They may be wrong, but they are also popular. So goes the refrain about faith schools. So how to explain why in Canada when the Conservatives proposed to introduce religious schools into Ontario it became the main election issue, voters objected strongly leading the Conservatives into a crushing defeat. The Conservatives now describe their faith schools policy as "dead as a doornail". Well, fancy that.
Here's a shocking example of how the policy of handing over community schools to religious organisations and other Blair-inspired experiments have destroyed any hope of meaningful school choice for liberal or progressive parents who don't wish to send their children to non-selective, non-sectarian or non-fee paying schools.
From Hansard for October 22nd 2006
Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton North East, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source
"The hon. Gentleman mentioned church schools, which are bedevilling—forgive the pun, which was not intended—education in his constituency. The reason given for establishing academies there is that they will provide more parental choice. My constituency has three private schools, a girls grammar school, four Church schools, two foundation schools, a city technology college, Walsall academy, St. Thomas More Catholic school and a raft of specialist schools. In fact, the situation has become impossible for a liberal-minded parent who wants a school for their child that is non-selective, non-sectarian and non-fee-paying. This is how, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, like mine, the choice agenda has resulted not in a wide liberal choice for progressives, but in a narrowing down of opportunities, which are restricted basically to those of a regressive understanding of education."
Later in the same debate:
Bob Russell (Colchester, Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source
"Although I have a Christian upbringing, I am not an Anglican, but come from good nonconformist stock. I have serious misgivings about two of Colchester's local secondary schools being shut down and their replacement academy handed over to the Chelmsford diocese. If the diocese wants to have a secondary school to promote Anglican teachings then let it, like the Brentwood Roman Catholic diocese, organise its own school in Colchester to serve the whole of north Essex for those parents who wish to have such a denominational school—not impose itself on a particular geographic area of the town whose parents may not necessarily wish to have their children taught under a religious regime. What parental choice will there be for those in Monkwick and Shrub End who do not want their children to attend a religious academy? Will other secondary schools in Colchester have places available to accept them?"
Thanks to this cartoon below from Ros Asquith. Who said "secular schools can never be tolerated (because such schools have no religious instruction....all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”). Answer: Adolf Hitler April 26, 1933. Hitler was no atheist, despite the desperate claims of some Christians. Hitler was a man of faith. Link to the story that prompted the cartoon.
Is Northern Ireland turning into the new Kansas? The DUP seems intent on importing the lunacies of the American creationists into British politics and education.
Last night Lisburn council voted to write to all its grammar and secondary schools encouraging them to teach alternative theories to evolution like 'intelligent design'. The proposal was made by DUP councillors, but opposed by SDLP and Sinn Fein representatives. DUP head office is briefing that these stunts are in keeping with party policy.
As the Belfast Telegraph reports, this is not the only move in Ulster to undermine the science education of local pupils:
"DUP MP David Simpson (Upper Bann), who is a member of the Free Presbyterian Church, questioned Education Minister Caitriona Ruane on the availability of materials and resources for schools wishing to teach alternative scientific theories to evolution as part of the revised curriculum."
"Mr Simpson also asked for an assurance that pupils who answer GCSE examination questions outlining creationist or intelligent design explanations for the development of life on Earth, will not be marked lower than pupils who give answers with an evolutionist explanation."
(Yes, you did read that right, he wants pupils to be able to make up non-scientific answers in science exams and not be "marked lower".)
Of equal concern is the response by the NI education department to the Belfast Telegraph which displays zero concern for the educational welfare of children and maximum accommodation of the anti-science zealots:
"In a statement the Department of Education said the teaching of alternative theories was a matter for schools.
A spokeswoman said: "The revised curriculum offers scope for schools to explore alternative theories to evolution, which could include creationism, if they so wish."
All of which goes against the recent Council of Europe statement that states that Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.
Politicians and the education establishment in Northern Ireland need to do more to defend scientific knowledge or else Ulster will be in danger of becoming known as an educational backwater dominated by religious extremists. The story has already hit the major science blogs in the USA, how long before Louis Theroux will be filming his next show in Lisburn?
Meanwhile, just when you think sanity is returning to politics in Northern Ireland, Dr Ian Paisley's DUP party are attempting to coerce schools into teaching creationism in science lessons as an alternative to evolution.
Tonight will see DUP councillors in Lisburn officially propose a motion that schools in Lisburn be encouraged to "teach alternative theories to evolution as the origins of the earth, such as Creation and Intelligent Design."
The proposal has been opposed by SDLP councillors and received a mixed response from Ulster Unionist members:
Cllr Givan from the DUP said: "I have never believed in the theory of evolution and, like many people believe in the teaching of creation. I believe science points to creation but our schools are teaching a very narrow remit and many exclude alternative theories to evolution. I have asked the Council to write to local schools encouraging them to give equality of treatment to other theories of the origins of life and how the earth came into existence." However, other committee members voiced their objection to the proposal. The committee's Vice Chairman, SDLP Councillor Peter O'Hagan, said: "I think it is a dangerous road to go down for Lisburn Council to be getting involved in school curriculum.
It's hard to imagine within the mainstream UK education system this loony attempt at undermining children's education would getting anywhere near to succeeding....unless of course, the schools involved were faith schools or city academies, in which case dogma can be given a special place over science. In reading a debate on this story on the Richard Dawkins web site I was rather amused by this response:
Mr Givan said: "I have never believed in the theory of birth by sexual reproduction and, like many people, believe in teaching that the stork is responsible. I believe science points to stork theory but our schools are teaching a very narrow remit and many exclude alternative theories to sexual reproduction. I have asked the Council to write to local schools encouraging them to give equality of treatment to other theories of the origins of life and how babies come into existence."
I hear many colleagues extol the virtues of Religious Education in schools as an essential tool in buidling a multi-belief, tolerant society. I fear their understanding of the function of RE differs greatly to the churches themselves and those people who get to set the curriculum. Their primary purpose is to ensure that children "get god". Philip Beadle explains some of the dodgy agendas written into RE lessons:
"The framework (for RE) is about as sane as these things can be, given that it has to accommodate viewpoints as diverse as the Russian Orthodox church and the British Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists - pretty well all perspectives on religious education in fact (aside, of course, from those of the National Secular Society). It is when we delve into the realms of suggested practice that it all gets a bit Old Testament.
The Standards Site for teachers features schemes of work for key stage 3 that could have been written by Billy Graham. Creationism on the curriculum is not happening only in the American Bible belt or outposts on Teesside: the government recommends it as a topic for study in every school. The suggested learning outcomes say that all year 9 pupils should be able to "explain the nature and meanings of the Genesis creation story for theists, creationists and others". The intent is that children "understand that science leaves questions of ultimate meaning and purpose unanswered".
There is a logical pedagogic link here that, though it may have been intended to promote a mature, dialectical approach, actually gives permission and approval to those who want to teach creationism as fact. First, you teach the theory, then question science's ability to answer questions about our genesis.
The aim of this scheme of work is that children "understand that historians of science now view the conflict account as misleading". Let me unpack this disgracefully disingenuous phrase for you: the government's desired final outcome of religious studies teaching in British schools is that children realise there is no conflict between religious belief and the evidence of science. This is a lie, the extent of which hits the three criteria for a mortal sin: it is grave, committed in full knowledge of the sin and deliberate.
It goes further. I had always suspected that the mark schemes rewarded blind obedience to a theistic point of view: "List 10 reasons why God exists" (10 marks), "Come up with a shaky reason He might not" (1 mark). These suspicions are confirmed with a look at the Standards Site's exemplar materials. The first scheme of work suggested for pupils on entry to secondary school is full of arguments for the existence of a deity. There ain't much there for secularists to sing about."
Amazingly, there is still a reluctance to accept in debate that faith schools exam results come from their ability, stealthily deployed, to select their pupils and weed out the ones they don't like, who naturally, will go to a local community school instead. This week we see yet more evidence of how faith schools, this time in London, introduce growing levels of inequality within our schools system.
Rebecca Allen, of the Institute of Education, University of London, and Professor Anne West, Professor of Education Policy at the London School of Economics, studied the intake of faith schools across the capital using an extensive 'pupil-level' database compiled by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. They found faith schools are cherry pick too many children from affluent families and contribute to racial and religious segregation.
Their research also showed 17 per cent of pupils at faith schools are eligible for free school meals compared with 25 per cent at non-religious schools. Faith schools educate just under 20 per cent of lowest-ability pupils compared with 31 per cent of non-religious schools. Faith schools also educate a greater proportion of the pupils who score highest before arriving in secondary education.
Isn't time for supporters of faith schools to come clean? The consequences of your support is the growing use of social selection in school admissions and ever growing segregation of our local communities.
Some strong reaction today from press commentators to the joint statement supporting more tax funded faith schools. It's not just me who thought the the joint statment to be intellectually weak so much so perhaps it deserves the modern tag of dodgy dossier?
As Thomas Sutcliffe in the Independent notes:
"...because their joint statement on the expansion of faith schools, Faith in the System, is strangely insistent on the ability of religious education to "promote community cohesion" . The phrase is used again and again throughout this flabby and abject document, as if sufficient repetition will induce a hypnotic state of acquiescence.
And I don't think you have to be a signed-up Freudian to wonder whether the reason it occurs so frequently is because the people who drafted the statement are uncomfortably aware that it's the very last thing that faith schools are likely to do. Indeed, if they didn't believe that then, why did the Government attempt (unsuccessfully) to impose regulations about the admission of other or no faith pupils? It's axiomatic: if faith schools increase in number and if more parents choose them, then the consequence will be community dis-integration.
Faith in the System doesn't actually include a single piece of hard evidence that faith schools will "promote community cohesion". Nor does it seriously address any of the important issues about conflicts between religious teaching and the National Curriculum, or between employment rights and doctrinal prejudice. It simply offers a number of anecdotal examples of faith schools which attempt to redress their own cultural homogeneity with exchange visits, comparative religion studies and outreach programmes.
Bizarrely, these schools are actually commended for adopting corrective measures to deal with a problem – ignorance of other cultures and faiths – that they have themselves aggravated. Instead of studying alongside children of different faiths and cultures, experiencing from day to day the countless things they have in common, pupils will be introduced to other faiths as part of the curriculum – effectively as an exercise in comparative anthropology. And, as I say, not one hard fact that supports the case – just a string of bland truisms and pious assurances. I suppose we're just meant to take the rest on faith."
Francis Beckett writing in the Guardian draws our intention to the sad hypocrisy of the church leaders who pay lip service to cohesion, but have other, much more selfish intentions, in their drive to take over our community schools:
"Faith schools, we're told in the document released today, Faith in the System, have "a long and noble tradition", and predate state education. There's a subtext here. Churches were once the gatekeepers for education, and the state had little involvement. Having made a compact with the state in 1944, they are now trying to claw back that power - but using public money, not their own."
Oh dear how depressing. Ed Balls has put his name to a policy statement "Faith in the System" supporting the expansion of sectarian faith schools and in the process gives the impression that the bishops, rabbis and imams have more say in running his department than he does himself.
So let me get this right...In an either…or situation
A society faces the problem that communities become divided along religious lines and there is a consensus that this is not a good thing and that local communities should inherit some shared values and a sense of solidarity between residents. So, there’s a choice:
1) Make schools a neutral, open and tolerant space where the community’s children can grow up together as friends. Without bias for or against any belief or life stance. Or:
2) Separate children at the age of 5 into different religions and segregate them into different schools.
We also see the Church of England have inserted in the statement their "aspiration" to meet the "demand" from "their communities" and their "mission" to "offer" education to the "wider community". Which is weasel words for wanting to grab and take over as many community schools as they can get their hands on...
Although by no means scientific, if fact absolutely not scientific, look at the most recommended reactions to the statement by readers of the BBC News web site. The level of opposition to increasing the number of faith schools is quite striking:
The problem is that religion as a whole and by its nature divides society, rather than uniting it. The sooner we get rid of public funding for anything to do with religion the better.
Isaac Rowlands, United Kingdom
Recommended by 77 people
Faith schools should be completely banned. Separating children based on the misguided beliefs of their parents in order for them to be further indoctrinated by irrational religious nonsense is clearly wrong. We can respect people's beliefs all we want but they should not be allowed to force them on anyone else, especially their own children. If schools taught their pupils to think for themselves more and to question everything they are told (rather than accepting everything teachers say as 'fact' due to an unearned respect), then we might end up with a generation of clear-thinking, rational human beings who can get through life without resorting to imaginary gods to make them feel better.
Tom, Newcastle
Recommended by 64 people
Keep Religion Out Of Schools. School is a place to learn facts, not a place to promote bronze age myths!
Peter Green, Ashford, Kent
Recommended by 64 people
So-called faith schools are utterly divisive and should be totally banned.
They have no place in the UK if an integrated society is the objective.
[Walter_E_Kurtz], Guildford, United Kingdom
Recommended by 53 people
Faith schools, by definition, discriminate. They do so both in pupil admissions and in staff recruitment. No government should endorse, let alone, fund such divisive institutions.
Richard Gilyead, Cirencester
Recommended by 52 people
I fail to see how 'faith' schools can help promote unity. How can separating a child from its peers at the age of 5 produce an integrated community? We all have to work together at the end of the day so this should start in childhood. No doubt some people will point to so-called better performance in existing faith schools but, if that's true, we should be looking to improve all our schools. An absolute, resounding NO to faith schools.
Gillian, Glasgow
Recommended by 48 people
Schools have a principle of teaching facts. History has shown that religion is decisive and has produced little good to humanity.
How can a belief in something that has not been proven or factual and so relies on faith be of use?
It is only when humans denounce all superstitious beliefs that we will make real progress.
Paul, UK
Recommended by 39 people
Of course they don't. They promote division and distrust, and ultimately hatred....and every single one of them should be banned.
Steve Butler, Basingstoke, United Kingdom
Recommended by 38 people
Schools funded by the state should have one aim only, to teach facts. If parents want to indoctrinate their children in a particular belief it should be done at home or at a private school, not at the cost of the taxpayer. There is too much on the National Curriculum anyway and so dropping this subject would leave more time for more important things; it might also stop teachers and churches from filling our children's' heads with a lot of mumbo jumbo - would you believe that my son got in trouble at school for telling his teacher that god isn't the reason the grass is green and the sky blue?!?!?!
Alex Bailey, Corby, United Kingdom
Recommended by 38 people
I thought the whole point of a faith school was to INCLUDE those who have a common belief whilst excluding those who dont share in that point of view or belief.
It sounds secterian, smells secterian and looks secterian. So guess what! It IS secterian!
Farzad Mosh, London, United Kingdom
Recommended by 35 people
Not quite sure how increasing the number of faith schools will fashion a more peaceful and cohesive society.
These competing soul hunters want nothing more than the minds of the young to ensure the continuation of their particular religious myths. One of these myths is that they have correctly divined Gods wishes, and however nice the other lot are down the road, they are in fact totally wrong – and will probably meet a nasty end. Once this meme is inculcated, the die is cast.
The only hegemony religion wants is its own, and the young are at the frontline of this battle. Put the facts in front of children. Please don’t turn them into little armies of a particular God.
David Carruthers
Recommended by 35 people
I am totally opposed to religious schooling. It destroys any chance of social cohesion and gives rise to mistrust. Why should my tax contributions be used to promote religious groups? If you want your children schooled in a religious school, you should pay for it yourself. And religion including worship should be banned from schools altogether.
scott bailey, london, United Kingdom
Recommended by 35 people
No – faith schools promote isolation, delusion, prejudice and hatred. They should all be closed immediately.
anon., UK
Recommended by 35 people
All religions promote division between 'us' and 'them'.
If you don't pray to the same imaginary friend as me, you're one of 'them', and therefore a heretic/infidel/enemy.
[Mysturji], Airstrip One, Oceania the wider community.
Well, as we know creationist second hand car salesman are now allowed to take over our schools and push their views at kids for what amounts to small change. And that the "moderate" Church of England are looking at sneaking in a bit of creationism into science lessons in "their" schools. So, in a symbolic kind of way, it's nice to see the Council of Europe pass a very strong resolution with support from delegates from the left and the right about the "dangers of creationism in education". The resolution has been supported by Labour peer Lord McIntosh and Labour MP Denis MacShane - both recent ministers in the government. Here's a snippet that shows the strength of the wording:
"...However, in recent years we have witnessed attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation with modern science and outlaw the theory of evolution. “Creationists” pretend that “intelligent design” by a supreme entity is the scientific explanation for the universe.
Such an approach has no credibility among the scientific community but has succeeded in raising doubts in less informed minds, including persons with high political responsibilities, mainly in the USA but also in Europe. Some schools are now forced to teach creationism. The middle path of providing equal time for both merely offers a middle way between truth and falsehood."
Recent Comments