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?

Jesus also took these OT events as fact

the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness wanderings after the exodus from Egypt (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven (John 6:32–33, 49), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25– 27), and Jonah in the big fish (Matthew 12:40–41)

Roguematter- you persist in not answering the question- do you think that it is fair that faith parents have a choice of 33% more tax payer funded state schools than non faith parents? A simple yes or no would be good.

The children are segregated while they're at school - there's no doubt - but they will be taught to live with other people harmoniously.

The segregation only applies to schools not to residential communities.

Faith schools are subsidised by churches so they're sometimes subsidising children of no faith.

"Faith schools are subsidised by churches so they're sometimes subsidising children of no faith."

Is that your answer to my question?

The current situation sometimes disadvantages children of no faith. That's because of lack of provision. It shouldn't mean that faith schools shouldn't be allowed.

And it wasn't the OP's question.

So you won't answer my question. Very telling, that.

And it's not because of lack of provision. It's about some of the provision being inaccessible by people without faith.

The children are segregated while they're at school - there's no doubt - but they will be taught to live with other people harmoniously.

Demonstration is often the most effective way of teaching.

The segregation only applies to schools not to residential communities.

For many people, schools are their main link with the local community, particularly if they commute. Children are often your first link to where you live.

Faith schools are subsidised by churches so they're sometimes subsidising children of no faith.^

I'd be happy to see faith places relative to the level of subsidy. 0% of admin and no more than 10% of capital. Is there an offset for the appreciation of the church's asset brought about by state investment?

The current situation sometimes disadvantages children of no faith. That's because of lack of provision. It shouldn't mean that faith schools shouldn't be allowed.

Are you seriously suggesting that the state should pay for more school places than are needed so that faith parents retain the right to pick and choose schools wherever they want them, to make sure that other children can still get a local education? Where's the money coming from?

Your plan still wouldn't deal with the underrepresentation of the most deprived kids in schools that select on faith. The result is that kids who are more likely to need more support, have unsupportive or chaotic homes, and are more likely to be disruptive themselves, are concentrated in other schools.

do you think that it is fair that faith parents have a choice of 33% more tax payer funded state schools than non faith parents?

Bertrand , do you mind if I ask for clarification on this one? Do you mean that faith parents have more choice because non-faith children can't get into these schools even if they wanted to or because non-faith parents feel unable to choose faith schools even where those schools don't have a religious entry criteria or they are not oversubscribed?

I'm sorry that's so convoluted - I'm afraid it's clear in my head but doesn't seem to have come out quite so clear on paper!

Move the surplus schools? I don't know. I didn't think that was OP's Q. I would think the teachers at faith schools would do their best to model behaviours and choices commensurate with living in harmony with other people and the 'extra' religious practices observed in faith schools are designed to encourage people to live harmoniously with other. Would you prefer to have state-designated housing comprised of tower blocks with exact numbers of residents from different ethnicities/races/ background/faiths in proportion to the british demographic?

Bertrand The current situation as you describe it appears to be unfair sometimes. I acknowledged that. That's a different matter from whether faith schools get in the way of tolerance and understanding. IMO For the reasons I have (patiently) set out.

33%ish of state schools are faith schools. That means that-apart from the few who have recently changed their admissions policies- non faith families are at the bottom of the admissions pile. So if the school is undersubscribed, then they can have a place- but if it is oversubscribed a child from a faith family living two villages away gets priority over a child from a non faith family living next door.

And faith families can choose non faith schools and be admitted on the usual distance criterion.

"ertrand The current situation as you describe it appears to be unfair sometimes. I acknowledged that.

"It appears to be unfair sometimes".

So not just "unfair"?

Sorry- "So not just systemically unfair?

Rogue, you seem determined to misunderstand or misrepresent, I'm not clear which.

Schools that knowingly don't reflect their local community (not the British demographic, sigh, though the tower blocks were a nice piece of distracting hyperbole, full marks) aren't aiding inclusion. It's a manifestation of the state telling children that segregation is ok.

How is teaching about how to be harmonious and tolerant to the people who aren't allowed in because they're not 'right' a more effective way of encouraging tolerance and harmony than actually letting the not right people in and show how it can be done by actually doing it?

And can anyone explain to me why, when poorer kids aren't able to get into a school because of house prices it's reprehensible, but when faith schools do it, it's ok?

That's a different matter from whether faith schools get in the way of tolerance and understanding.

Again, I think you're setting the bar way too low here.

You got it! Open more non-faith schools in the villages with a shortage of places for children of no faith. Problem solved.

(FWIW the faith school in my small town is under-subscribed and there are plans to amalgamate it with a faith school in the neighbouring town.)

Perhaps you might enjoy starting a thread specifically about school admissions policy in the UK. Not sure if there are UK wide stats but it sounds like you know more about school admissions policy than me.

Half of all CofE schools are Voluntary Controlled, which means they have exactly the same admissions criteria as all other LEA schools. Most CofE schools do not select in any way for the reason that they are rural primary schools. Problems about admission and parental choice are essentially an urban problem. That's not to diminish the issue. I've said before and maintain that I would like to see all children go to their local school and abolish parental choice - which always ends up meaning the school chooses.

HeadinHands I will come back to you on Jesus and the OT but not when I'm on the phone. I'm out for several hours so it will be later.

You got it! Open more non-faith schools in the villages with a shortage of places for children of no faith. Problem solved

And the money for such a wasteful policy, where there are generally enough school places for all kids but we're indulging the 'choice' of some parents in a way that distorts catchments, is coming from where?

Which service do you propose is cut so that parents with faith, or those prepared to fake it, can still get to choose between the faith and the non-faith option, and send their darlings to schools with fewer needy and challenging kids?

What about faith parents where there isn't currently a school that matches their faith near them? Do we open another school there, too?

The money that established those schools came from the parishes themselves.

If those villages want a different school now, then they could try doing what their forebears did and founding their own.

These days, you'll even get some governmental assistance, rather than having to raise the whole lot yourself.

If that's the way we're feeling about it, should the churches sign over a capita interest in the school premises for all church schools equal to the state's capital investment?

Or we could go back to the days when the parishes founded the schools, and the parishes could pay to run them again, and the state could use the rest of the money to fund a more inclusive school?

You got it! Open more non-faith schools in the villages with a shortage of places for children of no faith. Problem solved.

the government is just swimming in money right now. that'll be easy. perhaps though we can spend our money better than giving some people money to do the work of parents and their church.

You could do, I suppose.

It was the Government of the day who struck the deals with the churches.

The government of today could try a different deal.

But they do not own the land, nor most of the buildings. They cannot just take property from its owners.

If the schools were turned back to the churches, and any went under, what happens then? The government would need to pay market rate for the existing school land and buildings, because it does not own them.

Nothing to stop others who want to found a school buying the land and buildings, and all the initial kit, then seeing if they can strike a deal with the government to pay running costs. that does rather depend on people being willing to put their money where their mouth is to the same extent as the churches' role.

If the schools were turned back to the churches, and any went under, what happens then?

that's a good question. But the church won't end up a winner if it just walks away like people think.

the buidings that it owns won't be used and will need upkeep. if the government isn't paying for it, the church will have to.

Nothing to stop others who want to found a school buying the land and buildings, and all the initial kit, then seeing if they can strike a deal with the government to pay running costs.

I take it you've never had any dealings with the Education Funding Agency.

Honestly? I'm fine with the churches getting places proportional to what they chip in. (I'd also be fine with the state getting a proper financial interest in the properties for which they invest most of the capital).