Accord Coalition Quarterly Report

source: mailshot 2nd September 2010 from Accord Coalition - Quarterly Report No.7 September 2010


The fast pace of the new Government since the General Election - especially that of Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove - has left some people lost in admiration and others extremely worried.

Accord has changed from being 'the new kid on the block' who unexpectedly burst onto the scene in September 2008 to a well respected Coalition with a serious agenda.

However, it still occasionally happens that our purpose is misrepresented - either deliberately by those with a vested interest to protect, or through journalists being lazy - so when this occurred in the Church of England Newspaper recently, the following letter - friendly but firm - was sent to clarify our cause:

Sir, Further to your front page article (May 28th), it is important to correct your assertion that the Accord Coalition is 'anti-faith school'. Nor, for the record, are we anti-faith. We are an organisation that encompasses both religious and non-religious groups, and we are concerned about faith schools as currently constituted because of their impact both on the children who attend and on society at large. We believe that the exemptions given to faith schools in terms of their ability to discriminate over admission of pupils and employment of staff are neither right nor healthy. We are also worried that the failure by many faith schools to teach about religions and cultures other than their own denies their pupils the minimum level of general knowledge they should receive. We do not want a multi-faith society to become a multi-fractious one, and hold that more inclusive policies and a more rounded syllabus will produce better social cohesion.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain Chair, Accord Coalition


ACADEMY SCHOOLS

As promised in the Conservative Party's election manifesto, a Bill was brought forward to accelerate the transformation of schools into Academies. The Accord Coalition did not take issue with the concept of Academy Schools, but was concerned about the practical effects of certain aspects of the new proposals.

One was the lack of inspection from Ofsted to which the new schools would be subject. It meant that the Government's eagerness to give schools far greater operational freedom also freed them from regulations that help ensure the education they provide is properly balanced, broad and does not promote extreme views.

Another worry was that all schools with a religious character that become a new Academy would suddenly acquire wide ranging power to turn away both pupils and teaching staff on religious grounds. The Government labelled these powers as an 'exemption', but they could be more accurately described as 'discrimination'.

The following multi-signed letter was organised by us and sent to 'The Times' whilst the Bill was being debated in the House of Commons - and although it was not printed in the Times, its contents were widely distributed and covered elsewhere:

Sir, As members of ten different religious groups who welcome the government's desire to improve educational standards, we are concerned about possible side-effects of the Academies Bill going through the House of Commons this week. First, it is unclear whether foundation and voluntary controlled faith schools that become new Academies will still be obliged to adopt a locally agreed religious syllabus that teaches about many faiths, or instead if they will be able to focus solely on the school's particular religion - which we think would be a regressive step and should be resisted. Second, changing to Academy status will mean that faith schools that previously served the local community will now be able to select many more pupils according to faith and in effect create a religious ghetto. It would be detrimental to British society if children from different faith backgrounds were to grow up as strangers. Third, it is vital that Academies are not hijacked by those with an extreme agenda that militates against social cohesion or that promote religious obscurantism. If it is to give greater freedoms, the government must also have greater monitoring to ensure those freedoms are not abused.

Revd Jeremy Chadd (C of E) Rev Marie Dove (Methodist) Symon Hill (Quaker) Jay Lakhani (Hindu) Derek McAuley (Unitarian) Rev Iain McDonald (United Reformed Church) Manzoor Moghal (Muslim) Brian Pearce (Buddhist) Martin Pendergast (Catholic) Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain (Jewish)

THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM

The Government has indicated that there will be a major review of the National Curriculum this autumn. This will present us with a major opportunity to ensure that all schools will avoid the extremes of either teaching one faith or no faith, but will instead teach a broad syllabus that educates pupils of all backgrounds about those with dissimilar traditions but who are as much part of society as they are and with whom they need to interact positively. As part of the public aspect of this campaign, the following letter was published in 'The Times' on 21st August:

Sir, It is ironic that while atheists such as Richard Dawkins want Religious Education to be on the National Curriculum (report, Aug 18), there are many religious people who oppose it to safeguard their own particular interests. At the moment R.E. is in the anomalous position of being the only subject that is a statutory subject - i.e. it must be taught - but it is not on the National Curriculum - i.e. there is no set syllabus for it, just non-compulsory guidelines. This had led to wide variations according to local agreements or the category of schools, with many instances of only one faith being taught. It is vital that all children should know about the history, beliefs and traditions of the many different belief systems (including Humanism) that makeup multi-faith Britain today, whatever their own personal religious orientation. It is a matter both of general knowledge and social cohesion. The Accord Coalition - which unites those of faith and no faith concerned about religious education - urges the government to take this step during its review of the curriculum next month, and thereby ensure that the next generation can be not only diverse, but also informed and at ease with itself.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain Chair, Accord Coalition

The Government's curriculum review will also provide us with an opportunity to highlight some of our other key concerns, such as the failure of schools to teach good quality Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education. PSHE includes age appropriate Sex and Relationships Education (SRE).

At the moment PSHE is not compulsory and some schools do not teach it, while in others its provision is of a poor standard. The provision of SRE in the UK lags far behind that of many other developed societies and it is of little wonder that the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Western Europe. Last week's report from the Health Protection Agency showing that rates of sexually transmitted infections have risen yet again came as little surprise to me.

We want all children to have an entitlement to high standard SRE, regardless of which school they attend, and will be urging the Government to make PSHE compulsory in all state maintained schools. Our failure to ensure that schools provide thorough, accurate and balanced SRE continues to place our children's health and wellbeing at risk.

LABOUR LEADERSHIP

The Accord Coalition Co-ordinator, Paul Pettinger, and I both attended one of the hustings for the Labour Party leadership campaign. We made sure that the issue of faith schools was raised and asked the candidates as to how they would ensure that faith schools could be more inclusive and enhance future citizenship.

Our questioning promoted an encouraging reply from Andy Burnham MP, who is the only openly religious candidate. He stated that while he was in favour of faith schools in principle the schools '... should be open to all and that RE should be on the National Curriculum'.

RESEARCH DATABASE

When the Accord Coalition came into existence, it quickly became clear that there were a lot of opinions swirling around about faith schools, but little hard data that was widely available. One of the tasks we set ourselves was to create a database of research carried out by reputable bodies, which we have made publically available for supporters, researchers and journalists to find out about the consequences of current policy on faith schools.

One of the pieces of research that we have assembled includes a report by the House of Commons in 2009, which looked at the relationship between admissions and performance at faith schools. It showed that all denominational schools admitted fewer children in receipt of free school meals (FSM) and fewer with special education needs (SEN) on average than schools without a religious character. Moreover, the report showed that faith schools were disproportionately established in poor areas, and therefore their low FSM figures were even more surprising when compared to the areas in which they were located. This raises questions about their admission policies and suggests that some form of covert social selection in state-funded faith schools is taking place.

In this and all other cases, it is important that such concerns are examined using meticulously researched information and are not just political slogans bandied around at will. This ensures that we have hard evidence on which to base our opinions and thus our campaign and lobbying work. It is important that we continue to update our database and we would appreciate hearing from anyone involved in recent or on-going research so that we know to include the latest studies.


Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE Chair, The Accord Coalition.

Faith Schools and the Academies Programme

On 11 September, two stalwarts of Dorset Humanists, Chair David Warden (“yes”) and Education Officer Chris Street (“no”) will debate the question: “do faith schools have a place in modern society?” This post puts the debate in the context in a major development in education, which has occurred as a result of the “regime change” and from which the issue is inseparable: the academies programme.

But first, we must consider the meaning of the question itself: do faith schools have a place in modern society? It begs several other questions: What is “society?” What is “modern society?” What does it mean to have a “place in society”? Stripping out the rhetoric (“a place in modern society”), we have the underlying question: “there ought to be faith schools: true or false?”

But the statement: “there ought to be faith schools” is neither true nor false; it is an evaluative judgment. We can debate, till Kingdom Come, the merits and demerits of faith schools: whether or not they produce greater academic success and, if so, whether or not (and, if so, how) there is a causal connection between faith and success; whether or not they possess, and instil into pupils, some indefinable – almost mystical – “ethos”; whether or not they are, in some sense, “divisive” or “discriminatory”. But, ultimately, one person (“A”) can say “true” and another (“B”) can say “false”. Neither is right but neither is wrong; these are purely subjective, evaluative judgments, and neither is objectively superior to the other.

The real question is this: if A says “there ought to be faith schools” but B says “there ought not to be faith schools”, is B entitled to impose his or her judgment on A (or vice versa)? The answer cannot be “yes”. Therefore, A must be allowed to send his children to a faith school, and B must be allowed to send his or her children to a non-faith school.

Suppose there is an independent, fee-paying faith school (the Benedictine Ampleforth College is a prime example) which receives no state funding. Parents, who can afford it, are free to send their children there. Only on the most authoritarian view would such a freedom, or the school’s freedom to exist, be denied. So, the issue here is only about faith schools within the state education system. But, the academies programme completely changes the concept of state education.

“Academies” stand in contrast to “maintained schools”. They we established by Tony Blair in 2000 (although only 203 were founded under New Labour) and the wholesale conversion, of maintained schools into academies, is now the Coalition’s flagship education policy.

Even maintained schools are not mere branches of the State; they are separate entities, to a greater or lesser extent private and self-governing (many of them having a “religious character” – so-called “faith schools”), but which are “maintained” by the State (in the form of the local authority) and regulated by statute. To “maintain” essentially means (although this varies according to the type of school: community, foundation, voluntary-aided, voluntary controlled) to defray the cost of maintaining; in other words, to fund.

Underlying the academies programme is the notion that the local authority drops out of the state education loop. Academies are independent schools, entirely self-governing and hardly regulated by statute, but the State (now in the form of central government) provides the funding for them (although much of this is still raised locally, by way of council tax) and they are free to parents at the point of delivery.

In principle, the funding (which is the basic per-pupil cost of education) follows the pupil, to whichever school the parents choose to send him or her. In practice, because this amount is effectively capped (under the preferred “Swedish” model, academies will not be permitted to charge top-up fees to parents) and probably inadequate, this will not happen immediately. There will be state-imposed rationing of resources, and the local authority will continue to do this by retaining, for the time being, its principal function of “co-ordination”, the allocation of pupils and resources to form the education structure in its area.

The notion, of the local authority (at least, in principle) dropping out of the loop, calls into question the very meaning and purpose of state education. A local authority’s overarching duty, in relation to state education is laid down by statute as follows:-

A local authority shall (so far as their powers enable them to do so) contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community by securing that efficient primary education, and secondary education are available to meet the needs of the population of their area.

So the statutory definition and purpose of state education, which has its origins in the 1944 Education Act. Is, in effect:-

The spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community.

The word “spiritual” is deeply objectionable; the word “moral” is, at best, highly problematical. Leaving those issues aside, however, the essence of state education is the development of the community; not the pupil, the community. That is why the local authority – as supposed representative and builder of the community – has traditionally been regarded as an essential part of the state education loop. With the local authority removed, no equivalent duty is place on either of the remaining players, central government and academies. Therefore, the academies programme marks a fundamental shift from the traditional “communitarian” view of state education to an “individualist” view.

What is probably (he must correct me if I am wrong) David’s central thesis is expressed in the following:-

Religious parents are taxpayers just the same as non-religious parents. For the government to fund non-religious schools but not religious schools is clearly a case of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the allocation of public funds.

… religious parents, who pay their taxes just the same as everyone else, should be able to choose to send their children to such a school if they want to and that a liberal democratic state has no business withholding funds from such schools.

A sizeable proportion of taxpaying parents prefer to send their children to schools with a religious ethos. I believe that a liberal, democratic society should accede to this preference unless there are overriding reasons not to do so.

Implicit in this is the idea that parents pay taxes in return for the state education of their children. That is not so; parents (and all taxpayers) pay taxes because, if they did not, their property would, ultimately, be appropriated by the State. There is nothing – state education or anything else – in return for taxes.

But there is a common fiction that people do, in fact, pay taxes for things – including state education – in return, and we will pretend that this is the case. But there is a problem: as we have seen, state education is not regarded as the development of pupils (the parents’ children); it is the development of the community.

Former pupils contribute to the community through the provision of goods and services to others, who are taxpayers. If a taxpayer receives a benefit from the “development of the community”, he has paid twice for it: first in taxes which have funded the education of those former pupils, and secondly in the price of those goods and services. The cost, of that education of those who provide them, is part of the cost of the goods and services. So, the “development of the community” is a flawed notion.

So, taxpayers are paying tax in return for the state education of children (but not necessarily their specific children). The community drops out of the loop and so does the local authority. That is reflected in the academies programme.

Academies are independent schools, funded by the state out of taxation and free to parents at the point of delivery. But we can look at this in a different way (the difference being merely a matter of accounting): parents pay fees to the academy for their specific children’s education; to the extent that they cannot afford to do so, those fees are subsidized by the State out of the taxation of others who can afford to pay. This is precisely what will happen; tax, paid by the parents, will off-set the per-pupil cost which follows the pupil to whichever school the parents choose to send him or her.

On that analysis, parents do, indeed, pay taxes in return for the state education of their children.

Spring Report 2009: A report by our Chair on Accord’s progress since its launch

source: Alex Kennedy, Accord

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

Please find below a report on what we have been doing at Accord since our launch last autumn.

Best wishes

Alex

Alex Kennedy

Coalition Coordinator

Accord

Spring Report 2009: A report by our Chair on Accord’s progress since its launch

Accord was born on 1st September 2008

Personally I had been concerned about faith schools for several years, but I always felt I was a lone voice - certainly within the religious world. While I was able to raise the issue every now and then, there was no structure through which to link up with others or to urge a change of policy.

It was that sense of frustration that led to Accord, which aims to unite all those with issues about faith schools - be it their very existence or the way they operate.

Accord can claim to be doubly unique:

First, it goes beyond the stale arguments by those ideologically pre-disposed for or against faith schools. Instead, it is much more nuanced. It asks: what is the best interest of the children and society at large? It believes the answer is schools that are inclusive, tolerant and transparent.

Second, it is a broad coalition of both those who are religious and secular: Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, humanists, atheists; all of whom desire an educational system that is based on social cohesion - and not just as a slogan but in reality.

The actual birth of Accord was traumatic. Before the day was out, representatives of the religious groups which have faith schools had jointly produced a three-page press release which not only condemned us, but which deliberately tried to stereotype us as yet another secular conspiracy frothing at the mouth and trying to destroy all that was good in education.

There was also an avalanche of criticism in various religious papers, which served to give us a lot of prominence but which was also painful for Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus who value their faith without wanting faith schools.

Still, we did not turn the other cheek but have been forthright since then in putting our view forward, through radio and television interviews, as well as articles in various papers and on websites. And as well as criticism we received strong support from sources as diverse as the Economist and the Church of England Newspaper editorial.

We also kept in the headlines a fortnight later when Accord’s views were widely sought by the media on the opening of the first Hindu school in Britain.

Our response was simple: by dividing Hindu children from those of other faiths, there was now an enormous responsibility upon the school to work very hard to overcome the social barriers this could cause.

This in turn begs specific questions that apply to all faith schools, and which form the four key concerns of Accord (which will be particularly relevant to the forthcoming Equalities Bill):

1. Admissions: should state funded schools operate admissions policies that take account of pupil’s religious belief, and which discriminate against those who come from what is deemed “the wrong faith” or no faith at all? This is the litmus test as to whether those schools are serving the local community or serving themselves.
   

2. Employment: should state funded schools operate recruitment and employment policies that discriminate on grounds of religion. I can at least understand the argument that an RE teacher should be of a particular faith, but what about the Maths teacher, French assistant, kitchen staff or caretaker?

3. Syllabus : as there is no National Curriculum for RE (why not ?) and as faith schools can opt out of the locally agreed SACRE syllabus (how come ?), how can we ensure they follow an objective, fair and balanced syllabus for education about religious and non-religious beliefs?
   

4. Accountability: is it wise to have a system of inspection whereby special arrangements are made for faith schools that other schools do not have, which permits exemptions from the normal OFSTED regulation. Why should this be the case and why are faith schools not monitored like every other school?

Once the initial glare of publicity was over, the hard work began of campaigning for these reforms, targeting those most able to deliver. So Accord has met with government via the Department for Children, Schools & Families; with the Liberal Shadow Minister for Education and the Conservative Shadow Minister too, as well as other MPs and members of the Lords.

We have tried to expand the coalition with like-minded groups, both those in the educational world (from teachers union to educational think-tanks) and those from the religious communities (such as Christian clergy, the Chair of the Muslim Forum and the Hindu Academy).

We have also sought advice of, and made connections with, bodies that work in other spheres but who sometimes cross-over into the area of faith schools - such as the Runnymede Trust.

It is hard work, but we have found that there are many who profoundly agree with our position and are glad that such a forum exists.

There is definitely a new mood in the air: the rapid expansion of faith schools in the last two decades (without nearly enough public attention) is now being challenged by people who are uncomfortable at what has happened; people who feel that it is important that children from different backgrounds do not grow up as strangers, or even hostile to each other, but as fellow citizens

What is more, independent evidence has recently emerged that admissions procedures are being abused and some state-funded faith schools are acting unethically: either by covertly charging parents or by selection procedures that discriminate against children from less academic backgrounds.

Moreover, the case for examining faith schools has recently received a boost from a report issued by a report entitled ‘Right to Divide’, published by the highly-respected Runnymede Trust. It endorses faith schools, but suggests ways of improving them, many of which answer the key questions of Accord listed above.

There have also been two major pieces of research by academics at the London School of Economics and the Institute of Education showing that religious admissions cause social segregation and don’t improve results over all.

And most recently we have seen the fruits of our hard work with the announcement of a new Lib Dem policy on faith schools. At the party’s Spring Conference in Harrogate on 7^th March they announced that they will oppose the creation of new faith schools that discriminate in admissions and would require existing faith schools to prove that they are inclusive or loose state funding.

The policy also commits them to fighting for RE lessons that teach “about beliefs, not what to believe”, for the ability of children to withdraw themselves from collective worship on grounds of conscience and for the right of teaching and support staff to be appointed and promoted without regard to their personal beliefs.

It is another step towards our ultimate goal of changing legislation. Relying on the goodwill of governors or the common-sense of head-teachers is not enough. It is only by initiating legislation about admissions, employment and accountability that the goal of inclusive schools will be achieved.

So, to sum up the position so far: Accord is just over six months old, but we feel that we have started to make our mark....and we have created a vehicle that not only gives voice to concerns about faith schools but is in a position to press for change.

With the Equality Bill due to be published next week we know that the next few weeks and months will be busy. We will be in touch very soon to let you know how you can help, so please keep a look out for future emails

Wish best wishes,

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain MBE

Chair, Accord

Teachers' union calls for an end to faith schools

source:

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

by Richard Garner, Education Editor

Thanks to LWS for the link.
Reposted from
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/teachers-union-calls-for-an-end-to-faith-schools-1662932.html

Teachers' leaders will this week demand the phasing out of the nation's 7,000 state-funded faith schools.

As a first step, delegates at the National Union of Teachers' conference will seek a ban on opening any new faith schools – on the grounds that their admissions policies have created "segregated schooling" in many parts of the country.

The move would put the union on a collision course with the Government, which has openly sought sponsorship by religious groups for many of its flagship new academies. Several of the new academies to be opened this year have church backing.

It is also likely to provoke fierce debate within the union, as many of its members work in faith schools.

At present, there are about 7,000 faith schools in the country – 600 secondary and 6,400 primary. The vast majority are Christian: there are around 6,955 Church of England, Roman Catholic and Methodist schools. The rest consist of 36 Jewish schools, six Muslim, two Sikh and one Hindu, Greek Orthodox and Seventh-Day Adventist.

The motion, which is set to be debated at the union's annual conference in Cardiff on Saturday, states: "Religious groups, of whatever faith, should have no place in the control and management in the control and management of schools."

It declares that "all children should have the opportunity and the right to meet and work with children from a variety of backgrounds and faiths within their day-to-day education".

Supporters of the move argue that admitting pupils on religious grounds risks undermining the Government's calls to them to promote community cohesion, which has just become a legal obligation on all schools.

The union's leadership is prepared to back the motion's main aim – to declare a long-term commitment to creating a single community comprehensive system that covers all state secondary schools. However, it would rather place the emphasis on getting existing faith schools to change their admissions policies than campaign against all new proposals to establish religious schools. It will seek to persuade delegates to back a call for all schools to adopt "non-discriminatory admissions procedures".

Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT, said: "Our preference would be that schools admissions rely on the proximity of the family to the school. The important thing for us is to ensure that all schools have to abide by the duty to promote social cohesion, rather than select on religious grounds."

The drive to create more faith schools gained impetus under Tony Blair's premiership, when he sought to persuade faith groups to become one of the key sponsors of academies.

Since then, Schools Secretary Ed Balls has insisted the Government does not have a policy in favour of creating more faith schools. However, department officials insist that ministers still value the work done by faith schools in the state education system.

Certain religious sectors agree that faith schools should do more to be more inclusive. In 2006, the Rt Rev Dr Kenneth Stevenson, the Bishop of Portsmouth and chair of the Church of England's Board of Education, wrote to then Education secretary, Alan Johnson: "I want to make a specific commitment that all new ... schools should have at least 25 per cent of places available to children with no requirement that they be of practising Christian families. The places would not be left empty if they were not filled by such children so this would technically not be a 'quota' but a 'proportion'."

Religion's role in a nation's education

There are about 6,400 primary and 600 secondary faith state schools in England

Of these, about 4,700 are Church of England, 2,100 Roman Catholic, and 150 Methodist, with 36 Jewish, six Muslim, two Sikh, one Greek Orthodox, one Hindu and one Seventh-Day Adventist

There are a further 140 Muslim schools in the UK which are not part of the state system

The only state faith schools which existed before the 1997 general election were Christian or Jewish

The state pays up to 90 per cent of the running costs

All faith schools have to teach the National Curriculum

For religious education, more than half only teach their own faith, while the remained teach a locally agreed religious syllabus

Admissions are determined by school governors, and schools can insist on proof of baptism and regular church attendance.

National Secular Society claims that 80 per cent of the population disapproves of faith schools

Campaign Against Faith Schools by BHA

Campaign Against Faith Schools

You can now donate online direct to our campaign against faith schools. We need to raise £30,000 to continue employing our dedicated campaigner for twelve months. Our campaigner will make sure that the voice of UK citizens who oppose faith schools is represented in the most powerful way. To do this our campaigner helps to stimulate and organise local campaigns against new faith schools and lobby government and parliament to reform the laws that allow state funded schools to discriminate in their employment and admissions and to teach unbalanced curricula of religious education.

government reform faith schools to ensure they cannot discriminate against pupils and teachers on religious grounds

I also heard this on PM, Radio 4. I've signed.

A message from Enlightened Observer to all members of Atheists of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on Atheist Nexus!

A new interfaith and rationalist coalition is suggesting that the government reform faith schools to ensure they cannot discriminate against pupils and teachers on religious grounds. They want a clear commitment to inclusive, community-wide education for all Britain's pupils.

The coalition includes a teaching union, religious groups, humanists, clergy, rabbis, academics and leading public figures is calling for fairer admissions policies in faith schools and equal employment rights for staff, regardless of their beliefs. It also wants to see a balanced curriculum, a consistent inspection regime and assemblies which reflect the true diversity of belief and culture.
As a fairly hard line Atheist, with no respect for anything supernatural, my inclination is to be skeptical about any group which includes people with "faith". However, as a pragmatist and realist, I must agree that this body is making reasonable demands and is likely to get wide support.

If you agree, go to:

http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk

and sign up.

Visit Atheists of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/groups/group/show?id=2182797%3AGroup%3A8715


In a pluralist, multi-cultural society, the state should promote tolerance and recognition of different values and beliefs. Given the dangers of segregation and the importance of community cohesion we need schools that welcome all and are committed to non-discrimination. Schools should promote a culture of questioning, of knowledge, of respect and of exploration of values, where students develop their own identities and sense of place in the world. We believe all state-funded schools should:

1. Operate admissions policies that take no account of pupils’ – or their parents’ – religion or beliefs.

2. Operate recruitment and employment policies that do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief.

3. Follow an objective, fair and balanced syllabus for education about religious and non-religious beliefs – whether determined by their local authority or by any future national syllabus or curriculum for RE.

4. Be made accountable under a single inspection regime for RE, Personal, Social & Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship.

5. Provide their pupils with inclusive, inspiring and stimulating assemblies in place of compulsory acts of worship.

And we commit to work with each other locally and nationally to turn public support for inclusive education into a campaign for reform that the government cannot ignore.

New research shows faith schools discourage integration

Jul 25, 2008 19:25:32 GMT

FROM eGOV monitor Via National Secular Society Newsline Newsletter CLICK HERE

New research shows that children who go to primary schools that have pupils from different ethnic and religious backgrounds find it easier to integrate and have higher self-esteem than those who go to schools where everyone comes from the same background. This new evidence reinforces the dangers posed by encouraging ever more single-faith schools.

The research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), confirms that the ethnic composition of primary schools has a direct impact on children’s attitudes towards those in other ethnic groups and on their ability to get on with their peers. Highlighting the challenges faced by immigrant children,

the study also showed that those attending schools characterised by higher ethnic diversity experienced fewer peer problems and less prejudice than those attending schools that are more homogeneous.

The research showed that having this integrationist attitude helped children both emotionally and socially: At the start of the study, the researchers found that minority children, particularly 1st generation immigrants, generally had lower self-esteem and were less well accepted by their peers than their white English classmates. But, when interviewed 6 and 12 months later, children with an integrationist orientation showed significant improvements in both these measures.

Professor Rupert Brown, who led the study, concluded:

“Our findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the more contact children have with other ethnic groups, the more cross-group friendships they will have and the less prejudiced they will be”. This argues against policies leading to reductions in school diversity such as the promotion of single faith schools.

See more details

Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

by British Humanist Association

Many of you will have seen the coverage in today's press of a new pamphlet on 'faith schools', published by the Centre for Policy Studies, written by Cristina Odone, which seeks to portray the UK 's state-funded faith schools as inclusive and under attack from hostile secularists.
The BHA's Andrew Copson responded to the pamphlet today on The Guardian's 'Comment is Free' website. You can read the blog and post a comment at http://tinyurl.com/4nze3u

We are also asking our members and supporters to post messages on the websites of these newspapers that have covered the story:
Daily Mail: http://tinyurl.com/5dgdev
Daily Telegraph: http://tinyurl.com/5mv87j
This is London: http://tinyurl.com/6dwhh7

We are also asking members and supporters to write to their own MPs, expressing their opposition to faith schools.

You can write to your MP via 'House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA' and you can find details of why faith schools should be opposed at http://tinyurl.com/d7yes

You can read the BHA's press release on the issue at http://tinyurl.com/3qyppc

Thought For The World - Stephen Law - What is the difference between political schools and faith schools?

Stephen Law

from Think Humanist by Humanist Society of Scotland

Thought for the day - Friday

Original audio source

Transcript of Thought For the World's thought for the day

Stephen Law

15th February 2008

The last century or so has seen some huge improvements in our moral attiutdes. Many of these improvements concern discrimination and prejudice. It is no longer considered morally or legally acceptable to refuse to employ women, or homosexuals, or those of other races.

Nowadays, the suspicion that we are being unfairly discriminated against is widespread. Take religious discrimination, for example.

Recently, some Christians have complained that schools are permitting Sikhs to wear turbans, but are not permitting Christians to wear crucifixes. They claim this is unfair discrimination against Christians.

In order to assess whether such claims of unfair discrimination are warranted, we need to be clear what we mean by discrimination, and under what circumstances it is warranted.

The kind of discrimination I'm going to focus on is where a society or organization extends certain rights or other privileges to some, but not to others.

Actually, this sort of discrimination is not always a bad thing. Adults discriminate against children, for example. We don't allow them to drive cars, or vote. But this discrimination is justified. There are obvious differences between adults and children that explain why this discrimination is fair - most children are not sufficiently mature and responsible enough to vote or drive.

Preventing women, or those of other races, from voting and driving, on the other hand, is morally wrong. Yes, women are different to men, but these biological differences do not justify withholding the vote from women. Nor are differences in skin colour relevant to our ability to drive.

That's not to say that racial and sexual discrimination is always wrong. Women are entitled to breast screening. Men aren't. Is that unfair? Of course not. There are biological differences between men and women that justify this difference in treatment. These biological differences may be irrelevant when it comes to the vote, but they can be very relevant indeed when it comes to medical matters.

So, discrimination is not always wrong. In fact, discriminating on the basis of sex or race is not always wrong.

What makes discrimination wrong is when it is morally unjustified.

The moral is this. If we want to extend to some rights and privileges that we then withhold from others, the onus is on us to identify not just some difference between the two groups, but some morally relevant difference that justifies this difference in treatment.

If we can't meet this challenge, then we will rightly stand accused of prejudice.

Let me leave you with an example of this challenge in action.

Suppose political schools started opening up and down the country - a communist school in Putney followed by a neo-conservative school in Billericay. Suppose these schools select pupils on the basis of parents political beliefs. Suppose that each day begins with the collective singing of political anthems. Suppose children are expected to accept the teaching to be found in the schools revered political texts. Suppose that portraits of political leaders beam down from classroom walls.

What would be the public's reaction to such schools? Outrage. These schools would rightly be accused of educationally children - of forcing their minds into politically-approved moulds. They are the kind of schools we find under totalitarian political regimes, such as Stalin's Russia or Mao's China.

But notice that, if we cross out the word "political" and write "religious", we find that there are already many hundreds of such schools up and down the country. Many are state-funded.

Is this discrimination justified? Why, if political schools are totally unacceptable, do we deem their religious equivalents to be acceptable, or even desirable? What's the difference between religious beliefs and other political beliefs that justifies such dramatically different attitudes?

Perhaps there is such a difference. But unless we can identify it, we will rightly stand accused of pro-religious prejudice.

Faithschools - epetition reply

14 February 2008

We received a petition asking:

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Abolish all faith schools and prohibit the teaching of creationism and other religious mythology in all UK schools."

Details of Petition:

"Faith schools remove the rights of children to choose their own religious, philosophical and ethical beliefs. They also sanction ethnic segregation and create tension and divisiveness within society. Schools should be places where children are given a free education, not centres for indoctrination. Creationism and other religious myths should not be taught as fact regardless of the funding status of a school. Abolishing faith schools will provide children with more freedom of choice and help to promote a fully multi-cultural, peaceful society."

• Read the petition
• Petitions home page

Read the Government's response

The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or "faith schools" as they are commonly known.

Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils' knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country. It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs and helps promote pupils' moral, cultural and mental development. In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.

In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education, and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.

The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country. Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.

Britain cannot put its faith in religiously divided schools

by Richard Heller, Yorkshire Post
Reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2144,n,n via
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Richard-Heller-Britain-cannot-put.3652772.jp

ALTHOUGH a third of England's state schools are already under religious control, the Government has decided to create even more of them.

In a private deal with a number of religious leaders, Ministers have committed themselves to remove "unnecessary barriers to the creation of new faith schools", to give such schools additional funding from central government and to encourage fee-paying religious schools to join the state sector.

In exchange, the religious leaders have signed up to some pious platitudes about building understanding and tolerance of other faiths.

Many people believe it is incumbent on every citizen, never mind every school, to build understanding and tolerance of others, and that people should not get public money for doing their basic civic duty. The Government has got itself a very poor bargain.

Children's Minister Ed Balls, who will be cross-examined by MPs today, has suggested that faith groups share the Government's goal of promoting a more cohesive society and that

faith schools promote integration and community cohesion.

This suggestion flies in the face of common sense and the experience of Northern Ireland and many other countries, where faith schools have entrenched social, cultural and economic divisions and perpetuated them through succeeding generations.

Faith schools exist as an emanation of religious faith. Their central and universal premise is that children are better people if they adhere to one particular faith. All other children are in some way inferior or diminished, perhaps even pitiable. They may need to be converted, saved or redeemed: at best, they can be tolerated but never regarded as equal.

That is what a faith school entails. It is bad enough that the state should fund such an outlook at taxpayers' expense, but to do so in the name of social integration is preposterous.

Even if faith schools were not divisive, they raise other important issues of principle which the Government has consistently refused to acknowledge or debate.

All religious faiths, without exception, are self-selecting minorities. They represent groups of people who have chosen certain beliefs.

Why should any minority group enjoy special funding, influence or control in an essential public service just because of their beliefs? What makes religion so superior to other convictions?

If we are to have publicly funded faith schools, should we also fund anti-faith schools (for the parents who believe that all religions are harmful)?

Or, indeed, political schools for parents who believe passionately in a political party – or ornithological schools for the many more parents who believe passionately in protecting birds?

Ministers claim that faith schools enlarge parental choice. But the Government does not attempt to meet the choice of every single parent for a child's education. Some parents passionately want their child to play cricket for Yorkshire and England and would like their school to prepare him accordingly.

The state does not meet their wishes.

More seriously, some parents are racist, homophobic or treat women as inferior, sometimes on the basis of religious belief. The state does not meet their wishes in education.

These represent extreme cases, but they illustrate how faith schools force government to make invidious decisions.

Some parental beliefs are encouraged and publicly funded: others are not. They turn the state into a licensing agency for views and beliefs.

Faith schools also raise the vital question of children's rights. Should children be compelled to receive religious instruction at their parents' behest? Should this be funded by the state?

In support of its proposal, the Government referred to "Muslim children" along with Hindu and Sikh children as being under-provided with state schools. It would have been more accurate to say "children of Muslim/Hindu/Sikh parents".

Children should not be identified by their parents' religion: they will make that choice for themselves when they are mature enough and it is no role of the state to promote it.

Finally, and perhaps most seriously, faith schools will entrench religious politics in our country. They turn every faith into clients of government, and vice versa.

They make every faith group a lobbyist: whatever public money and power is given to one faith group is automatically demanded by another.

Within every faith group they encourage factions to compete for the control of public funding, and, even more important, for the power within the community that accompanies control over a school.

To paraphrase Ernest Bevin, faith schools open up a Pandora's box of Trojan horses for our country.

Has the Government seriously considered their consequences for children and their rights, for society and for the future of British politics?

Or has it surrendered, tamely, to well-organised lobbying?


Richard Heller is an author, journalist and political adviser to Denis Healey, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Last Updated: 09 January 2008 8:34 AM

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2144,n,n
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

ReadMore

Comments from http://richarddawkins.net/article,2144,n,n

2. Comment #113533 by Slyer on January 20, 2008 at 12:33 am

I need to start my own atheist school, atheists only! No doubt that the fundies wouldn't approve. :)

3. Comment #113534 by epeeist on January 20, 2008 at 12:34 am

Good opinion piece, especially as the YP tends to be somewhat conservative in outlook.

I posted this in another thread - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/nschool411.xml

Seems Ed Balls might not be as convinced about faith schools as seems to be intimated.

Incidentally, unless he has changed Dennis Healey isn't religious, my mother was his election agent for a short time and we used to know him reasonably well.

4. Comment #113541 by JemyM on January 20, 2008 at 12:59 am

Same people, different books, learning to be tolerant to eachother. Something tells me it's the book that is the problem, not the people. Whenever you label a person based on their thoughts, you do a terrible mistake. We have culturally condemned the idea of class, race, gender and the correct sexuality. Now lets abolish the idea of groups based on "nationality", "culture" and "religion" as well. Stop dividing people with illusionary walls. There is only one type of human.

5. Comment #113543 by davorg on January 20, 2008 at 1:24 am

This piece was written before Ed Balls spoke to MPs and is therefore largely guesswork about what he might say.

What he actually said was rather different.

The Government has decided against backing more faith schools, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary, Ed Balls, told MPs.

In what is being seen as one of the most significant policy shifts of the post-Tony Blair era in education, he told a Commons select committee: "It is not the policy of the Government nor my department to expand the number of faith schools. We're not leading a drive for more faith schools."

See http://news.independent.co.uk/education/education_news/article3324436.ece

6. Comment #113547 by tobybarrett on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 am

It is good to see the British Government slowly backing away from the ridiculous enthusiasm Blair had for "faith schools" ("sectarian schools" might be a better name).

But, but, but. This is probably just a change of "mood"; I cannot see the religious groups giving up their control of the education system. Jeremy Hardy once joked: "All religions are keen on educating children - let's face it, they'd never be able to convince adults".

I fear, these schools and their divisiveness will be with us for many years.

8. Comment #113553 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 am

Yes, I, too, have been encouraged by more recent news of Ed Balls' position on this topic. But, just in case he gets over-ruled, here are some more ideas for promoting cohesion in our society:

Let's help disabled children be more integrated into society by schooling them separately from able-bodied children.

And there's clearly only one way to overcome the communication difficulties between men and women, and that's by ensuring that the 2 sexes never meet in school hours during their formative years.

As for the lack of understanding between people of different races, well, clearly, the only way to stamp that out once and for all is to keep them apart as much as possible. In fact, why stop at schooling? Why not insist on separate housing areas, separate shopping areas, separate buses and trains? Let's just bring in fully fledged apartheid - after all, that was super-efficient at producing peace, harmony and justice last time it was tried, wasn't it?

10. Comment #113566 by davorg on January 20, 2008 at 3:56 am

"sectarian schools" might be a better name

I've always prefered "superstition schools" :-)

12. Comment #113572 by ericcolumba on January 20, 2008 at 4:27 am

Not all faith schools represent the same danger as not all religions are equally repressive, homophobic, mysoginistic and intollerant of the individuals right to abandon the faith that they never chose.

The creation of state funded muslim schools amounts to government sponsored fascism, all done in the name of multiculturalism and trying not to offend those who believe in the supernatural

13. Comment #113575 by Paula Kirby on January 20, 2008 at 4:37 am

ericcolumba: Not all faith schools represent the same danger as not all religions are equally repressive, homophobic, mysoginistic and intollerant of the individuals right to abandon the faith that they never chose.

That's undoubtedly true, but what they all have in common is the sheer inappropriateness of their being funded publicly.

14. Comment #113582 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 5:40 am

It just amazes me that the government wants us to move to increasing the number of faith schools rather than reducing them. I cannot believe that in the 21st century reason is still not winning out. We don't have our own Hogwarts, or astrology schools. I doubt very much you could get approval for a satanist school, so why a catholic or muslim one? What if the Scientologists try to start one?

They encourage divisiveness and teach rubbish (to varying degrees), and I am astounded that here in the UK we are allowing it. How far does it go? Will we have our very own madrassas in the future?

One thing the theists point to is how well they perform. This needs to be addressed and action taken to change. Why is it that non-faith schools generally do worse? I suspect the answer lies in the selection methods of the faith schools.

15. Comment #113583 by Peacebeuponme on January 20, 2008 at 5:42 am

inappropriateness of their being funded publicly.

I would fo further. I don't want children of this country indoctrinated with private funds either.

18. Comment #113593 by octopus on January 20, 2008 at 6:28 am

Cannot wait to see the first school for Jedi knights to be publicly funded. May force be with you!

9. Comment #113594 by Nick Good on January 20, 2008 at 6:34 am

I need to start my own atheist school, atheists only! No doubt that the fundies wouldn't approve. :)

That's a good point, it might be a good tactic too.

Rather than non-denominational schools, motivate for the state to fund schools, where the parents have to be members of the National Secular Society!

Or more realistically, it's a strong argument to use as a counter example - by way of Reductio ad absurdum - to set against arguments for 'faith schools' which use religious selection.

In practice, I wouldn't support atheist schools either. Schools should be non-denominational, religion should be taught as a subject - comparative religion, rather than any one 'brand' being inculcated into young, impressionable minds by indoctrination.

There should be no religious selection criteria in any school, for teachers or pupils; anymore than there should be any racial selection criteria. It should be seen as simply not-acceptable, anymore than it would be acceptable for the British Army, Tescos or the National Health Service, to have a selection process that favoured by race or religion...it's well time for the zeitgeist with regards religion in education to catch up with that regarding race. UK education is behind the curve when compared to the employment field, where outside of specific religious establishments, selection by religion, is getting to be just not acceptable.

We are in danger of slipping backwards, if the argument for religious schools holds, then why not for tertiary education institutions? I wont tangent in detail onto the disestablishment argument....but it does come to mind.

In practice, the biggest problem at the moment, is with Islam. Anlglicinism, the UK state religion, and Christianity in general, are in terminal decline in the UK.

Now personally, I don't see being an 'Islmophobe' as a pejorative at all, not in the slightest. Rather it's a tad oxymoronic, as 'fear of Islam' is anything but a 'phobia', meaning irrational - given Islam's koranic literalist mainstream form and it's history of being promulgated by violence since the time of the 'prophet'; something which manifests all over the World, to this day. This, combined with current Islamic demographics in the UK, as well as other countries, boosted by fecundity, serial immigration and massive global Saudi funding.

There are 150 new state funded Islamic schools in the pipeline in the UK, think about this good people! I think this is more than silly, and to put it mildly, is directly contrary to the UK's national interest.

We're going to see more of this sort of thing, which, to use a Kofi Annan-esque understatement, gives me cause for 'deep concern' - We want to offer Sharia Law in Britain

22. Comment #113626 by Friend Giskard on January 20, 2008 at 8:05 am

Comment #113533 by Slyer on January 20, 2008 at 12:33 am

I need to start my own atheist school, atheists only! No doubt that the fundies wouldn't approve. :)

In fact someone has very recently tried to start a secular (not atheist) school in Britain, but the government soon put a stop to it. Read about it here:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/secularschoolingforgetitsaysthec.html

27. Comment #113842 by dragonfirematrix on January 20, 2008 at 6:22 pm

Oh, those continuous dubious flirtations with faith… of mixing politics and religion…

We need to get back to basics. We need to get back to truth. We need to start atheist-based schools, evolution-based schools, humanist-based schools, secular humanist based schools, Wicca-based schools etc. I bet this would excite the faith based!

28. Comment #113994 by cassdenata on January 21, 2008 at 7:13 am

It is good to see the consciousness-raising of not labeling children by their parents religion, that Professor Dawkins is promoting, is catching on.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2144,n,n

+++++++Comments from http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/opinion/Richard-Heller-Britain-cannot-put.3652772.jp

Paul Bohanna,

N. Shropshire 19/01/2008 16:04:48

An excellent article that puts many of the issues concerning religious schools very clearly. Most people in this country are not religious, a tiny minority attend any form of worship ever. The number of religious weddings and funerals as well as church attendance has been dropping dramatically for many years and continues to do so.

In time, if left to themselves, these outdated superstitous institutions would become extinct. That is why they are so desperate to wield their disproportionate political power to force their indoctrination upon our children.

Children are vulnerable to this kind of irrational brainwashing.

An indoctrinated child = a new recruit = more money and power for the churches.

Religious institutions are already unbelievably wealthy with billions in cash before even considering the huge swathes of land and other assets they have managed to 'accquire' over the centuries.

The sooner all religions are removed from schools, the better. As usual the government is completely out of touch with the people. But then what choice do we have when every major party has pledged its support for religious schools?
Paul

Claudius,

Hedon 20/01/2008 11:56:58

"Left to themselves, these outdated superstitous institutions would become extinct," you say, Paul: in which case, one wonders why you appear so reluctant to leave them to themselves? Which kind of school presently produces the best results? Why do parents have their children baptised simply to obtain a place in those schools? I taught in faith schools for almost my entire career; they bend over backwards to be inclusive and socially cohesive. It seems to me that the perspecive from which you write is concerned neither with faith nor education, but with mere politics - and nothing has been more damaging to education for the last 20 years than politics.

Kimpatsu,

Tokyo 21/01/2008 08:55:05

Claudius, the reason for the apparent success of faith schools in exam tables has nothing to do with their religious ethos and everything to do with their cherry-picking the best students. If they were forced to take children on the same basis as all other schools, the apparent success would vanish like the illusion it really is.

Claudius,

Hedon 21/01/2008 10:12:20

I'm afraid the suggestion that faith schools cherry pick pupils for their academic ability is mere nonsense, Kimpatsu: it rather creates the impression that you don't really know what you're talking about. I've seen well-behaved, hard working and extremely capable pupils turned away fron faith schools with the available places awarded to thick, thoroughly nasty pieces of work, simply on the grounds that the latter was baptised. The only grounds that faith schools have beyond those of ordinary state schools so far as selection is concerned relates to faith - not ability. So far as performance is concerned, it actually works against faith schools when they are compelled to take an objectionable pupil becuse he or she subscribes (or pretends to subscribe) to the relevant faith.

Jonathan Dimbleby debates religion in Britain's schools - with Richard Dawkins

You can either watch the 60 minute video online or download it from the Teachers’ TV website. The synopsis is as follows:

Jonathan Dimbleby and a panel of experts come together to debate the controversial subject of religion in Britain's schools.

The role of religion in education is a subject rarely out of the headlines. Despite Britain's multi-faith society, schools are still required to include a collective act of worship of a Christian nature, while faith schools and religious academies have raised fears about community cohesion and covert selection.

Claims by some religious educationalists that faith is the best way to teach moral values is challenged by others in schools who believe religious morality to be outdated and dangerous.

Dimbleby is joined by Professor Richard Dawkins, Schools Select Committee chairman Barry Sheerman MP, and a multi-faith studio audience.

reposted from: http://www.suffolkhumanists.org.uk/node/600

Is Religion Dangerous?

reposted from: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-religion-dangerous.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Is Religion Dangerous?

I was at a conference yesterday with theologian Professor Keith Ward. He gave a talk based on his book Is Religion Dangerous? and then he and I had a debate. Here's one of the points I made.

Keith (whom I like v. much, by the way) takes the view that religion is not to blame for much (indeed, in the book he even says that it is not a cause of evil, and that it is not intolerant [the intolerant merely use it] - however, his actual view is bit more nuanced than that).

Many, including Keith, recommend religion for social engineering purposes. They claim that (i) it helps build a sense of community, (ii) it makes people happier and healthier, and (iii) it makes them better behaved.

Suppose it does. Even if it were useful in these ways, it seems to me there are nevertheless special dangers attaching to the use of religion as a tool.

Religion is immensely powerful and can behave in unpredictable ways. Take the young earth creationists back in the 60's. A tiny band of crackpots. Who would have predicted that this weird little belief system would, within the space of a half century or so, infect the minds of 100 million Americans, including smart, college educated people?

Had you made that prediction back then, people would have laughed. "That could never happen here!" they'd say. Yet it happened.

We have here an illustration of the gobsmacking power of religion to get even very smart people to believe palpably stupid things. We also have an illustration of its unpredictability.

Religion, it seems to me, is a bit like nuclear power. Immensely powerful and (arguably) useful. And, perhaps most of the time, it runs quite happily, doing not much harm.

But unless it is extremely carefully controlled and monitored, it can very quickly run out of control. Indeed, just as with nuclear power, you can predict the unpredicted. Somewhere along the line, something probably will go wrong, and when it does, you have an extremely toxic situation on your hands. A religious Chernobyl.

Is nuclear power safe, or dangerous? Perhaps it can be used safely, but that's not to deny that it is potentially hugely dangerous. The same, I'd suggest, is true of religion.

Keith Ward agreed with me, by the way.

Let's also not forget that only five of my lifetimes ago the Catholic Church was still garroting Europeans who failed to believe what the Pope told them. Yes, I know your local vicar seems like a nice chap, but we'd be wise to remember that our freedom from religious oppression and violence is a very recent development.

Currently, the UK Government is fostering, and in many cases, sponsoring a great many little religious nuclear power stations up and down the country. What has now become very apparent to me is how very little monitoring there is of what goes on in them. Basically, in the independent sector, they're self-monitored.

When I spoke about the potential dangers of faith schools on Radio 4's Today programme, a member of one of the Standing Advisory Comms. on Religious Education (SACRE) contacted me to say, "Thank goodness you're bringing this up." He regularly goes into schools and is horrified by what he sees. And he's a Christian.

If you're not worried about what's going on in some religious schools, you should be. Here's a brief excerpt from a Radio 4 interview with Ibrahim Lawson, head of an Islamic school:

IL: [t]he essential purpose of the Islamia school as with all Islamic schools is to inculcate profound religious belief in the children.
ER: You use the word "inculcate": does that mean you are in the business of indoctrination?
IL: I would say so, yes; I mean we are quite unashamed about that really…
ER: Does that mean that Islam is a given and is never challenged?
IL: That’s right…

Quoted in the BHA pamphlet "The Case for Secularism", pub. November 2007.

One of the key safeguards religious schools need to have in place is a critical culture. My own view is schools like Ibrahim Lawson's should no longer be tolerated, let alone be state funded.

Seems to me the UK Government is currently promoting the building of religious nuclear power stations up and down the country - many of them dodgy.

I'd be particularly interested to hear from teachers and others working in this field who have knowledge of the current system - perhaps they can reassure me? Or confirm my suspicions? Remember, I'm not saying all faith schools are dodgy.

For more of my views on faith schools, see my The War For Children's Minds.

November 29, 2007 7:32 AM

Ron Murphy said...

It's pretty well establish that any faith: - has its own set of rules - these rules are not open to interpretation, except by a self serving elite. - these two conditions cause the faith to evolve over time to include all sorts of rules, and appropriate punishments for breaking them. - criticism is not tolerated (to varying degrees) - reason is not applicable Compare this with nuclear power. When a government is hell bent on promoting nuclear power, at the expense of issues such as cost and safety, then all the above might apply to nuclear power too, up to a point.

The limit of the comparison is that the last two conditions are not supposed to apply. It might appear, through political coercion, that criticism and reason are not tolerated, but in the long term they are applicable - the use of nuclear power isn't a faith position.

Though the misuse of nuclear power could be ultimately destructive, it's misuse is most likely to occur in the hands of extreme faith based ideologies - and I include the totalitarian atheistic as well as the theistic faiths. You can argue the toss about what type of democracy is best, but at least you are allowed to argue. Can you do that in a theocracy? If two theocracies clash on fundamentalist issues, and given they both believe in martyrdom, do you suppose a nuclear holocaust would be avoidable? So religion is more dangerous than nuclear power.

Poll - The truth about church schools

reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/11/the_truth_about_church_schools.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

When the Church of England's own survey shows widespread dissatisfaction with its schools, it's time to face the facts

Simon Barrow

November 20, 2007 11:00 AM | Printable version

A survey by Opinion Research Business (ORB), commissioned by the Church of England and published today, has revealed

widespread distrust of church schools. Not that you would know this if you just went on the accompanying press release, which is an astonishing attempt to massage away certain awkward facts.

"Getting top marks: People of all faiths and none back church schools' popularity" the C of E proclaims. Well, yes, there are many parents who are indeed happy with church schools. So happy that some of them lie about their church or faith affiliation to get a place for their kids.

But this is only part of the story.

The other facts, hidden behind a veil of spin, are that

significant proportions of the population believe that church schools discourage open discussion of important social and political topics, that children from better-off backgrounds are more likely to get into them, and that they create divisions between different sections of society. Many also believe that church schools try to force their own opinions on children rather than giving a balanced view of other religions and ideas.

Two sets of questions were asked by the survey. The first concerned how different Church of England schools were considered to be, in comparison with state schools run by local authorities. Under half (45%) of those polled considered church schools to be significantly different.

This segment was then asked for their qualitative opinions about church schools. A majority agreed with statements that

church schools, like other schools, helped to develop a sense of right and wrong, provided a broad and balanced education, had a caring approach and produced good behaviour.

However, only half believed they achieved better educational results than other schools.

Just over half (51%) also felt that the sex education they provided was "incomplete or restricted", and just under half (47%) said they felt that

church schools discouraged open discussion of key public issues.

Over a third (35%) said they believed that

church schools tried to force their own viewpoint on children rather than giving a balanced view of other life stances or ideas.

The same percentage said that

children in Church of England schools were "exposed to narrow religious teaching".

There was further bad news for the church over admissions procedures. Some 45% said that the rules on admitting pupils to Church of England schools mean that children from better-off backgrounds are more likely to get in. Only marginally fewer (43%) said they believed the schools created divisions between different sections of society.

Taken together with other surveys that show widespread questioning and dissatisfaction among parents and others concerned with schooling, this survey signals the need for a much wider debate about community-based inclusive schooling, whether faith schools can contribute to it, and where they cannot, what changes are needed in public policy.

There are two major blocks on such a debate. First, both government and the church have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. The government is desperate in its search for legitimation, popularity among middle-class voters, and mechanisms for service delivery.

The Church of England believes (probably wrongly) that church schools will deliver a further generation of adherents and that a stake in educational governance gives it credibility in the face of falling numbers and finance.

As the traditional alliance of church and state withers, this is the shape of a wider, emerging "new deal". It needs proper attention and criticism.

Second, those with a vested interest in faith schools often seek to portray opposition to them as just the bitterness of a small anti-religious minority. The angry rhetoric of some secular groups does not help, as a civil servant observed to me recently. But the issue is that there are many voices not being adequately reflected in the current "debate". For a start the concerns of a majority of parents, plus teaching unions, a leading government adviser, a number of Christian chaplains, Londoners, Jewish rabbis, Hindus, Muslims, Methodists,

humanists

, Quakers and others who do not share the dominant assumptions of Anglican and Catholic pro-faith schools lobby.

To her credit, the Church of England's chief education officer, the Rev Jan Ainsworth, concedes that

the survey "presents a challenge to the Church to explain more clearly how church schools approach the teaching of religious studies" - which has been moving slowly in the direction of inclusivity, despite the anachronistic restrictions of the 1944 Education Act and the predominant failure, for example, to include non-religious life stances.

She also admits, with a degree of understatement, that "there is still uncertainty about the fairness of admissions policies used by [church schools]". In fact the church at both national and diocesan level has consistently defended the right of its schools to discriminate in admissions, giving priority to those who attend churches linked to the schools. This is despite the fact that most church schools are almost entirely funded by public funds. One quarter of all primary schools are church schools.

But the church needs to go much further. In refusing to acknowledge that there are major problems with its policies it is making itself look unhelpful and foolish to many parents and to a significant chunk of the population. When Jesus Christ said "the truth will set you free", he clearly meant a lot more than that "you should face the facts". But he didn't mean less, and without much greater honesty there can be neither truth nor freedom.