Superstitious crap-peddling in non-church school, how to deal with it?

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

DS (6, in Year 1) came home from school today talking about what he's going to give up for Lent. I asked him if he understood why he was supposed to be giving up things for Lent (of course he had no idea) and made sure he knew that he didn't have to and I would be doing no such thing, and we had a little talk about superstitions.
I am seriously pissed off with this and want to speak to the school about it. We live in a very multicultural area and I want to know A) if all the 6 year old Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and whatever else are trotting home stuffed with this crap and if not, how can I get DS exempt from it? Just because we are English does not mean we are CofE, I am a hardline atheist and DS dad and I have been raising him with as little superstition as possible.
I do not think it's appropriate for a group of culturally-mixed 6 year olds to be fed this sort of bullshit (which is going to be beyond most of them anyway) - I have no problem with DC being taught about the various mythology brands but the actual practicing of this nonsense should not be suggested to them at school.

Although yes, the worst schools might benefit. However not by enough to compensate for the achievements of church schools.

gooseberrybushes

The problems with that argument are:

(a) in practice little would change between schools. Church schools take 'good' pupils because they tend to be pre-war foundations, and most deprived areas in the country (or in individual towns) have post-war housing stock. Very few 'faith' schools take more than 5 or 6 children on faith grounds alone. So, tweaks such as some of the kids on the edges of estates round here excepted, the educational imbalance won't be greatly altered.

(b) 'Mediocre' schools is not a measure of mediocre learning. Obviously if you spread the 15-odd kids getting grammar school places from my nearest school across three others then you get poorer schools. But this doesn't mean that the 15 learners won't still achieve.

(c) this is actually examinable by comparison with previous changes. Removing schools' ability to preferentially admit some parents should have had a far greater effect-since this allowed discrimination on grounds well beyond faith-but it didn't drastically change things.

Basically, the only way the argument works is if you can show not just that Faith schools are better but that they are better because they are Faith schools (not because of involvement, or wealth, or catchment). Even then the moral argument for using identifiable needs of children remains very strong-if this education is superior it should be for those closest or most in need, not those whose parents believe or feign to.

gooseberrybushes, if you really believe that by operating non-discriminatory admissions policies, standards in VA faith schools would "fall to the mediocre" because of the inclusion of those pupils with less advantaged backgrounds then you must surely see what a pernicious system this is.

Adela, I don't understand this: "Very few 'faith' schools take more than 5 or 6 children on faith grounds alone." Certainly in the VA schools near us, 100% of pupils are baptised Catholics. And the intake is very very different socio-economically to that of the nearby community schools.

(but should say I agree with all your other points)

Zepherine

Sorry, as I said in one other post, I think that non-CofE 'Faith' schools are somewhat different, they were set up for different reasons and do serve different communities. That blindness certainly made me think of the system as less divisive than it is. Apologies.

Are you agreeing with me? Would cheer me up-am off work sick (leg swollen and won't move) and spending day on internet. Would be nice to right about something (in a way I wasn't about moving that damn wardrobe on my own)

Ah yes I see, and yes I think I do agree with you.

It is always a problem in these discussions to talk about faith schools, as of course this includes both VC schools operating by local authority admissions criteria and VA schools using their own religious criteria, so obviously a quite different set of issues.

"If you really believe that by operating non-discriminatory admissions policies, standards in VA faith schools would "fall to the mediocre" because of the inclusion of those pupils with less advantaged backgrounds then you must surely see what a pernicious system this is."

I'm afraid I do, and I don't blame faith schools. Faith schools just ease the pain really. The problem, the central problem is that the National Curriculum at primary level is too dependent on parental support. Anyone with a primary child knows this.

That means that schools without parental support can fail very badly, obviously and schools with parental support, which faith schools have, de facto, do very well.

This is what should change. Primary education and the NC should become less dependent indeed, not dependent at all on parental support.

The faith school selection phenomenon is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. If primary education increased in quality across the board, the phenomenon wouldn't even arise.

Whatever curriculum you have children from organised, supportive homes with educated and/or educationally keen parents and more material resources will generally always find it easier to do well.

I don't think you can get away from the Mumsnet-advantage through curriculum redesign.

"What it shows is that outrage about religious education is limited."

No.

What it shows is that (a) these schools are self-selecting and/or (b) some people simply have no choice.

You could though.

What counts is parental support -- because the basics aren't being instilled. Parental support should be extra, not a requirement for the basics.

Faith is just a method of selecting the schools with the greatest parental support.

To get people to lose interest in the faith system you need to change the curriculum so that parental support is no longer a factor in the curriculum and school choice. Until then you won't.

This is kinda a different argument isn't it? Should be elsewhere.

I don't accept your analysis, but even given it were true, there is still the real problem here in failing to understand the relationship between learning outcomes and 'good schools'.

If, as you say, parental support determines childhood chances (and I would accept it certainly plays a part) then committed parents won't stop helping their kids because they send them to non-faith schools. The most that might happen is that some of the school support declined or was more evenly spread, but it isn't that kind of support that really makes the difference you're talking about-it's the general home environment. So learners really wouldn't suffer that much, even if there seemed fewer exceptionally good schools.

And again, in many cases we can't know whether faith schools have more involved parents because they are faith schools, or because they draw from areas with involved parents (who, as I said earlier, are actually statistically more likely to be atheists if educational achievement is used as a guide). You need to define what a faith school is much more closely to make the claim they would be less well supported if faith status were removed, as if such support were accorded because of their faith status per se.

Yes, it shows outrage is limited. Where is the mass outrage? Only in people who can't access faith schools when they want to. And they're not outraged they exist -- they're outraged they can't access them.

Perhaps a generalisation. But if they were offered a place at a really fab faith school, or the abolition of faith schools leading to a place at a mediocre but reasonable school, what will they choose? Usually they'll choose the best school.

People will do what they have to for their children.

gooseberry - I don't accept that. Prove the link between faith and parental support. (I don't have to disprove it - you have to prove it.)

I agree with you that parental support is vital. Some kids have it, others don't. The flavour of imaginary ice-cream they eat is nether here nor there.

I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The fact that the best performing primary schools are generally the ones with the greatest parental commitment and support are a strong indicator that my analysis is right.

Anyone with experience of the primary curriculum in the last 15 years understands its dependence on parental input.

Who is listening to your children read? Who is rote learning and chanting tables with them? Who is practising spellings with them? Who is doing the maths worksheets at home after they've had six and a half hours at school?

You are.

They are outraged they can't access them, and they can't access them because they are faith schools. The two are inextricably linked. Therefore they are outraged they exist. And people, like me, who have never faced the issue of having to choose a faith school, are outraged they exist too.

Belief or non-belief in imaginary friends should be neither a help nor a hindrance in obtaining your children's school place. It ought to be spectacularly irrelevant - like whether or not you believe in the Yeti.

I find it outrageous and I don't even live in your country.
It is possible to abhor something because of its inherent unfairness, even if that unfairness doesn't affect you.

So remember all the things you have done for your child over the yeras, and imagine the child who's had none of that done for them. Or, say, fifty per cent less.

What level do you think they would be at?

There is no mass outrage! If there was the present system wouldn't exist. Most people are like me, think it might be a good thing if some things were to change, but on a scale of 1-10 are at about 2 and would rather fight more important battles.

Surprisingly enough there are failing C of E schools! I know two and there must be more.

Your argument is faulty. Examine your logic.

They are outraged because they can't access them does not slide to they are outraged they exist.

You always have to bring down the tone don't you. I'm going to ignore that provocative throwaway "imaginary friends like the Yeti". Except to say, grow up. Debate normally.

gooseberry - patronising tone aside, there is nothing in the content of your post at 16:16:08 with which I disagree. But it is all irrelevant to the faith component.

I said prove the link between FAITH and parental support, not the link between parental support and doing well at school. We can obviously agree the latter exists.

What constitutes debating "normally"? Saying things you find it easy to refute? You're just cross because I have put my finger on exactly what is wrong with the faith system. A little growing up to do on your part, I fear.

"There is no mass outrage! If there was the present system wouldn't exist." Rubbish. People don't like it, but it isn't currently in their power to change it. I love the idea that something existing shows there is no mass outrage about it. Charming, but not exactly borne out by reality. (Iraq War? Cuts? These things exist despite huge opposition and outrage.)

Sorry I missed your earlier question.

The link between faith and parental support isn't to do with the faith though -- that's been explained by Zephrine. She did it very well.

Firstly, parents who genuinely are Christians and attend church must generally have some sort of social conscience, commitment to altruism and improvement and so on. But then there are the untold numbers of parents who might call themselves C0E on a census but basically have the foresight to look ahead, organise church membership, get on a committee rota etc etc. Which speaks of parental support.

"isn't necessarily to do with the faith" missed out a word.