't it just as intolerant to have schools that over-cater to one faith (CofE in particular) while under catering or ignoring others?

I can see why parents who can't get their children into a 'good' school because they don't fulfil religious criteria feel aggrieved.

I wish people would stop making out that this is all about access to 'good' schools and the choice between that and a less good school.

For far too many it's about access to an even vaguely local school full stop.

And I don't begrudge people faith schools- I just don't want to pay for them!

Children have to go to school anyway and a faith school doesn't cost any more.

Given that so many more people aren't cofe it seems fair that practising Christians should have first shout. They do take other children too. Christian churches usually have a mission to serve their community as well as their congregations, if my understanding is correct.

Given that so many more people aren't cofe it seems fair that practising Christians should have first shout.

no, it doesn't.

They do take other children too

bless them. only if they aren't full. glad the nhs doesn't run that way.

Given that so many more people aren't cofe it seems fair that practising Christians should have first shout

Why? Why do the children of practising Christians deserve first shot at a third of state schools, more than kids who live local to those schools regardless of religion?

What state schools do non-religious kids get first shot at, and religious kids go to the back of the queue?

If my understanding is correct, the cofe subsidises its state schools.

The problem is the lack of good state schools - take out the faith schools and there will be even fewer......

Do you grudge children with exceptional ability the chance to go to eg specialist music schools?

If my understanding is correct, the cofe subsidises its state schools.

does that justify discrimination?

Yes. And music schools 'discriminate' against children who aren't musically-gifted.

We all pay taxes for lots of services we won't use. How about tee-total muslims having to pay taxes to fund treatment needed as a result of over-indulgence in alcohol?

The problem is the lack of good state schools - take out the faith schools and there will be even fewer......

There's nothing innately good about faith schools; where they don't select on faith they do no better than other schools. When allowed to select, and tacitly exclude some of the more difficult kids/families, they do better. That's not about the schools, that's about the intake.

From my perspective, there's a lack of schools, good or not, that actually serve their local communities. A lot of faith schools don't.

Do you grudge children with exceptional ability the chance to go to eg specialist music schools?

If it means that local kids can't go to a reasonably local school, then yes I do. There are much more effective ways to facilitate education to kids who have particular talent through a mainstream system - better than random, unfocused provision that doesn't actually match perceived need.

Again, we're back to the fact that education in this country is piecemeal, with so many different admissions systems, mismatches and differences in local provison and even pretty fundamental differences like grammar schools.

But let's be clear - anyone is allowed to discriminate in favour of the more talented musician if they're hiring a musician. It's relevant to the task they're being asked to do - the same is same if there are going to be specialist schools.

No one, except for schools and churches, is allowed to discriminate on the basis of a person's religion. No one's allowed to chuck you out of a shop for being Jewish or Christian. No one's allowed to sack you because you didn't fit in to Baptist ethos of the tyre manufacturing firm.

But we allow it in schools. We think the education chances of five year olds is less important to protect than the employment chances of adults.

So we're back to my question to you, rogue: What state schools do non-religious kids get first shot at, and religious kids go to the back of the queue?

And if the answer is none, why are religious (and mostly Christian) kids more deserving?

This doesn't make sense - if faith schools are no better than non-faith schools as you suggest, what's the problem with them prioritising children of families who have faith?

Some parents choose to send their children to a faith school purely for its ethos even if it 'performs' less well than a nearer and better 'performing' school. It's not all about the academic side, as I tried to explain earlier.

I completely agree that we need more schools. It's a ridiculous carry on IMO.

OP is concerned that faith schools are separatist and therefore unintentionally lead to lack of tolerance of other faiths and/or lack of tolerance. My opinion is that faith schools, (albeit counter-intuitively) are likely to not have that effect given that there are multi-cultural communities and that faiths actively promote compassion for all humans. The piecemeal nature of English school provision and admissions is not an argument against faith schools.

Rouge- I find it hard to believe that you really donMtnunderstand the issue. But.

Imagine a village with 3 primary schools. Imagine they are all oversubscribed. One is CofE. One is Catholuc. One is non denominational. Catholic children children have a first choice of the Catholic school, a second choice of the CofE school as an "any other faith" and the non denominational school on distance. Cof E parents the same. Non faith parents have a choice of one school- and iif that is filled up with people- including faith people -on distance, maybe even no school in the village.

Do you think that is acceptable?

This doesn't make sense - if faith schools are no better than non-faith schools as you suggest, what's the problem with them prioritising children of families who have faith?

Because it prevents other children from getting an education at their nearest or most convenient school or, for a lot of kids, any local school, as detailed time and time again on this thread.

Parents like the idea of a nice middle class faith school, so they are willing to send their kids a bit further away to get to a 'nice' school at which they get priority due to faith.

Unfortunately it's not a straight swap for the slightly more distant schools that are local to the faith kids. Because competition for local places is more fierce because of the non-local kids, catchments shrink. Kids with the misfortune to live near one or two faith schools get slotted into a school ages away - the one for local kids round here is a 45 minute drive at school run time.

That's quite apart from the fact that they're socially divisive, concentrate children from the most deprived homes, who are more likely to have problems linked to chaos at home, in other schools, and the weird notion that we're in favour of religious and racial integration and social cohesion until it involves children.

And where do the non-faith kids get priority again? Or are faith kids inherently more deserving of more choices in their education?

I've heard many a horror story here and from friends of how difficult it is to get your children into good English schools and I sympathise and thank my lucky stars I don't live in England for that very reason.

But that's a function of a lack of schools. That's why I made the suggestion of atheist or humanist schools and of having more faith schools. I have said I'm shocked by the illegality of setting up specifically non-faith schools.

The OP referred to UK, not England. In Scotland faith schools don't perform particularly better than non-faith schools as far as I know.

Why aren't you prepared to comment on the scenarios in my post?

But that's a function of a lack of schools

It's not, really. Not when people go to their local schools and don't concentrate pressure in 'nice' areas leaving their local schools

How can local authorities possibly plan for school places, even if they were allowed to, when they have no idea how many children will be driven in from other boroughs or counties in any year? Are they supposed to fund a level of provision that would enable this, as well as local kids all getting a place?

So yes, we are around 200 places short in our borough. Why on earth are we importing kids from other boroughs to add to the problem, just because we've got good train links that get parents to London faster, and a 'nice' local area so we're apparently more desirable?

I agree that it isn't fair that children should have to travel to get to a school. You're right - it isn't fair. But this thread, if my understanding is correct is about the principle of types of schooling and whether faith schools lead to lack of tolerance and understanding. OP has asked questions about RS syllabi.

My opinion is that faith schools by their nature, although physically segregating children, are not intrinsically the precursors of lack of understanding and intolerance as faiths teach compassion. And emphasise it all through the day through various religious practices.

Jessy I agree it's ridiculous. It's a blooming shame for children who have to needlessly travel to go to school when there are closer schools. It's not 'green' either.

But I don't think that's what the OP intended to discuss. Presumably why she asked for it to be moved into philosophy/religion and out of a general board.

Rogue, you're right, I'm confusing my threads. Though I do think ripping apart communities like this is detrimental. Schooling is one of the big opportunities in many people's lives to really be part of and get involved in their local community. It's isolating to deny them that, and it sure as hell breeds resentment. The state, and local schools and churches, are saying that children of the right faith/s are more deserving of education options than others. That's quite a message.

I can't see any ways in which faith schools enhance social inclusion or cohesion. The evidence shows that taken as a whole the discriminate on affluence and race as well as religion. They make it less likely that a child will form a true picture of what their community is really like and know people from across that community.

So while I take your point that they may not automatically encourage further division, they certainly aren't doing anything to improve integration.

Say you're a Muslim. Day after day the state is on your back to integrate. Learn English, mix with people of other faiths, adopt our values, embrace our customs. Until you want to send your kid to the local state school. Then you can fuck off, that school gives priority to Christian kids. So does the next school over. Sorry,we'd just prefer it if our kids were educated with their kind.

intolerance as faiths teach compassion.

perhaps they should start with their admissions policy.

I just don't get how inclusive you could possibly be if you are exclusive at the door.

intolerance as faiths teach compassion

Did you see a previous post about research into the generosity levels of children from religious versus non religious homes?

'What are the differences between Christian and secular values?' That sounds like a good basic ethics question. Finding a basis for morality without faith is much, much harder. Not impossible, but you come out with different reasons for doing things. This article points to some of the difficulties with the new atheist response www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5

Thanks for the article link greenheart. I've read it and the subject seems fascinating.

However the preceding paragraph about moral objections seems very focused on whether people do good or bad things as a direct result of their faith or atheism. Surely both religious and atheist people are capable of good and bad behaviour. I'm not convinced that their faith/lack of is a prerequisite. Aren't character and upbringing stronger than belief? Religious texts can be used to justify the behaviour but I don't think you can entirely determine someone's behaviour from their beliefs.

The Golden Rule is fairly constant regardless of time and place. However I'd say most moral values are human conventions enabling us to live happily together and which gradually change from generation to generation. I've not studied ethics but this seems to be known as 'cultural relativism'.

Isn't it up to us to consciously determine these rules as a society and to ensure we teach them to the next generation. Not just repeat rules written down in holy books which may be self-contradictory, irrelevant or detrimental to modern society.