School asking daughter to remove small cross despite religious symbols policy

[FanFckingTastic]

I'm looking for some advice and thoughts!

DD is 15 and at secondary school. She has always worn a small silver cross - at primary school this was never an issue (it was a church school) Up until this point it's not been an issue at secondary school either. The cross is very small and is tucked into her shirt so you would have to be really looking for it in order to see it. She always removes it for PE etc.

Last Monday her head of year saw the cross and asked her to remove it. My daughter replied that it was her cross, and that she didn't want to. She was then approached and asked to remove it every day for the remainder of the week, with increasing threats of sanctions if she didn't comply with the schools 'no jewelry' rule. My daughter kept reiterating that this was her cross, and asked the teacher to speak with me. Finally on Friday I received an email to tell me that my daughter needed to take her cross off.

I completely understand the new jewelry rule but wonder how this sits alongside the responsibility that the school has under the equalities act 2010. In their uniform policy it states that it will 'allow pupils to wear headscarves and other religious or cultural symbols' I would interpret this to include a cross too?

My daughter wears her cross as a sign of her faith and really wants to continue to do this.

Has anyone come across this situation before? If so, what was the solution?

There was a time when Mumsnetters recognised sarcasm when it was put in front of them…..

Yes, I'm surprised people have not read or understood your last sentence in that post.

There was a time when Christians, the church in particular, held their heads, their actions, higher than everyone else.

They've fallen off their perch since then.

Keep Christian fervour out of schools. Stop wasting teachers time with Christian 'rights'...

Or... Educate children about how the Christian church really treated people post ww2... Black people, gay people, unmarried mothers, anyone who they didn't like...

It's quite astonishing the evils the Christian church advocated...and did.

Google is your friend on my previous posts. Start with 'Paula vennells minister' move to 'ww2 Pope fascism'...

Ask if they allow Sikh to wear the Kara bracelet, most schools do, if so, that is your argument!

I think if you are unsure you could just type ‘is England a Christian country and get clarification that it is indeed a Christian country legally which is far more logical than jumping straight to the assumption of time travel.

The UK, of which England is a constituent nation, is a secular country.

Keep all religious and religiously affiliated dress and jewellery out of schools. That includes hijabs and turbans.

I’m not sure it’s worth engaging with the ranters but it’s worth pointing out that the Christian church in this country literally established the education system. The only way that the state managed to introduce compulsory education was by piggybacking on all the existing church schools. To this day the Catholic Church pays a contribution to the running costs of Catholic schools.

Not in Scotland, they don't.

Pretty sure Ampleforth just had a scandal involving grooming and dodgy monks.

If I were the Catholic church, I'd ask for a refund.

Sorry for de-rail but just to answer this poster.

That at Ampleforth was some time ago now. Nor is the Catholic Church the only one involved in this vile offence, nor religious people the only child molestors. They are spread all over in football coaching, schools, scouts etc

Have a look at this study in Australia:

The study found:

• around one in six (15.1%) Australian men reports sexual feelings towards children
• around one in 10 (9.4%) Australian men has sexually offended against children (including technologically facilitated and offline abuse), with approximately half (4.9%) of this group reporting sexual feelings towards children

https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/news/worlds-largest-child-sexual-abuse-perpetration-prevalence-study-recommends-significant-investment-early-intervention-measures

But non of this, including paedophile priests, or any other perverts, has anything to do with a school girl wearing a cross.

Sorry, you are right.

"father Michael" only got convicted for abusing boys and squeezing a lads bottom at Ampleforth in 2013 a few months ago... God, that conviction was MONTHS AGO.... soooo long ago....

He was still actively working there in 2013.... It's hardly 'historical abuse'...

Recent, I'd say.

I'm trying to argue keep religious jewellery away from schools.

And Christians getting on their high horse about a cross should be humbled by what Christian priests have been up to. Recently.

Maybe this girl wouldn't be so pious if she knew these facts? Things that happened, NOT by a 'small minority' but by masses of people which the church has tried to cover up.

Lastly, stop bashing other faiths about hijabs, turbans, and creating division.

Religious clothing is acceptable to the school. Jewellery not. Case closed, surely.

@MyrtlethePurpleTurtle rage baiting and pot stiring by people like you must be called out. As I said, you assume too much and your uncouth language speaks volumes. You sound uneducated and angry. Sit down.

@LeftFooter The churches don’t pay. Many Diocese are MATs and receive £millions of government funding. Of course the state took over the schools for the national good. Why start all over again and the churches were pleased to offload the cost !

That's what Argos is for. £8.

I'm an atheist so not sure, but isn't the point of a cross on a necklace chain is that it's close to your heart (rather than earrings etc)? The function being similar to a locket?

I'm not sure it can just be replaced very easily. Like I said previously, people attach very significant, and specific, meaning to all sorts of things. I don't think you could, for example, replace a Kippah with a baseball cap, or a wedding ring with hoop earrings?

Sorry but that’s just clutching at straws. No necklaces are allowed- bottom line, cross or not. She has other options if she’s really so determined to outwardly demonstrate her faith. Kippahs may be permitted but a Star of David on a chain would be banned. As any other necklaces.

Christianity as a faith does not require an outward display of faith by the wearing of a symbol. Some faiths do, some cultural traditions have become closely tied to religious interpretations of doctrine. That is because of factors strongly wrapped up in the (entirely human and not godly dictation) history of faiths and for the main part, to control women. Perhaps, as a Christian she might want to find out the history etc? If she is heavily religious then maybe look for a school where it is faith based, though I am personally appalled that public money gets thrown at such an isolationist idea, they do exist.

However, I do think that schools I have been to (and worked at) that are ACTUALLY inclusive manage to create jewellery rules that suit everyone. I'd make a case to the governors over this rule. Inclusion should allow for variety in the student body, not just because of a tick box only read of protected characteristics.
My current school absolutely navigates jewellery restrictions around varied cultural and religious preferences, and being permissive to a degree means students don't take the piss.

@Diamond7272 as @ScrollingLeaves points out, the despicable crime of child abuse is not limited to the Catholic Church. You only need to read the news to see it. Alas. Teachers are another large category. Scout leaders. Sports coaches. And, of course, relatives.

Pointing to the crimes of some Christians is irrelevant to the OP’s question.

Oh dear. You couldn't be more wrong. You might want to reassess your analytical skills.

That contribution to payment isn't really in any way altruistic, as the system gives them the quid pro quo of being able to favour Catholic children when deciding on admission applications. If that privilege were removed along with a requirement not to promote the RC faith, I'm not sure how long the church would be willing to carry on funding schools.

I question “ranters”. Why not just say “people who disagree with me”? Important to remember that while the churches do contribute to church schools, in exchange people of faith get a 30% before choice of largely tax payer school places than people without faith. So there’s that.

@CurlewKate in England, what they contribute? Having worked for a LA in education and being familiar with school budgets, I could see £0 contribution. They are state schools and state funded.

I think they contribute to maintainance? I don’t kbow the details-it’s just what I’m told whenever I object to state funded faith based education.