Controversial question regarding faith schools Post Reply

[chelseadad]

I think there are probably enough school to accommodate religious and non religious school.
And if you are not of a certain religion, why would you want to attend that school anyway?

The reason for the popularity of religiously selective schools (unlike religious school that are open to all, generally) is that it is a form of selection that can be gamed. Same as with geographical selection (good schools in small catchments like Honeywell and Belleville, which are not religious schools). Parents who value education are more likely to do what it takes to get their child in.

And in answer to your first question, Wandsworth suffers from an overrepresentation of religiously selective schools, more so than any other borough in London. When I lived in Battersea and was considering primary schools, of the sixteen in my vicinity, nine selected on the grounds of religion!!!

[papinian]

I would like to see statistical evidence from poster that says parents of children attending catholic schools are more likely to be together as they don't believe in divorce. That's quite a controversial statement in my opinion.

The first statistical evidence on this in the U.K. was in a 1979 academic study by Barbara Thornes and Jean Collard. A review of the study is on jstor here:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3 ... 6716437183

I don't have a more recent full statistical study from the U.K., but this 2013 article cites a study showing that in the U.S. divorce rates for Catholics are lower than for Protestants and people of no faith:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccath ... ral-living

[schnitzel]

I am only in the catchment area for one school - but it being a faith school my children do not qualify because we do not choose to follow that particular faith. We live less than 120 m from the school! But children from far and wide get in because their parents happen to choose to worship at an appropriate institution... So we're a bit stuck! Although of course we support the school with our taxes, having estate agents boards up to advertise their events, attending such events etc etc. But still we are not welcome at our local school.

More troubling to me however is the idea that STATE schools should promote any particular faith. Teach faith at home and church - it is not the place of the state or the role of my tax ££... Don't we want our children to feel free and explore ideas - is state sponsored indoctrination the way? I don't want to pay for that! I could go on....

[chelseadad]

I am only in the catchment area for one school - but it being a faith school my children do not qualify because we do not choose to follow that particular faith. We live less than 120 m from the school! But children from far and wide get in because their parents happen to choose to worship at an appropriate institution... So we're a bit stuck! Although of course we support the school with our taxes, having estate agents boards up to advertise their events, attending such events etc etc. But still we are not welcome at our local school.

More troubling to me however is the idea that STATE schools should promote any particular faith. Teach faith at home and church - it is not the place of the state or the role of my tax ££... Don't we want our children to feel free and explore ideas - is state sponsored indoctrination the way? I don't want to pay for that! I could go on....

Hear, hear. I've never heard a convincing argument why we should be subsidising evangelism.

[schnitzel]

I think that no state schools should be faith schools.

AND I can't agree that we all want our children attending schools that reflect our beliefs / faith - I dont! Values are important but it's probably fair to say that one can have good values even if not religious... Schools should teach values but why should a STATE school play any part in evangelism of any particular faith? State education shouldn't be about promoting personal and individual spiritual or lifestyle choices. I don't want to pay for or uphold other parents' choices - what was it - restrictive TV watching - isn't that the individual parents' job? Or must I fund it? Regardless of whether my child also attends that school.

Is hiding a child away in a haven whose message reflects only that of the child's parents the most effective preparation for life beyond school?

I am religious but believe that it is my job to bring my children up (if I choose to) in my chosen faith, not the state's.

[papinian]

I am only in the catchment area for one school - but it being a faith school my children do not qualify because we do not choose to follow that particular faith. We live less than 120 m from the school!

There is no concept of catchment areas. Some Wandsworth schools have priority admissions areas, but none of those are faith schools. Could you please explain what you are referring to? Are you saying that on the distance applied in recent years your children would not be admitted to any of your nearest non-faith state schools?

The free schools concept allows for a range of schools to be set up to reflect different philosophies. Mosaic Jewish Primary School was opened in Wandsworth as the first Jewish school in south London.

I'm not a believer in a one size fits all school system on the French model. A one size fits all school system is ultimately majoritarian in practice and does not protect minority rights. The pluralistic model of the U.K. has been much more successful in integrating minority groups than the French model. There are plenty of progressive European countries such as The Netherlands and Germany that have state-funded faith schools in the same way as the U.K. does. The one size fits all school system is also highly vulnerable to political influence - perhaps some posters do not remember the craziness of Labour control of schools in Lambeth and other parts of in the 1980s but I do. In some areas the only decent schools at the time were faith schools because they were insulated from the experimental policies of Labour politicians (many of whom sent their own children to independent schools).

To quote chelseadad on another thread, we need a "dynamic, pluralised state school system, where parents have genuine choice and schools have greater methodological liberty". Faith schools are part of that mix.

[chelseadad]

To quote chelseadad on another thread, we need a "dynamic, pluralised state school system, where parents have genuine choice and schools have greater methodological liberty". Faith schools are part of that mix.

I was encouraged to see you quoted me from a previous thread, as I take it that you are committed to the same ideals in education as I am, and we are not so far apart. We just disagree on what that end result will look like. We both agree that we don't want a one-size fits all approach, but you seem to support a system that has various forms of privilege and discrimination institutionally embedded into it. It is your curious claim that exclusion means more choice that I wish to challenge directly.

What I advocate is what is already a part of the British school system. You blunder when thinking we want some kind of French style system were religion is permitted no quarter at all. At my sons' school (one is in nursery, the other in Year 1), my children have already been informed onIslam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Christianity. They go to churches, mosques, gurdwaras. Children from those religious traditions are encouraged to talk openly about them. The teach on religion WITHOUT PRIVILEGING ANY ONE FAITH OVER THE OTHERS. Secular schools, such as the one my sons attend, don't close out religion, THEY MAKE ALL RELIGIONS AVAILABLE TO ALL ON EQUAL TERMS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Now tell me which school is closer to the ideal of genuine choice and methodological liberty: your institutionalised apartheid school? Or my school that offers an inclusive role for all religions and its adherents, thereby offering the chance for the child to learn and choose of their own volition. I think the answer is quite self-evident to the unbiased.

[Chucka]

The point about religious belief is of course that it does involve the view that the compelling evidence points to that particular religious belief. As opposed to any other belief or non-belief or pluralistic belief.

Different religions/ forms of non-religion/ pluralism are in major aspects mutually exclusive faiths.

We may not agree with others beliefs in their entirety and it is great to have those discussions. But must not allow the state to have the power force people to educate their children in one particular faith as opposed to another.

Many Christian religious schools are indeed being hijacked by people who do not genuinely subscribe to that Christian faith view. However the schools and churches seem to do very little to discourage this blatent 'gaming' (as one contributor here has called it ) and some of those who play the system interpret the deafening silence to mean that they are positively welcome to do so.

No wonder parents whose children attend lower achieving non-faith schools are incensed by the huge imbalances in social intake. It needs to stop.

[papinian]

Many Christian religious schools are indeed being hijacked by people who do not genuinely subscribe to that Christian faith view. However the schools and churches seem to do very little to discourage this blatent 'gaming' (as one contributor here has called it ) and some of those who play the system interpret the deafening silence to mean that they are positively welcome to do so.

No wonder parents whose children attend lower achieving non-faith schools are incensed by the huge imbalances in social intake. It needs to stop.

I have two questions Chucka:

(1) What more (within the confines of the School Admissions Code) do you think schools and churches could do to discourage 'gaming' by parents to get their children into Christian faith schools even though they do not genuinely subscribe to that Christian faith view? I note that in the case of Catholic schools at least one parent must be Catholic - which isn't something that can be done overnight - and it's usual to have an admissions criterion that the child have been baptised before 6 or 12 months (Catholicism requires baptism as soon as practicable after birth), specifically to prevent parents 'gaming' the system. Sometimes people are suspected of 'gaming' the system when it turns out not to be the case. I have a childhood friend whose parents converted to Catholicism when their two children were toddlers, sent the children to Catholic schools (other local schools not good). Now 35 years later the parents are still at Mass every week and my friend is engaged to a Catholic and also goes to Mass every week. The zeal of the convert as we say.

(2) Why do you say that "parents whose children attend lower achieving non-faith schools are incensed by the huge imbalances in social intake". At least as regards Catholic schools (in England generally and Wandsworth in particular) the social intake is a lot more diverse than many state schools. See figures in my previous post.

[Astolat]

I am very opposed to state schools.

Three big reasons:

1. Only 1-2% of the school budget is covered by the faith. Yet they dictate entrance admission and the curriculum with regards to religious teaching (including things such as sex education). In 1944 it was 50% of faith school funding from the faith. That seems fair. but 1-2% is hardly anything. Tell them to keep it and strip away the faith element.

2. It's open to gaming and it skews results. Parents who are willing to jump through a religion's hoops of church attendance, baptism and faking faith are self defined as invested in their kids education. So they tutor, read with their children and help with homework far more than the 'average' parent has time or inclination for, that is what drives the results not the 'ethos' of the school

3. This drives a wealth bias - faith schools have a much lower proportion of free school meals children than the average (13% in faith school Vs 21% for non religious at secondary).

The outcome is that it creates segregated schooling that siphons off a big chunk of the children likely to get good results away from the rest of their community. This is to the detriment of their community.

[Astolat]

Erm, sorry, I meant I am very opposed to state funded faith schools. Not state schools, those I like a lot!

[papinian]

Only 1-2% of the school budget is covered by the faith. Yet they dictate entrance admission and the curriculum with regards to religious teaching (including things such as sex education). In 1944 it was 50% of faith school funding from the faith. That seems fair. but 1-2% is hardly anything. Tell them to keep it and strip away the faith element.

This is completely and utterly incorrect. Under the Education Act 1944 faith schools that are voluntary aided (category covers all faith schools in Wandsworth, except for Mosaic Jewish Primary School which is a free school) have 100% of their running costs met by the state. That was the case in 1944 and that is the case in 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_aided_school

Under the Education Act 1944 the state funded 50% of the capital costs (i.e. land and buildings) of voluntary aided schools. That has since been increased to 90%. However, every faith school in Wandsworth was founded before 1944 except for the Gatton School (Muslim) so this state capital funding is relevance only to subsequent rebuilding. Apart from Gatton, the land and buildings of every faith school in Wandsworth was largely funded by, and is owned by, the relevant faith community. I wonder what it will cost for the state to buy all those properties.

I assume that the 1-2% to which Astolat refers is voluntary fundraising by the school on top of state funding.

If people are going to post on this topic could they at least get their facts correct.

As regards Astolat's other points, everything said of faith schools could be said about other admissions criteria and wealth bias. Around here we have the perfect example in Honeywell and Belleville.

[jafina]

I live literally round the corner from a faith school, but cannot send my children there as we are an atheist family. The school gets very good results and I know several families there that have successfully jumped through all the hoops to get their children in, including attending church every week, early baptism, helping out at church events etc... Now that their kids are in the school they don't have to do these things anymore and many of them don't. They have played the system, pure and simple.

I know many people play the system in other ways too, like renting in a catchment area etc... but faith schools are truly discriminatory and it angers me that my tax dollars support this kind of discrimination.

[Astolat]

Only 1-2% of the school budget is covered by the faith. Yet they dictate entrance admission and the curriculum with regards to religious teaching (including things such as sex education). In 1944 it was 50% of faith school funding from the faith. That seems fair. but 1-2% is hardly anything. Tell them to keep it and strip away the faith element.

I assume that the 1-2% to which Astolat refers is voluntary fundraising by the school on top of state funding.

If people are going to post on this topic could they at least get their facts correct.
.

Erm, the clue is in the word 'budget' so as an overall budget the faith contribution is ridiculously low. I do understand the way the various acts structure funding and the impact of the initial infrastructure cost, I just chose not to overcomplicate my post.

I think we are making the same point though - the religious organisation makes virtually no financial contribution to the running of a faith school so there is no reason for them to have any involvement or any influence over who gets to attend a publicly funded institution.

[papinian]

In 1944 it was 50% of faith school funding from the faith. That seems fair. but 1-2% is hardly anything.

In 1944 100% of the running costs are met. In 2014 100% of the running costs are met. That's not what you wrote, although I accept that you didn't intend to mislead.

As I have noted, apart from the Gatton School, for Wandsworth faith schools, the religious body has paid form, and owns, the land and has paid for all or a significant part of the building cost (depending on when the buildings were built). If the state had to pay to pay market rent for those properties that would be a very significant cost, so actually there is quite a big financial contribution being made by the religious body.