Harry's Place

Sorry Dave, don’t think I could ever accept the voucher system. We all knowd what will happen, the wealthy parents will top up the value of teh voucher and opt for private schools while the poorer parents will be stuck in dump schools. I’ve always thought that if people want their children to experience a particular religious education, then it is incumberant upon the religious community to raise that money to provide the school.

David,
I don’t see how vouchers changes anything regarding faith schools at all.

I suppose a voucher system would allow Scientologists or those identifying as Jedi to set up their own schools and get them subsidised by the state. At least the current system rules out some of the nutters. Personally, though, I’m against the state supporting schools whose principal purpose is the perpetuation of myths.

Oh the usual suspects I see. Polly Toynbee, Philip Pullman, Fiona Millar, yuk. yuk yuk (although I did find this gem from Wikipedia with regard to the first person on their list of supporters; “Self-described as ‘vintage’ rather than old or new Labour” LOL etc)

No Catholics (or Muslims) among them as far as I can tell. I wonder why…

In a pluralist, multi-cultural society, the state should promote tolerance and recognition of different values and beliefs.

I quite agree. That is precisely the reason that the continuing existence of faith schools (and while we in the broad area of “the state promoting tolerance” etc – it should butt out: and do away with the national curriculum while we are at it).

I would see the logical conclusion of this intolerance enforced secularist mindset – - forcing its own poisonous, dangerous, dated, pathetic, ignorant liberal-leftist faux religion down every child’s throat in the name of progress and under the entirely deluded pretence that this is the state acting as a neutral arbiter – and being something that is seen to a far greater extent in the US than here: namely homeschooling by those who do wish their children to be educated in a religious enviornment: and the consequent lurch towards a greater cultural divide between the religious and anti-religious (which in reality is what the proponents of these schemes are), greater social division, greater sectarianism, even greater incomprehension between different groups.

The fact of the matter is that faith schools work.

Trying to destroy them would be a further dispicible act of cultural vandalism akin to the widespread removal of grammar schools: well-intentioned delusion and ignorance. And ultimately only those who can afford to send their kids to private schools will benefit. (Never trust the liberal-left: self-seeking hypocrites the lot of them, travelling pantsuits or not)

(I also bet that a lot of Essex Taxi Drivers would disagree with you: in my experience they seem to have a fairly sound grasp of things)

Voucher systems need not allow for the subsidy of private education.

They need only be responsive to local demand for a particular sort of education. In some places, a voucher/charter type system has allowed parents from poor socioeconomic backgrounds to create a school which provides an educational ethos which they feel is missing from more traditional state schools.

However, that’s not my main point. What I’m more interested in is anything which gives the power to decide on the sort of education which an school delivers to parents, rather than religious or other institutions.

The argument for vouchers and religious schools, is that some parents might feel that a good education ought to provide an ethical backgrounds for children which is guided by a particular faith; or by no faith at all. The diversity of choice that such a system might produce, could meet the requirements and preferences of parents from all cultural backgrounds, on an equal footing.

Minority religions should get protection, the majority religion should get none.

Now I know I will get replies about special cases, but in the vast majority of the world there is a dominant religion and then there is the rest.

“I would see the logical conclusion of this intolerance enforced secularist mindset – - forcing its own poisonous, dangerous, dated, pathetic, ignorant liberal-leftist faux religion down every child’s throat in the name of progress and under the entirely deluded pretence that this is the state acting as a neutral arbiter”

There seems to be more religious intolerance in this post that I think I’ve ever heard from any secularist.

To the extent that “faith schools” work, this is most likely explained by the hoops that parents have to jump through to get their kids admitted. Parents who do all the things that it takes to get your average kid admitted to a “faith school” are involved enough in their kids lives that they had equipped their kids to learn in a way that a significant proportion of the population of kids in general are not. So, of course those schools are going to outperform those with a typical intake distribution.

Really, “faith schools” are just another way for parents who are focussed on getting their kids a good education to fence their children off from the the population at large – and faith schools ahve the great benefit (to those parents) of requiring neither the purchase of a home in an expensive are, nor the payment of ten garnd plus per year in tuition fees.

Faith schools are all about parents getting their kids educated alongside other kids that are “like us” and keeping them away from people “like them”. And typically the “like us” means “nice middle class kids plus a few others who behave the same way”.

Given the problem of a poor public education system, most people would devote their efforts to improving the worst schools. Instead. David T and the Accord Coalition direct their efforts to wrecking schools to which parents actively wish to send their children. Am I missing something? Are Catholics, Jews and CofE believers rioting in the streets? Is there even any evidence they emerge from the education system less tolerant or broadminded than anyone else?

Faith schools are all about parents getting their kids educated alongside other kids that are “like us” and keeping them away from people “like them”. And typically the “like us” means “nice middle class kids plus a few others who behave the same way”.

I’d suggest the motivation of most parents has more to do with the faith school demonstrating it does a better job of education than its secular equivalent.

Seriously, do you really think most parents who send their kids to faith schools are bigots? That’s how you describe them in that paragraph.

Faith schools are a successful educational model, mainly because they have an ethos of learning and discipline reflected and supported in the home and community, something quite clearly missing from the majority of secular schools.
Religious Jewish schools are of vital importance to my community, and the state funding for these schools, makes it possible for parents to be able to afford to give their children a good education, that educates them as model UK citizens and Jews.
Have they caused problems? No. The overwhelming majority of people who attend these schools grow into decent, positive,successful, loyal members of British society. So why jeopardise these institutions?
If state funding is removed from these schools, then the children will be educated privately, or from home. The former would plunge many families into poverty, and the latter would lead to worse educational results.

The state has an obligation to ensure that all faith schools are maintaining good standards, and are not teaching children hatred or enmity towards the state or it’s citizens. If this is done, and the schools are not in breach of this, then they should be left alone, and the development of such schools should be encouraged.

And culture and ethnicity does not a Jew make, so it is perfectly acceptable for orthodox Jewish schools to deem a person Jewish, only if he or she, meets the criteria made not by some interpretation of some ancient Rabbinical commentary as the above article indicates , but by the universal position of Jewish law, i.e genuine orthodox conversion, or birth to a Jewish mother.

No educational model is perfect, but there are bigger problems to be found in many a secular comprehensive. But it seems there is some sort of desire to attack the schools that seem to work, after all it is easier to destroy what works than repair what is broken.

To the extent that “faith schools” work, this is most likely explained by the hoops that parents have to jump through to get their kids admitted. Parents who do all the things that it takes to get your average kid admitted to a “faith school” are involved enough in their kids lives that they had equipped their kids to learn in a way that a significant proportion of the population of kids in general are not. So, of course those schools are going to outperform those with a typical intake distribution.

So nothing to do with the standard of teaching, the learning culture, the ethos?

It’s one thing to argue against the principle of faith schooling, but this spurious reasoning away of the consistently superior results achieved in faith schools is naked self-denial.

When I think of all the things in the country that need changing, getting rid of faith schools doesn’t break the top 500.

Faith schools are all about parents getting their kids educated alongside other kids that are “like us” and keeping them away from people “like them”. And typically the “like us” means “nice middle class kids plus a few others who behave the same way”.

Well, so Polly Toynbee claims.

And in somewhere like London (which is, as ever, entirely unrepresentative of the country as a whole) – or at any rate those (oh so trendy) inner city neighbourhoods which have, on the one hand, a mixture of wealthy professsional types living a block away from extreme poverty – there may be some truth in this allegation.

Not least as the destruction of so much of the state school sector (and, in London, with the abolition of ILEA/the GLC, Thatcher certainly played a part, as well as 1960s radicals) means that those parents who want their children to get a decent education (but who can’t, or for whatever reason, do not wish to “go private”) will do whatever is necessary to get their kids into a decent school.

The context: the wilful, wanton destruction of the best parts of the state schooling system by well-intentioned liberals (and of course the societal breakdown they have also implicitly tended to favour too…).

And the sort of proposals that “Accord” are promoting would represent a further step down that road.

Outside of inner London, in places that still have schools that function properly (and which have faith communities that represent a mixture of people from all manner of social backgrounds – as, of course, is also the case in inner London), I’m not sure I see any grounds for this statement being true. Ms Toynbee really ought to set foot outside of Islington.

Equality of outcomes.

What an absolute crock that is.

The only reason the “faith” schools are in the ascendancy, is their emphasis on discipline and excellence. In this respect, they have escaped from the dead hand of the state. And their results are quite good. So it has spiralled.

We have too many poxy rubbishy comprehensive bog standard schools. And too many poxy rubbishy stinky ‘crats deciding that the council house kids will attend them, because they have nowhere else to go. If these buggers were drowning kittens, there would be a public outcry. But they are only sinking the life chances of thousands of scrotes, so it’s OK.

Vouchers are an escape route from these b’stards and their ideology of uniformity of disappointment for all. The secular family, with a serious committment to education, discipline, and standards, gets shafted by the education system. Vouchers mean they get the goods without any need of religious pretensions.

You don’t need to be religious to want your child to be literate, and numerate. But it has come to pass that only the religious, have a politically correct defence against the downward levelling oppression of the state. Good for them, they have escaped.

Now set the rest of us free.

As an intellectual atheist and the product of the Irish Christian Brother’s study ethic whose scholastic discipline I commend, I support the aims of Accord as I feel that no recipient of public largesse should be permitted to engage in discriminatory or exclusionary admission and administrative policy.

Accord’s agenda seems to be in alignment with Professor A.C. Grayling’s recent article in the Guardian in which he stated that religious institutions should be treated like any other interest group and should not receive tax-exemption stastus because of their Direct Line to God claims.

I am not calling for, nor is Accord calling for ,state funding to be removed from religious schools as part of an aggressive secularist camapign to remove religion from the public sphere. We merely want discriminatory and social segregationist practices on the part of faith bodies to be challenged. Practices such as the refusal to employ divorced teachers in Catholic schools and the banning by Catholic bishops of student Amnesty groups in their schools because of Amnesty International support for abortion rights for women victims of mass rape and other human rights violations in conflict zones such as the Balkans and Congo.

Barry Gilheany

AC Grayling tried to argue in The Times on Friday that because a Muslim was convicted of child abuse (the self-flagellation case), no child should be brought up to believe in any religion.

Jewish and Catholic faith schools at least are good, and some C of E ones. Jewish children at secular schools would have problems with food and the Jewish festivals. Anyway Jonathan Romain is a Reform Jew. Many would say he has no right to call himself ‘Rabbi’. No Orthodox Rabbi would sign that thing.

“I suspect that an awful lot of people feel like this; including a good number of parents whose children attend schools run by religious institutions and funded by the State.”

Yes I agree. But it is funny how they fight shy of schools being run entirely by the functionaries of the state, isn’t it?

“Seriously, do you really think most parents who send their kids to faith schools are bigots? That’s how you describe them in that paragraph.”

I din’t mean to imply that – it was poorly worded. I mean’t middle class, nothing to do with race, etc.

David T

On the subject of school vouchers

It depends what you mean by school vouchers. Sweden’s system of virtual vouchers is very strictly enforced in their egalitarian way; top ups are not allowed and schools cannot select.

I think you may have in mind this system (have you studied this system?)

Sweden also started out from a position of no private schools; their private sector, now numbering 800 schools, came into being with this system.

However in the UK and US, more strongly dominated by neo-liberalism and inequality, and with a much weaker left, I have a greater suspicion of school vouchers at this juncture.

They do have some advantages, and, as you say, are something that the left should discuss.

However, they are unlikely to rectify some of the problems you mention.

“I din’t mean to imply that – it was poorly worded. I mean’t middle class, nothing to do with race, etc.”

Rrrriiiggghhhtt….

What is so bloody terrible about being middle class?

“So nothing to do with the standard of teaching, the learning culture, the ethos?”

Standards of teaching are driven to a substantial extent by the kind of kids in the school. It’s a lot easier to attract good teachers to schools where the kids behave. And it’s a lot easier to to teachj effectively in an environment where kids want to learn.

Of course none of these are bad things – but there is a strong tendency to simply redistribute a certain amound of goodness, rather tha actually increasing the amount of it. And just as good schools are to a substantial effect a case of a critical mass of kids of kids whose parents care, so bad schools are driven by having a critical mass of parents who either don’t care, or who lack the time or resources to prepare their kids adrequately for an effective education.

Brownie is right to point out that most parents who send their kids to faith schools are not bigots. Most of them probably don’t even believe in the bible story specifically. They send them there because these schools are usually much higher up the league tables.

It’s certainly a tricky issue.

It is about time we let go of the 1960’s piety about the middle class, and the project of the bright young things intent on turning the world arse upward and smashing people. They did enjoy a lot of smashing, as Peter Cook would have said, when he was (unfortunately) smashed, as usual.

They all went back to their middle class parents in 1969. You can listen to most of them on Radio 4….

parents who want their children to get a decent education (but who can’t, or for whatever reason, do not wish to “go private”) will do whatever is necessary to get their kids into a decent school.

For which read: “a school where all the other middle-class kids go.” Perhaps we would all (religious and otherwise) benefit from a little more mixing up and a little less “I need to be with my own kind”.

Certainly the Swedish model is one worth considering:

“The Kista Kunskapsskolan, in a suburb of Stockholm, has 332 students aged from 12 to 15. It is deliberately different from the state school model.

Kunskapsskolan’s ethos is perhaps surprising to British visitors who expect independent schools to be more traditional than their state equivalent.

The Kunskapsskolan at Kista is the opposite: no uniform, very informal discipline and teaching, an open-plan layout, and an emphasis on individualised learning rather than formal classes.

The students negotiate their own timetable each week and can do as few, or as many, formal classes as they wish. There is heavy emphasis on internet-based learning and there are remarkably few books.

According to Anders Hultin, chief executive of Kunskapsskolan, the whole idea is to be different from state schools so parents have a choice.

Moreover, he says the company is motivated to satisfy parental wishes because that is how it makes its profits.

“It is hard to see any conflict between the company and our parents as our profit comes from good results and satisfying parents and students. If we don’t perform well, then we don’t make any profit at all”, he says.

Mr Hultin is unapologetic about any problems the school choice system may have caused to state schools.

In some urban neighbourhoods, 10-20% of students now use the voucher scheme to attend private schools – leaving empty spaces at state schools.

“Of course there are losers”, says Mr Hultin, “because schools which do not attract parents lose out and they should be losers.”

Union co-operation

Any scheme like this in Britain would attract fierce opposition from the teacher unions. Not so in Sweden.

The Swedish Teachers Union, Lärarförbundet, supports the school choice policy.

According to its president, Eva-lis Preisz, members were “a little suspicious at first” but are now satisfied by the restrictions which prevent private schools from charging top-up fees or selecting students.

However she does point to reports from the Swedish National Agency for Education which warn that it is mostly better-educated, middle-class parents who take advantage of the right to choose schools.

This can mean children from middle-class backgrounds congregating in the same few, highly popular, schools.

For now, though, the union is happy to co-operate with the scheme subject to continuing safeguards.

“Now there are guarantees that private schools must use trained teachers, be open to all, and not charge fees, we are content, but we must keep an eye open for the dangers of segregation,” Eve-lis Preisz says.” BBC.

why should religion have a place in school at all?

why should the state fund schools other than the public schools?

public schools have an irreplaceable role in promoting a civic culture that children badly need, and even more those who are not from families of immigrants.

why should the state subsidize the promotion of segragation and self-segragation?

I studied in a private religious school, and then moved to the public school, where different social and economical classes were studying.

it was much better, it gave me a notion of what the society i was living really was.

benjamin, even in sweden there are subtle ways in which the most favoured classes are the ones that get the most out of the voucher system. that is, those who least need those advantages.

“What is so bloody terrible about being middle class?”

Where did I say there was ? The UK’s education problem is not the quality of education available to middle class kids. The problem is just how awful is the education available to the the bottom third.

Yes, but I quite like the idea of “no uniform, very informal discipline and teaching, an open-plan layout, and an emphasis on individualised learning rather than formal classes.

The students negotiate their own timetable each week and can do as few, or as many, formal classes as they wish”.

Be great to get some innovation and news ideas like that!

“The students negotiate their own timetable each week and can do as few, or as many, formal classes as they wish”.

Sounds like many a school in this country, with the small difference being that the children don’t have the school’s permission to make such decisions!
But, seriously, I suppose the logic of making the students responsible by giving them responsibility makes a degree of sense. Saying that, I work in a University, and the responsibility the students are given, doesn’t seem to make a blind bit of difference.

My opinions are important.

A school voucher model could allow a plurality of religious and secular models of schooling to continue. Unlike the current system, which effectively relies on the State granting patronage to certain recognised religious denominations, but excluding others, school vouchers would entitle parents to determine for themselves the sort of educational institutions which they’d like their children to be educated in.

Excepting the redoubtable Chris Dillow, these years of trudging around the blogosphere has led me to the conclusion that advocacy of school vouchers is a sure-fire litmus test for identifying rightwing libertarian wing-nuttery of the highest order. This idea is rightly associated with US Republicans and Tories. Milton Friedman, a man who grasped the cost of everything but so often failed to apprehend the value of anything, imagined that the provision of education was something, or rather it’s something that should be, made in the image of the retail market. The Tories would have pressed this system through if they’d had the balls; fortunately they didn’t. That Thatcher in trousers y’all were so keen on pressed it beyond anything Thatcher dared but he too lacked the will or ability to follow it to its logical conclusion. However, it has been – as our bloggertarian friends never tire of telling us – Sweden that has been the country that has adopted this at a national level.

Whether this experiment has been successful or not is besides the point – the point that you have clearly missed here: the issue has not to do with the mechanism through which state education is provided; it’s whether and to what extent should the tax-payer be compelled to fund services that can and do, by definition, exclude them if they happen to be of the wrong confessional division?

Oy, David, what a bunch of losers, diehards and fools you’ve chosen to sign up with….

I won’t say which of them fits into which category, but just to point out that amongst the Jews:

Rabbis Romain and Goldberg are at odds with their own Reform and Liberal groupings and–much more importantly–the parents in those groups who nowqueue up to found and support Jewish non-orthodox schools. Neither of them has had anything of value to add to the development of Jewish life or Jewish community in England other than encouraging inter-faith marriages (Romain) and writing fulsome praise of Jacqueline Rose’s writings on zionism (Goldberg). Claire Rayner and Miriam Karlin share virulently anti-zionist positions and both have no relationship of any sort (other than hostility) with Jewish practice. They have about the same relationship with Judaism as Mark Steele has with Christianity. They will have as much impact on the Jewish community’s attitudes to faith schools as their signatures on numerous anti-Israel advertisements and letters to the Guardian.

The Socialist Education Association and the British Humanist Association have been campaigning to shut down faith schools for years. They have had no success, because parents are not fools or, for the most part, political ideologues.

I remember that about twenty-five years ago I ended up visiting Baroness Blackstone at her house– I think I had to collect something from her on someone else’s behalf. She lived in Stoke Newington and we began to talk about schools– including Jewish schools. She began to come out with the most amazing version of a “Moscow gold” view of how the strictly religious schools were financed. She was convinced that they must be getting sources of funding from mysterious sources overseas (yes, Jewish of course), because otherwise how could those obviously poor large families be affording to send all their children to these fee paying independent strictly orthodox schools?

I tried pointing out that to those parents, nothing was more important than ensuring their children had a full Jewish education as expected in the strictly orthodox tradition. They are people who do not value cars, fashionable clothes, televisions, trips to cinemas and restaurants. Whatever they do have is to be used in the upbringing and marriage settlements of their children. Plus the local rich of those communities contribute a huge proportion of their income to subsidise/endow others, especially their education. She remained sceptical.

And, like so many on this list, she no doubt did not see those Jews, or the other parents who want their children to attend faith schools as taxpayers who have just as much right to services which meet their needs.

There are those also in denial about the greater success of faith schools which they attribute to covert selection or subtle class filtering. All of which can be refuted by looking at the results tables for schools in the same socio-economic areas, comparing the faith with the non faith schools. While there are exceptions, on average, faith schools’ pupils do better than those from non faith schools. In my own experience as an OFSTED inspector having inspected over 70 schools, it’s very clear that pupils do better in a school which has a clear and consistently projected moral ethos. The most effective school I have seen doing this is the Sikh secondary school in Uxbridge. In my view, it relates to what Durkheim would have called the promotion of social solidarity. Secular schools have various ways of promoting their ethos but they do not have the cultural forms (prayers, communal singing, festivals, community role models) that connect generations and reach beyond the poilitics and practicalities of here and now.

As for Polly Toynbee.. hope you go to some of their meetings, David, and enjoy the quality of their intellectual analysis of education and parental rights. Me, I’d choose Jacqueline Rose over them any day.

No, Judy, I don’t think its an anti-zionist project, despite your accusations that some members are recalcitrants with nothing to add to Jewish life or the Jewish community, or are “virulent” anti-zionists.

“Virulent” is an interesting (and no doubt quite deliberate) choice of word on your part. Whether it accords with any sort of reality is another matter.

You castigate Blackstone with a 25 year old anecdote of you being round her house; there is no way to check the accuracy of that.

However, when you get off your hobby-horse for moment, and talk about the wider issues of inspection, you appear to make more sense!

(The notion that Claire Rayner is “virulent” and “hostile” in any regard seems pretty absurd.)

David T
“What I’m more interested in is anything which gives the power to decide on the sort of education which an school delivers to parents, rather than religious or other institutions.”

Excuse me but how exactly are you doing this? Religious schools were set up by parents who wanted their children to have a certain type of education by and large. The State was largely not involved (although this applies less to CoE schools of course). You seem to be saying that because such schools may have at one time or other taken some money from the State, that control ought to be taken from the parents’ proxies – their Churches – and vested in the State. That is, you are calling for power to be taken from Civil Society and given to the Civil Service. How is insisting that the State has the power to decide what children can or cannot go to a certain school giving power to the parents when it was the parents who paid for the school and established the rules by handing over that control to an organisation of their choice?

Britain is full of examples of the State or other favoured members of the Oligarchy seizing the religious donations of the poor for their own uses. Richard Dawkins admits as much about his college (well not the poor admittedly). The British aristocracy often lives in former religious institutions paid for by the pious. Or they do if their families are old enough. This is just another pillaging of the Church to pay off those in favour with the British State. It is pretty appalling that the poor can sacrifice for their children and their community only to have some carpet baggers come in and steal their charity. We need to honour the intentions of the givers.

That was a spectacularly redundant comment, Benji: after a few half decent ones.

I doubt that anybody will be daft enough to respond to it.

OK then. I’ve heard the case for sectarian denomination schools.

I’d be interested to hear the partisans of such schools explain:

1. How the academic success of a school is linked to (for example) the exclusion of the children of infrequent church goers, or of Jews (or ‘non Jews’) who do not meet halachic tests?

If these features of certain religious schools are not related to the school’s academic success, then why should schools be permitted to restrict its admissions policy in that way?

2. If the answer is that some religious parents would object to their children coming into contact with other children who do not meet certain religious tests, and that they should have their preferences respected and accomodated:

- Why should the state subsidise and provide for parents with such objections?

- Should the state allow private companies to deny services to members of religious groups? If not, how is this different from allowing public sector schools to exclude persons who do not meet certain religious tests?

David, I agree with most of your post but your comments on vouchers seem to contradict the rest of your argument. Vouchers are just a mechanism for distributing the state funding of education at local level – surely the arguments about state funded religious schools stand regardless of whether funds are distributed via a voucher system or via the current mechanism.

Not all religions are equal in the sense that in a country where one religion is dominant then the other religions shouldn’t get a vote unless their credo is in synchronisation with the dominant religion. ie doesn’t conflict.

In the UK we derive from a Judaeo-Christian base and Christianity dominates. Whether you like it or not 74% of Britons state Christianity as their religion.

We can’t measure devoutness and call that a dominanting feature. So, if 70% of Muslims take part in an act of worship each week and only 25% of Christians that does not mean that Islam, practised by 3% of the population demands equal weight when compared to the wishes of Christians.

I think that a faith school that teaches integration and respect for teh host culture is absolutely fine. Already the School Authorities state that there shall be an act of Christian worship. That is certainly true for schools I know of.

I have to conceded that is a school is lablelled “Catholic” then their intake will be predominantly Catholic children. However, I would like to see a quota system whereby a percentage must be non-Catholic and must agree to respect the religion of the school.

I also agree that there should be Muslim schools as long as it is shown that the ethos is for integration and not separation. As long as the children aren’t taught that we are all infidels, Kuffar, Zionists, neo-cons who attack Muslims.

Jewish schools have been mentioned in the thread. Is anyone suggesting that children from JFS in Camden are unbalanced religious fundamentalists who hate Britons? In some respects attending a Jewish school while Antisemitism rises might seem like a good thing where students can learn rather than deal with racism.

My point about vouchers is this. One objection to the argument against denominational sectarian schools is that their existence reflects the preferences of parents, which should be accomodated and respected.

I find it difficult to say thay parents should not have a right to influence and determine the nature of the school that their children attend. However:

- it is important that this is achieved in a manner which does not privilege religious over non religious preferences, and in a way which genuinely reflects parent’s preferences: not the top down requirements of clerics who may not be representative of the views.

- no schools should be entitled to restrict access to a public good, on the grounds that a child doesn’t meet a religious test, or that a family fails to manifest ‘appropriate’ religiousity. If parents really object to their children being educated alongside such children, then I don’t support that choice.

David T

“1. How the academic success of a school is linked to (for example) the exclusion of the children of infrequent church goers, or of Jews (or ‘non Jews’) who do not meet halachic tests?”

The Christian Brothers used to run brutal schools that had one clear aim – to create a Catholic Upper Middle class. They saw that the children of illiterate Irish peasants could become the leaders of English speaking countries. Which they felt the Church needed. As a result they took the best and brightest and beat the living crap out of them until they all became lawyers and doctors. It worked. Obviously the sectarian intent – to create Catholic intellectuals – is deeply linked to the results. And would be watered down somewhat if they were required to take anyone who happened to live near by.

More to the point, these schools have the main ingredient for academic success – distance from the Department of Education and professional educators. The more the better. It keeps them away from fads and above all it means they are not run for the benefit of the Teachers’ Union. Those schools are more expensive and they know they have to compete with the State sector. So they give parents what they want. They know the trade off is simple – the parents have to think that a little religious education is worth it to get a decent education otherwise. The Churches would not be doing it if not for the religious education, the parents would not if the rest was not of good quality. A win-win can only work if the school is successful. Unlike State schools.

Now the problem with infrequent Church goers is only a problem in some schools, often rural and CoE. They have more parents than they know what to do with. Catholic schools are often imner city schools with few Catholic parents left. They rarely have so much choice. They will take non-Catholics most of the time. But if they have to choose, on what other reasonable basis should they choose except intent of the founders and supporting their ethos?

“If these features of certain religious schools are not related to the school’s academic success, then why should schools be permitted to restrict its admissions policy in that way?”

The question is utterly wrong. We do not permit what is not banned. We ban what is not permitted. They don’t have to ask for permission to do something that is entirely legal. They shouldn’t have to anyway. They ought to be allowed to do whatever they like unless real damage can be proven to another person. Which it can’t. Consenting adults and all that.

However it is clear that a main factor in their success is selecting parents who care about education – those willing to fake it for instance are likely to make sure little Fiona does her homework – and being able to expel. Take that from them and they will slide into the same sink the State sector is in as parents don’t bother.

“2. If the answer is that some religious parents would object to their children coming into contact with other children who do not meet certain religious tests, and that they should have their preferences respected and accomodated:”

I doubt that there has ever been a Christian school that has refused to take non-believers. I know an old lady who would have gone to a Catholic school in the 1930s and their head girl was a Protestant. I don’t believe parents objected.

“- Why should the state subsidise and provide for parents with such objections?”

Because in a free and tolerant liberal society we try to enhance people’s choices, not restrict them. Because of some people are doing no harm, we ought not prevent them from doing something just because we don’t like it.

“- Should the state allow private companies to deny services to members of religious groups? If not, how is this different from allowing public sector schools to exclude persons who do not meet certain religious tests?”

Yes they should. I see no role for the State in regulating prejudice unless there is overwhelming evidence of real harm being done. And I don’t see it. Again a free and tolerant society may not be perfect but if we are all to get along we need to all get along.

Maven

“I have to conceded that is a school is lablelled “Catholic” then their intake will be predominantly Catholic children. However, I would like to see a quota system whereby a percentage must be non-Catholic and must agree to respect the religion of the school.”

So …. they can just refuse non-Catholic children because they do not respect the religion of the school properly by, say, going to Church often enough? Or are you going to set yourself up as the judge of what is or is not properly respectful of Catholicism as well? Clearly the State will have to.

Again I don’t see what business is it of yours. What consenting adults do is not proper business of the State to regulate without real harm being done to others. And it is not. Imposing a quota is not much different from outright nationalisation (in the sense that the principle is lost and it would inevitably be the thin end of the wedge – we have seen this with Oxford and Cambridge which are State run whatever their legal status). What matters is the principle – the State has no business telling parents what they can and cannot do in these matters.

“I also agree that there should be Muslim schools as long as it is shown that the ethos is for integration and not separation. As long as the children aren’t taught that we are all infidels, Kuffar, Zionists, neo-cons who attack Muslims.”

I wonder about that. I have no problems with Muslim schools. I have no problems with orthodox Muslim schools. I have problems with the support of terrorism. Jewish schools undoubtedly teach that Western countries have long histories of attacking Jews. If they also teach RamBam’s dicta that the murder of a Christian is no big deal, would they be banned? Number of terrorists and murderers produced by British Jewish schools – Zero?

Britain has produced a unique liberal and tolerant society. Which is dying before our eyes. A key to that is a liberal and tolerant approach to minority religions – including allowing them to run Faith Schools. I don’t see how changing would help.

David T

“it is important that this is achieved in a manner which does not privilege religious over non religious preferences, and in a way which genuinely reflects parent’s preferences: not the top down requirements of clerics who may not be representative of the views.”

Why shouldn’t the religious preferences of parents amount to less than the non-religious preferences of parents? British schools have a variety of ethoses (sorry for the word) from the authoritarian to the libertarian. If you want to send your children to a school where the children decide what to learn and when (as you can) why should that be more privileged than a school where you go to Mass once a week?

The problem with assessing parental desires is that 1. the evidence is that the parents and the clergy are at one (look at the waiting lists to get in to a lot of these schools) but worse 2. as there is no impartial test what you mean is that the State ought to take it upon itself to decide what parents really really want. And decades of experience says they cannot be trusted. Not to mention it would be the start of nationalisation anyway.

“no schools should be entitled to restrict access to a public good, on the grounds that a child doesn’t meet a religious test, or that a family fails to manifest ‘appropriate’ religiousity. If parents really object to their children being educated alongside such children, then I don’t support that choice.”

The mistake is to assume this is a public good – or at least that if it is, it is worthy of regulation. It is not. Schools have an obvious right to decide who to take and for what reasons. What you are insisting on is that the State ought to decide for schools. Which simply means nationalisation. This is an area of civil society with no legitimate State role. On what basis would you make schools choose?

SMFS

It sounds to me as if you’d be better of arguing for vouchers.

I welcome the initiative to turn schools in to places of education rather than affiliation. Vouchers would to me seem to provide a backdoor or get out clause.

It is an evasion not to mention the need for pluralist state schooling arises from the growth of Islamic schools. I regard the development of ‘Islamic’ schools in mainstream education as unwelcome and think it cowardly not to say so. The current arrangements which favour Anglicans and Roman Catholics in state provision should end. Taxes will have to rise as a result, but that is a price worth paying for long term social cohesion.

1. How the academic success of a school is linked to (for example) the exclusion of the children of infrequent church goers, or of Jews (or ‘non Jews’) who do not meet halachic tests?

The academic success of these schools is in part due to the values that unite the students together and with their teachers and extended community, values that are reinforced through the intense focus on the teachings and practices of the religion (at least in the case of Judaism). This creates an atmosphere in which the students want to learn, are proud to learn and where good behaviour is exalted. While non-Jewish children would also benefit from this ethos, (and in those Jewish schools who admit them, do), it would not be possible for the majority of Jewish schools to admit them.

Firstly the schools are oversubscribed. Not because middle class parents want their kids educated in middle class schools, but simply because Jewish parents, rich and poor, want a good Jewish education for their young ones. It would be wrong to have Jewish children turned away from Jewish schools, in order to give the place to a non-Jewish child, who in any event will not draw as much value from a school designed to educate Jews as Jews.

These schools are not just places were people of the same creed happen to assemble in order to learn maths etc. The religious aspect of the school is huge, with many lessons devoted to the learning of religious texts, with many secular subjects taught through the prism of religious teachings, not to mention the large amount of “ritual” such as prayer, grace after meals, rehearsals for the frequent Jewish festivals etc. Think of these schools as specialist schools, and in the same way as you would not have a student who wants to be a mathematician attending a school set up to promote music, likewise a non-Jew in a school dedicated to producing educated Jews, is not all that appropriate.

Why should the government fund these schools? Firstly I would argue, that it doesn’t HAVE to fund these schools. It is a choice that it makes not an overwhelming legal or moral obligation. But like all people, religious Jews pay their taxes and should have some expectation that the government will help provide their needs. Also these schools work, and why not fund that which works? After all, heaven only knows how much money goes to fund institutions that don’t work. (It might be worth noting that these are government assisted schools were only part of the education is paid for)

This endless focus on discrimination is silly. People have different needs, and wants, and a country that does all it can to provide an education system that takes into account the needs of the people, thereby providing religious schools, specialist schools, special need schools, secular schools, will be more successfully, than those who are trying to force everyone into a one size fits all model.

There are huge problems with many schools in this country, and the causes are complex, and not the same in every case. Let us focus on how to improve schools that are failing. Let us be practical, what steps need to be taken to turn around communities that are descending into chaos? Let us not take a secular “sameness” ideology and use it to damage successful institutions.

I have no objection to the principles of this declaration, but we are where we are, and the Faiths will fight hard to protect their control. One question that this does not answer, however, is why parents who are not religious choose Faith schools over county schools. I think this is because parents want more than just education from their schools – they want an aethos of decency and good behaviour and believe a Christian school to be more likely to promote these.

How do things work in the secular French system? One hears of challenges, sometimes disruptive, to the “version” of History that is taught, particularly by Muslim children. Would a Christian school or a secular school be better suited to meet such challenges? I suggest that a Muslim child in a Christian school would know (s)he was an outsider and be more likely to put their objections to one side.

I agree with vouchers for other reasons, namely that they put parents in a much stronger position by introducing market forces (and hence real competition) into education for those who cannot afford the Independent sector. Even more important is taking education out of the hands of the Left wing elites with their liberal groupthink and putting it in the control of parents who just want plain old fashioned schooling and critical thought. The latter was the intent of the National Curriculum, and it has failed. I had not thought that vouchers could be used to undermine Christian schooling. And with the spiritual struggle that we find ourselves in, I am not sure I would want it to. Can you imagine such a debate in a Muslim country?

David T

“It sounds to me as if you’d be better of arguing for vouchers.”

I am a believer in vouchers. One thing people don’t say is that (at least where I was involved with the State school system in a manner of speaking) is that State funding is unequal. Essentially vastly more money was given to Comps in nice middle class neighbourhoods than in working class ones. This was not done for overtly class based reasons, there was talk of “supporting academic success” but it boiled down to giving the children of nice middle class civil servants nice middle class schools to go to. I still think that is outrageous and vouchers would be a way of evening the playing field. Why should working class children get a second class education and what makes it worse is that the State does it but in a hidden manner?

However I have no problems reducing the money if parents pay more to the school. So for every pound they pay in fees, they should have to refund some set amount of their voucher – even making it progressive so that, say, for every £1 they pay the school, they have to give £1.20 back from their voucher.

Larkers

“I welcome the initiative to turn schools in to places of education rather than affiliation. Vouchers would to me seem to provide a backdoor or get out clause.”

The one place where schools are places of affiliation rather than education is the State sector which aims to produce Right On students and has no interest in education. Start there. Vouchers would provide a get out clause which is one point in their favour. They would also free parents from the dead hand of the State. Seriously, do the posters here, who have seen what States have been teaching over the years across the world, really think the State is more responsible than parents?

“It is an evasion not to mention the need for pluralist state schooling arises from the growth of Islamic schools. I regard the development of ‘Islamic’ schools in mainstream education as unwelcome and think it cowardly not to say so.”

Fine. Let’s be clear. The problem is with Islamists and the schools they are setting up. However banning hatred is one solution and a lot less drastic than banning all religious education. In my experience of this and other threads, what people really hate is 1. having to make a choice (they want the nice man from Whitehall to make it for them) and 2. schools rejecting their children meaning more work on their part. It has nothing much to do with Islamism as such. I struggle to see the need even to ban those schools.

“The current arrangements which favour Anglicans and Roman Catholics in state provision should end. Taxes will have to rise as a result, but that is a price worth paying for long term social cohesion.”

And the evidence that we have any problems with social cohesion as far as Catholic, Jewish and Anglican schools is what? Britain has been one of the world’s most tolerant countries for over 150 years. One of the reasons for that has been the tolerance we show to minority religions – and their members’ desires to have a religious education for their children. This is what produces social cohesion. France has tried to push all parents into a secular system and it has been rent by fights with the Catholics, anti-Semitism and now riots among the Muslim youth. The USSR did as well. By tolerating others we create a society where they feel relaxed and not under threat. Which means the venom is drained away. Which is why Anglophone countries are liberal and tolerant. And have religious schools supported by the State.

This is a bit like the debate about the BBC licence fee. I think naked logic dictates that neither the licence fee nor faith schools should exist; but for reasons I’m too thick to articulate, I still support the existence of both.

Brownie

“This is a bit like the debate about the BBC licence fee. I think naked logic dictates that neither the licence fee nor faith schools should exist; but for reasons I’m too thick to articulate, I still support the existence of both.”

I am with you on faith schools but there is no argument for the BBC licence fee at all. It is regressive in that the rich and the poor pay alike. It is hard to collect and involves a massive violation of our privacy and basic human rights – not to be treated like a criminal by our government for instance.

If the BBC needs funding it ought to be funded out of general revenue and as far as I know there are no valid arguments to the contrary. We just keep the licence fee because of inertia and a deep British sense of conservative tradition. Like the Royals.

Well, if denominational sectarian schools are popular and oversubscribed, this isn’t a reason to restrict access to them to children who meet a religious test. It is an argument for open admission, and more of such schools.

Unless the rationale for such schools is to promote segregation, – which I strongly oppose – partisans of religious schooling should be calling for voucher based systems.

Even more important is taking education out of the hands of the Left wing elites with their liberal groupthink and putting it in the control of parents who just want plain old fashioned schooling and critical thought.

Well you push all the buttons there, old son.

It’s a bit of a fantasy. I think education will always be dominated by ‘elites’ of some sort or another, and they will likely be defined as ‘left wing’ or ‘liberal’. This will be true even if vouchers were introduced. Vouchers won’t hand over control of schools to parents. It means that money follows pupils – not the same thing.

“Well, if denominational sectarian schools are popular and oversubscribed, this isn’t a reason to restrict access to them to children who meet a religious test. It is an argument for open admission, and more of such schools.”

Open admission would destroy the nature of the schools and hence their purpose, and success.

The purpose of the schools is not segregation, as can be seen by the integration with wider society of the alumni of such schools. Sadly I don’t know much about voucher based systems to give an informed opinion, but again I stress, open admission would be counter productive.

This notion that parents should ‘control’ schools is quite absurd. If there is a group that should share in control it is students not parents.

Yossi

Explain to me again how the presence of non Jews in Jewish schools would undermine those schools ability to deliver a first class education?

David.
Here’s a bit of light relief on a stormy day.

What did John McCain find attractive in the VP selection?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU&feature=related

We are tempted to send our son to a multi-denominational independent school run by Sikhs. What I appreciate about the school is its ethos in which Sikh values of openness, tolerance and charity are applied in the wider community, regardless of religious belief. There is no compulsory Sikh worship or a requirement to be Sikh to attend the school. For me, this is the correct way for religious groups who are genuinely interested in education to run schools. I’ve not got a great deal of problem with Christians, Muslims or Jews running schools, so long as these schools are not centres of indoctrination or exclude those from outside their faith – particularly if this is done with public money. If Christians, Muslims and Jews cannot accept an open admissions criteria and a multi-denominational approach, then they should not be running schools. Children should be given the same opportunities and that means removing barriers between them. Exclusion on the basis of religion is a fundamental breach of human rights that should not be tolerated, still less funded by the tax-payer.

David T, I thought that I had explained this sufficiently well before, but clearly that was not the case, so I shall try again.

The main reason for the success of Religious Jewish schools, is due to the very strong bond between the students, and between them and their teachers and the wider Jewish community. This bond is created and supported due to the intense focus on the study and practice of Judaism, that underpins the entire life of the community. As a whole the community elevates the role of good behaviour, good education and a strong faith as basic principles, and creates role-modes to that effect. Jewish boys and girls, motivated as they are by their religiosity strive to be better observant Jews, dedicating their lives to the fulfilment of Judaism. This ethos creates the right bedrock for the successful learning of secular as well as religious subjects.

A Non-Jew, who’s motivation in life is not the fulfilment of G-d’s will as expressed in the Torah, would be out of place in such a school. He would not have the same bond, derived from a common purpose, with either the students or teachers and certainly not with the wider Jewish community. (Please also try to imagine a Non-Jewish child, socialising in school, with other children who neither watch television, read secular newspapers or magazines etc. As is the case with some Orthodox families)

To accommodate Non-Jewish students, the school would have to compartmentalise the religious and secular aspects, but this then, would destroy the very holistic method, which creates the successful ethos.

And why such a desire to create open admissions? Jewish voluntary aided schools are few in number, are successful, have created no social cohesion problems and are valued by the community they serve.

Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College in Chigwell: “We do not believe in a one way development of the child but a multi-dimensional, all-encompassing education in G.G.S.K.C which ensures the students’ qualifications and skills acquired will be in high demand”
http://www.ggskcollege.co.uk/schadmissons.html

David T – “Well, if denominational sectarian schools are popular and oversubscribed, this isn’t a reason to restrict access to them to children who meet a religious test. It is an argument for open admission, and more of such schools.”

But what does open admission mean? Anyone can go? I don’t see why it isn’t an argument for the status quo given the status quo works and the alternatives do not. I also agree it is an argument for more such schools. What works ought to be encouraged, not closed down.

“Unless the rationale for such schools is to promote segregation, – which I strongly oppose – partisans of religious schooling should be calling for voucher based systems.”

I have no problems with a voucher system but it isn’t the real problem here. The idea that the State, not parents, knows what is best and has the right to seize control of a charity set up for one (legal) purpose because some activists don’t like it is. And in Britain Faith schools have not led to segregation but on the contrary, to a peaceful society where minorities are welcomed and have few problems fitting in. Too much so for many of them.

Academic success is highly correlated with late sexual activity. A religious school may well encourage one and get the other. A large non-religious presence in the school will bring in another ethos that may undermine either or both. That alone is a good reason to keep the non-religious out. I also have no doubt that minority students in minority schools are told that the outside world is hostile to them and so they have to work hard and rely on themselves because the State won’t necessarily take care of them. An excellent preparation for excellence. But one that would be undermined by the cohesion you all are calling for. Not all bad emotions are entirely useless.

“due to the intense focus on the study and practice of Judaism, that underpins the entire life of the community”

1. Why do you think that this ‘intense focus’ is key to a school’s academic success? I don’t appreciate how fulfilling religious commandments generally makes people better academically.

2. I still don’t understand how the presence of non religious Jews and non Jews would undermine the academic achievement of a school.

3. Why should observant Jewish children be perturbed by the presence of children who watch TV? Or vice verse?

“I still don’t understand how the presence of non religious Jews and non Jews would undermine the academic achievement of a school.”

Or the presence of Muslims in a Jewish school.

I don’t think one can seize schools from religious institutions that set them up, but schools should be required not to discriminate on the basis of religion in their applications procedure – and that goes for the independent sector as well as the state sector. It is against a child’s human rights and it is socially divisive. Schools should also not be places of worship, but of learning.

As far as I know, there is no requirement in any religion that children should only be educated among children that share their faith, so an open admissions procedure cannot be seen as a fundamental challenge to religion. Of course, if parents are so opposed to mixing their children with kids of other faiths, they can try home education and segregate themselves completely from society – I think there are a minority of Christians, Muslims and Jews who are socially separatist and this is the best option for them.

Tim, are you on commission?

“Academic success is highly correlated with late sexual activity. A religious school may well encourage one and get the other. A large non-religious presence in the school will bring in another ethos that may undermine either or both. That alone is a good reason to keep the non-religious out.”

This seems entirely prejudiced and deluded. There are plenty of Jewish and Christian teenagers having sex, including those who go to faith schools. Your assumption is that those without faith are somehow immoral and polluting. Take a look at some history and look at what has been done in the name of religion by the religious.

Dan

“What I appreciate about the school is its ethos in which Sikh values of openness, tolerance and charity are applied in the wider community, regardless of religious belief. There is no compulsory Sikh worship or a requirement to be Sikh to attend the school. For me, this is the correct way for religious groups who are genuinely interested in education to run schools.”

That is to say, you like religion as long as it is not religious? That you want the benefits of a religious education as long as it is not religious? You want to take advantage of these Sikhs’ piety and willingness to sacrifice for their faith but you don’t want to give anything back much less encourage your son to be a Sikh? This almost sounds like a parody.

“I’ve not got a great deal of problem with Christians, Muslims or Jews running schools, so long as these schools are not centres of indoctrination or exclude those from outside their faith – particularly if this is done with public money.”

So again, you have no problems with religious schools as long as they are not religious. Well that sort of misses the point doesn’t it? Inevitably the purpose of a religious school is to teach a religious ethos. The public money issue is a separate one. What counts is the idea that two consenting adults – a religious teacher and a religious parent – cannot perform an act that does no harm to anyone because you think it should be banned.

“If Christians, Muslims and Jews cannot accept an open admissions criteria and a multi-denominational approach, then they should not be running schools.”

So you are so certain in your values that you would use the power and force of the law to override what a lot of parents and teachers want and most British people support?

“Children should be given the same opportunities and that means removing barriers between them. Exclusion on the basis of religion is a fundamental breach of human rights that should not be tolerated, still less funded by the tax-payer.”

Exclusion on the basis of religion is not a fundamental human right. You will probably find that most such laws have specific exemptions written into them. Not that such laws ought to exist anyway. I don’t see I have a right to take a plunge in a mikvah just because it is hot out. Nor do I accept that children have to be given the same opportunities – or rather that the social cost of doing so would be grossly disproportionate to the benefit. Reading to your child is probably the best thing you can do for his education – so we are going to have State-appointed readers or just laws preventing me from doing so more than a fixed number of hours per week? There are good and worthy barriers between people. Speaking Welsh for instance. Ban all education in Welsh then?

David T.
I rather think you have been unduly irritated by the odd high profile case at JFS. You might reflect on the situation of the King David school in Brum.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-jewish-chool-where-half-the-pupils-are-muslim-434481.html

“1. Why do you think that this ‘intense focus’ is key to a school’s academic success? I don’t appreciate how fulfilling religious commandments generally makes people better academically.”

Fulfilling religious commandments are a great educator in self control, in applying oneself, in discipline, in striving for success, in self improvement, all of which help one to succeed academically. And I said above, they create an atmosphere conducive to learning, by fomenting common bonds.

“2. I still don’t understand how the presence of non religious Jews and non Jews would undermine the academic achievement of a school.”

I’m sorry you don’t understand, but it seems very clear to me, as I explained above. For better understanding you should perhaps visit such a school and see for yourself. The academic achievement of these religious Jewish schools, goes hand in hand with their religiosity

“3. Why should observant Jewish children be perturbed by the presence of children who watch TV? Or vice verse?”

A child who’s interests include TV, Films, secular music etc, would find it very difficult to socialise with children who don’t watch TV, Films or listen to secular Music, and who’s prime interests exist in a Jewish setting.

This last point is only a minor point, and is not the thrust of my argument.

If there are to be sectarian schools, they should be open to all, without discrimination, and should meet the desires of the parents whose children attend these schools; rather than those of religious authorities.

If a school does that, then my concerns are relatively minor.

“That is to say, you like religion as long as it is not religious? That you want the benefits of a religious education as long as it is not religious? You want to take advantage of these Sikhs’ piety and willingness to sacrifice for their faith but you don’t want to give anything back much less encourage your son to be a Sikh? This almost sounds like a parody.”

The Sikhs obviously don’t have a problem, because the ethos of Sikhism is not about conversion but Sewa (service) to the community at large. If a religion’s ethos is to serve humanity, rather than itself, then it does not need to pursue indoctrination or exclusion.

“So you are so certain in your values that you would use the power and force of the law to override what a lot of parents and teachers want and most British people support?”

Absolutely, although I don’t think that the majority of British people want exclusive religious schools.

“There are good and worthy barriers between people. Speaking Welsh for instance. Ban all education in Welsh then?”

Don’t be silly. Welsh is the language of one of Britain’s constituent nations and the first language in some areas. You can be Welsh and Welsh-speaking and also be Asian, black, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Unless you are an extreme nationalist, Welshness is not a barrier to social inclusion.

Dan

“I don’t think one can seize schools from religious institutions that set them up, but schools should be required not to discriminate on the basis of religion in their applications procedure – and that goes for the independent sector as well as the state sector. It is against a child’s human rights and it is socially divisive. Schools should also not be places of worship, but of learning.”

Except your demands amount to the same thing. We have seen this with Oxbridge – the State essentially runs them even if the law says they are private. It is not against a child’s human rights not to be accepted by a school. It is not against their rights not to be considered the equal of believers or more pious believers. And the history of Britain is NOT that it is social divisive but that it actually creates more social cohesion. You are allowing theory to dominate reality. Schools are for whatever the parents and founders wish them to be. If there is no harm to anyone else, and there is a lot of evidence that there is not compared to State schools, I don’t see where you can start claiming the State has a legitimate interest.

“As far as I know, there is no requirement in any religion that children should only be educated among children that share their faith, so an open admissions procedure cannot be seen as a fundamental challenge to religion.”

Except you are drawing a false parallel that excludes the middle ground. Faith schools often take some students who are not of the Faith. But that does not mean they take them all or that they have an open admissions procedure. The idea that a school should be prohibited from teaching religion is a challenge to any Faith.

“Of course, if parents are so opposed to mixing their children with kids of other faiths, they can try home education and segregate themselves completely from society – I think there are a minority of Christians, Muslims and Jews who are socially separatist and this is the best option for them.”

Indeed. Catholics did. And then there were so many of them they started to form small classes in their own homes and in Churches. After a while there were enough of them they built a school. At some point they foolishly accepted State funding. At what point should they have been banned from doing so – at six students? Sixty? And let me get this right, you think that a vast expansion of home schooling would *improve* social cohesion? Where would you rather Inayat Bungawala’s children were educated – by him at home or in a mainstream Muslim school?

“This seems entirely prejudiced and deluded. There are plenty of Jewish and Christian teenagers having sex, including those who go to faith schools. Your assumption is that those without faith are somehow immoral and polluting. Take a look at some history and look at what has been done in the name of religion by the religious.”

“Plenty” is not the same as “the same number of”. I agree that plenty of Christian teenagers are having sex. Plenty fail to get three As as well. But vastly more non-Christians are and vastly more of them fail to get three As. I do not assume they are immoral and polluting. I assume they have other values and other priorities. Values and priorities you can see all over London any day of the week. What the religious do is a good reason not to give them power. But when you look at educational results, the same historical record says that Faith schools are doing a damn good job and State schools are not.

I still don’t get how people can sit here and claim there is a moral high ground in stealing the pennies of the poor. Even the pious poor. Really I don’t. And to benefit the middle classes as well.

I’m sorry you don’t understand, but it seems very clear to me, as I explained above. For better understanding you should perhaps visit such a school and see for yourself. The academic achievement of these religious Jewish schools, goes hand in hand with their religiosity

But there are religious Jewish schools which admit non Jews, and are still academically successful.

“Fulfilling religious commandments are a great educator in self control”

Can’t Jews fulfil their religious commands while mixing with non-Jews? Or do you think gentiles are ritually unclean in some way? Yossi, you sound like a supremacist, claiming that Jews are superior and are undermined when they live, work, play and learn among non-Jews.

“A child who’s interests include TV, Films, secular music etc, would find it very difficult to socialise with children who don’t watch TV, Films or listen to secular Music”

Nonsense. I went to school with kids whose parents did not allow them to watch TV. They were not more or less unpopular than those who did watch TV.

David T

“If there are to be sectarian schools, they should be open to all, without discrimination, and should meet the desires of the parents whose children attend these schools; rather than those of religious authorities.”

Except parents only have a passing interest in a school. From 1 to 8 or 1 to 6 years more or less. Why should their “snapshot” view count for more than parents past or parents of the future – or the founders, funders, owners and management of the school?

Given that it is manifestly the desire of those parents not to have an open admissions scheme and to be sectarian and to discriminate how can you demand change?

Yet again I see no justification for banning two consenting adults engaging in an activity that has no cost to anyone else.

Dan

“The Sikhs obviously don’t have a problem, because the ethos of Sikhism is not about conversion but Sewa (service) to the community at large. If a religion’s ethos is to serve humanity, rather than itself, then it does not need to pursue indoctrination or exclusion.”

Good for them but given the odd honour killing in the Sikh community I think they may be a little more exclusive than you think. Whatever they say in their brochures. Self evidently, a religion needs to serve itself if it is serving mankind. To do good you must first exist.

“Absolutely, although I don’t think that the majority of British people want exclusive religious schools.”

And yet for over 100 years they have paid their taxes without protest to do just that. And no one is trying to stop them. The Labour Party hates grammars, and no doubt Faith schools too, but it dares to make the case for grammars but not Faith schools. That suggests it is a vote loser.

“Don’t be silly. Welsh is the language of one of Britain’s constituent nations and the first language in some areas. You can be Welsh and Welsh-speaking and also be Asian, black, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. Unless you are an extreme nationalist, Welshness is not a barrier to social inclusion.”

Welshness is more of a barrier to social inclusion than a Faith education. When did we last have a Welsh speaking Prime Minister? The fact remains Welsh can only survive if it is taught to the exclusion of English. Which it isn’t and so it won’t. Is that a bad thing?

You can be most of those things and a Catholic too. What’s the point?

Dan,

No Non-Jews are not ritually unclean, and I never once said anything of the sort. And neither do I hold that Jews are superior in any way, again I never implied such a thing. This is the first time I have posted on this Blog, and I was hoping that it would contain less of the same kind of hysterical distortion common on other blogs.

Yes David T, there are Jewish schools that admit non-Jews, as I have already mentioned, and yes they may well achieve fantastic results but so what? I have never said that religious schools are the only type that should exist, or the only kind that can yield success. The aim of the religious schools I refer to, is more than just academic success. Their aim as mentioned before, is to educate young Jews in the Jewish faith and way of life, while at the same time, giving them a good secular education so that they can play a constructive part in the life of the Nation we share.

I have stated, that I don’t see why there is a need to tamper with these successful schools based on some ideological desire to end “discrimination”, while many schools are languishing in misery, and failing to give any sort of education to their students. I believe and Dan please note, that EVERY child in this country has the right to the best education, I just don’t believe there is one solution for all people.

“Good for them but given the odd honour killing in the Sikh community I think they may be a little more exclusive than you think.”

Honour killing has nothing to do with Sikhism, it is a cultural phenomenon.

“The Labour Party hates grammars, and no doubt Faith schools too, but it dares to make the case for grammars but not Faith schools.”

It was Tony Blair who wanted more religious schools, with more exclusive Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim schools. Blair wants to categorise society along confessional lines. The consequences are social division. Oona King, a Jewish former MP elected to represent a predominantly Muslim constituency, said as much: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jun/06/guardiansocietysupplement.communities

Where I grew up, there was a very dodgy comprehensive with low academic achievement, problems with bullying and teachers did not want to work there. It was turned around completely after a change in headmaster and is now one of the best comprehensives in the country. Quality of education depends on the ability and commitment of staff, not on their religion. Improve the staff and you will improve the results.

“No Non-Jews are not ritually unclean, and I never once said anything of the sort.”

You certainly implied this by suggesting the presence of non-Jews in a Jewish school would lead to lower academic achievement because they are more likely to fuck. Perhaps your problem is that you don’t want a young Cohen girl falling in love with a gentile, even worse one who is Muslim.

You certainly implied this by suggesting the presence of non-Jews in a Jewish school would lead to lower academic achievement because they are more likely to fuck.

Did YossiUK say or imply this? I don’t think he did at all. Do you want to check, and apologise if you’re wrong? I think you might be confusing something So Much for Subtlety said with YossiUK

Of course, a ‘gentile’ or a Muslim might be so impressed by the ethos of Judaism, that they decided to convert to the religion. And why not?

Their aim as mentioned before, is to educate young Jews in the Jewish faith and way of life, while at the same time, giving them a good secular education so that they can play a constructive part in the life of the Nation we share.

But how does the presence of non-Jews and non-religious Jews prevent Jews from learning about their Jewish faith?

Oh dear Dan, you seem to have departed the land of reason, into your own little world how sad.

I never implied, stated, or even though, of the issue of carnal relations between pupils. Secondly as the majority of the schools I am referring too are not co-educational, the “Cohen girl falling in love with a gentile” is irrelevant. What is your obsession with bringing Muslims into discussions about Jews? My community has very good relations with the local Muslim community and the problems of the Middle East, are left in the Middle east.

Perhaps you should re-read what I have posted before writing such nonsense.

Sorry, Yossi, I confused you with “So Much for Subtlety”.

“as the majority of the schools I am referring too are not co-educational, the “Cohen girl falling in love with a gentile” is irrelevant”

She may be a lesbian.

Yes but the Bible doesn’t have a particular issue with lesbian sex.

Likewise, it doesn’t have any prohibition on lesbian sexual relations between women belonging to Jewish and non-Jewish confessional groups.

Right Yossi?

Given the problem of a poor public education system, most people would devote their efforts to improving the worst schools. Instead. David T and the Accord Coalition direct their efforts to wrecking schools to which parents actively wish to send their children. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something. The part where requiring faith schools to operate a non-discriminatory admissions system amounts to ‘destroying’ them. If faith schools expect to be subsidised by the state, which to say by all of our taxes, then they must be open to all those who accept the curriculum on offer. If not, then nothing is stopping them from going private.

Dan

“Honour killing has nothing to do with Sikhism, it is a cultural phenomenon.”

Religion not being cultural of course. Yeah yeah yeah. We hear it from Inayat all the time. Odd how Quakers don’t do it much isn’t it?

“It was Tony Blair who wanted more religious schools, with more exclusive Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim schools. Blair wants to categorise society along confessional lines. The consequences are social division. Oona King, a Jewish former MP elected to represent a predominantly Muslim constituency, said as much”

She did not say as much. She stated her opinion. Which may be tainted by the massive axe she has to grind. Notice that her specific examples of segregation were of Comps, not Faith Schools.

I don’t know what Blair wanted. What I do know is that the Labour Party does not have the balls to go after Faith schools. Which suggests, contrary to your claims, they are popular with the voters.

“It was turned around completely after a change in headmaster and is now one of the best comprehensives in the country. Quality of education depends on the ability and commitment of staff, not on their religion. Improve the staff and you will improve the results.”

One anecdote does not prove a lot. But I agree sort of. But why do religious schools have better staff? They control their own intake and can expel crack dealers for one thing. Open admissions, giving that power to expel and admit to the DoE, just means all schools will be like that.

“You certainly implied this by suggesting the presence of non-Jews in a Jewish school would lead to lower academic achievement because they are more likely to fuck.”

That would have been my argument, not specifically made about Jews, about fucking. You’re confusing me with Yossi.

“Perhaps your problem is that you don’t want a young Cohen girl falling in love with a gentile, even worse one who is Muslim.”

Yes. God forbid! Come on, you should be able to do better.

David T, thanks for pointing out Dan’s attribution to me, views that I do not own.

“But how does the presence of non-Jews and non-religious Jews prevent Jews from learning about their Jewish faith?”

I honestly don’t think I can explain it any better than I have already,that should be left to people far more eloquent and wise than myself. The only thing I can add, is that Judaism is truly an all encompassing faith, which in the context of Jewish schools is taught throughout the day, in all subjects. To have Non-Jewish pupils would mean either the school compartmentalising the religious and secular spheres, which is unacceptable to most Orthodox parents, or going ahead as now, and leaving the Non-Jewish pupils pretty left out, as so much of what would happen during the school day, would not apply to them.

A school geared to music would be pretty boring and non-fulfilling to a student dedicated to biology and chemistry. Likewise a school dedicated to Judaism, will be non-fulfilling for Non-Jews.

Given that it is manifestly the desire of those parents not to have an open admissions scheme and to be sectarian and to discriminate how can you demand change?

Very easily, as these schools are in receipt of public money. Those parents who have the desire ‘not to have an open admissions scheme’ should not except to be subsidised by the taxes of those parents whom they would exclude. If they want the luxury of demanding who may or may not go to the school, then they must pay for it themselves.

Dan, I accept your apology.

David T, yes you are right, although there are various differences of opinion regarding Lesbianism and Judaism, the relationship formed between two women, would not prohibit a relationship with a non-Jewish woman, just as friendships are not prohibited between Jew and Non-Jew.

I believe that Guru Nanak founded Sikhism specifically to oppose both gender discrimination and the caste system.

Now, certainly, some Sikhs discriminate on the grounds of gender, engage in honour killings, and are attached to something very similar to the caste system.

However, a religious Sikh could argue with authority that this is utterly contrary to the teachings of Guru Nanak.

A school geared to music would be pretty boring and non-fulfilling to a student dedicated to biology and chemistry. Likewise a school dedicated to Judaism, will be non-fulfilling for Non-Jews

In which case there would appear to be little reason for applying a discriminatory admissions system, as candidates would select themselves. And if a non-Jew still feels that they may derive benefit from attending a school ‘dedicated to Judaism’ what business is it of a publicly funded school to say to them that they cannot.

A school geared to music would be pretty boring and non-fulfilling to a student dedicated to biology and chemistry. Likewise a school dedicated to Judaism, will be non-fulfilling for Non-Jews.

Thanks Yossi

OK, I do see your point. However, as long as a school receives public money, parents who want to send their children to a school should be able to decide whether they wanted their children educated in such an environment.

“In which case there would appear to be little reason for applying a discriminatory admissions system, as candidates would select themselves. And if a non-Jew still feels that they may derive benefit from attending a school ‘dedicated to Judaism’ what business is it of a publicly funded school to say to them that they cannot.”

And in the majority of cases this is what happens, most Orthodox Jewish schools are not chosen by Non-Jewish parents, and so self selection occurs. But there are those, who don’t really know or care about the nature of a school and apply simply because of the league tables, in this case the school has a right to reject.

“Religion not being cultural of course. ”

It isn’t. Sikhism is quite firm on absolute gender equality. But obviously there are some Sikhs who don’t abide by their religious beliefs.

“The only thing I can add, is that Judaism is truly an all encompassing faith, which in the context of Jewish schools is taught throughout the day, in all subjects.”

All religions are all-encompassing, all require constant observance and dedication. But I fail to see how Mathematics can be taught in a distinctly Jewish way.

I think it is a good thing for society that children of all faiths and none to be together. You cannot rid society of the scourge of anti-semitism when Jewish children lead segregated lives and Jews will find it harder to understand others if they have rarely come into contact with non-Jews.

“her specific examples of segregation were of Comps, not Faith Schools.”

So what? Faith schools would be similarly divided along racial grounds. Around 99% of South Asians are non-Christian, so Christian schools will be devoid of South Asians.

“They control their own intake and can expel crack dealers for one thing.”
Non-religious schools can also exclude children.

XofTheX

“Very easily, as these schools are in receipt of public money. Those parents who have the desire ‘not to have an open admissions scheme’ should not except to be subsidised by the taxes of those parents whom they would exclude. If they want the luxury of demanding who may or may not go to the school, then they must pay for it themselves.”

The state funding issue is a totally separate one. We have at least three arguments on your side: that the State ought to seize the property of the Churches paid for by the pious either outright or de facto, that the State ought to prohibit the teaching of religion and that the State should not fund it. My main objections are to the first two.

Let’s go with the end of State funding. I agree State funding is a problem. Mainly because it has been a disaster. But you could make the case that the State should not fund the teaching of religion – despite the fact it is a legal requirement in British State schools.

However the claim that parents of those that don’t go subsidise the parents of those that do does not hold water. All parents pay taxes. Those who send their children to public schools and so pay more for their education pay twice – through the Inland revenue and then through fees. Do you support tax relief for these people? If not, on what basis are you criticising those who send their children to Faith schools for being funded? This is where a voucher would be as fair as you can get. Catholic and Jewish schools tend to be part funded by the State but only part. Meaning that other children are getting a free ride off their parents’ tax money.

How about we offer a tax refund on school fees and then everyone will be happy?

“OK, I do see your point. However, as long as a school receives public money, parents who want to send their children to a school should be able to decide whether they wanted their children educated in such an environment.”

Yes they do have that choice, and if they want their children educated in such a place, then they can convert to Judaism. Or if they are Non-Religious, they can start to observe.

But the point is: these schools discriminate against the non-religious and non-Jewish.

They shouldn’t be allowed to.

You might still end up with schools which were predominantly filled with Orthodox Jews or Catholics or what have you: as you say.

However, that would be the consequence of choice: not discrimination.

Schools are given money by the community for the good of the community and so should serve all the community, regardless of race, religion or colour. Those that fail to do so are failing the community.

“All religions are all-encompassing, all require constant observance and dedication. But I fail to see how Mathematics can be taught in a distinctly Jewish way.”

Maths makes up a tiny percent of academic learning on any given day, secondly maths can be taught in a distinctly Jewish way, and often Torah and Talmud are used to illustrate maths ideas.

“I think it is a good thing for society that children of all faiths and none to be together. You cannot rid society of the scourge of anti-semitism when Jewish children lead segregated lives and Jews will find it harder to understand others if they have rarely come into contact with non-Jews.”

In all the years of there being Jewish schools in this country there has never been any real problems understanding non-jews, and there are no major problems in the relations between us and our fellow citizens. As for anti-Semitism, better knowledge, more assimilation etc, won’t prevent it. Throughout history Jews have been hated despite being integrated or not. Just look at pre war Germany.

That is a fair point.

However, I do think that it is more difficult to hate somebody because of their ethnicity and religion, if they are your schoolfriend.

David T “However, as long as a school receives public money, parents who want to send their children to a school should be able to decide whether they wanted their children educated in such an environment.”

Just out of curiousity, how are you going to measure this? Are you saying that all parents who want to send their children to a specific school ought to have the right to do so? That school would be large. Or that they have the right to decide the selection criteria? Because last I checked they did – they elected a government that said religious selection was fine. I don’t think the State should have the right, but how do you see the mechanism here working? If we have a community with a school where 100% of the parents are happy with their system of selection, do you think that those parents’ views ought to be overturned because some other parents may want to send their children there even if none do so far? What you mean by “parents” is in fact “some faceless civil servants in thrall to the Teachers Union in the Department of Education”?

Dan

“I think it is a good thing for society that children of all faiths and none to be together.”

And I think it is a bad thing when the State takes it upon itself to arbitrate what is moral and what is not to the exclusion of all others. I notice that no one is threatening the joint education of children of all faiths or none together. What we have in the UK today. What we are defending is choice.

“You cannot rid society of the scourge of anti-semitism when Jewish children lead segregated lives and Jews will find it harder to understand others if they have rarely come into contact with non-Jews.”

I disagree totally. You seem to think that anti-Semitism is all the fault of the Jews. I would suggest that Britain has a smaller problem with anti-Semitism than countries where your rule is followed – France, Germany before 1932, Russia and so on – and so it is self evidently not true.

“So what? Faith schools would be similarly divided along racial grounds. Around 99% of South Asians are non-Christian, so Christian schools will be devoid of South Asians.”

So the problem arises in the failed alternatives to traditional Britain. In the attack on British culture – and tolerance. In the death of liberal British. Not in Faith schools but in their alternatives. If they divided by parental choice it does not mean that these children would not go on to form close friendships with each other in other contexts whereas it is clear that the Comps are teaching a deep and abiding dislike of the other.

“Non-religious schools can also exclude children.”

Yeah. In the sense that any boy can be President. State schools have more or less given up on disciplining students. Any form of punishment is hard even if the Head supports you – and most do not. Explusion is asking for a law suit and is a long and drawn out process. Even in Faith schools. But it is possible in a Faith school in a way it is not in a State one. Trust me. On the decline of routine discipline in the State system I know something.

Dan

“Schools are given money by the community for the good of the community and so should serve all the community, regardless of race, religion or colour. Those that fail to do so are failing the community.”

Schools that control their own intake through their own system of admission turn out pretty much anyone of any importance in the UK. All our major politicians under a certain age. Pretty much all our doctors, CEOs, engineers and best scientists. The entire BBC from what I can see come to that.

On the other hand our State run Comprehensives turn out a rather large number of dangerous and violent illiterates. Even though some of these schools spend more than Eton per pupil.

Yet Dan thinks it is the Comps that are serving the community and the selective schools that are not.

You couldn’t, to quote some fool, make it up.

I would take away the ability of schools to reject students because they, or their families, fail to meet a religious test.

Any party which proposed to introduce legislation to that effect would be likely to attract my vote.

DavidT, I think we have a conceptual confusion here. Discrimination is not always a bad thing. Do we not all discriminate between good and bad behaviour and ensure that our children do so too? Do we not discriminate as to the suitability of a candidate for a job? Not everyone is suited to every situation. In the case of religious schools, pupils who do not share the same religious faith, are not suited to schools that are there to teach that religious faith. As for the state funding issue, I think that So Much For Subtlety has already made a good case for why focusing on funding for religious schools is unfair.

Our schools are only part funded, and we view them as absolutly necesary to our comunity. If funding is removed then many of us will be forced to educate our children privatly which will plunge so many families into poverty.

What most parents want is a good education for their children. Over he last at least 40 years the state has consistently failed to provide this universally. Personally I believe this is because the state’s goals have been more to do with social engineering than actual education. If the state could offer a decent alternative to faith schools they would not be so popular and this would be much less of an issue.

BTW, is there any real evidence that faith schools promote division within society?

“Maths makes up a tiny percent of academic learning on any given day, secondly maths can be taught in a distinctly Jewish way, and often Torah and Talmud are used to illustrate maths ideas.”

I hope that maths takes up more than a tiny portion of the curriculum. The illustration of mathematical ideas with ancient texts seems like a good thing to me, whether Pythagoras or Moses. I don’t see why non-Jews would not benefit.

“In all the years of there being Jewish schools in this country there has never been any real problems understanding non-jews, and there are no major problems in the relations between us and our fellow citizens. As for anti-Semitism, better knowledge, more assimilation etc, won’t prevent it. Throughout history Jews have been hated despite being integrated or not. Just look at pre war Germany.”

Obviously there is a problem, since you say that anti-semitism has endured for centuries. Understanding is achieved through familiarity and this can only be achieved by bringing people of different backgrounds together. I fail to see how a Hassidic Jewish child, who has little or no exposure to non-Jews if they attend only Jewish schools, will understand the world outside their community. Yet, it is a world that they will have to deal with at some point in their lives and if this world, as a result of their self-segregation, is distrusting of them, their lives will be more difficult. If such self-segregation was mainstreamed – a trend that Blair supported – then society would be similarly compartmentalised.

Our schools are only part funded, and we view them as absolutly necesary to our comunity. If funding is removed then many of us will be forced to educate our children privatly which will plunge so many families into poverty.

Yes, I appreciate that.

This is why a better argument is to campaign for a school voucher system, which would allow vouchers to be used to pay, in part, for private education.

Many would oppose that. In fact, the Tories specifically excluded the use of vouchers for private education the last time they visited this issue.

Nevertheless, you might find such a system achieves your aim.

David T, I would hope that your comment about shared schooling and the effect it has on hatreds of other ethnicities and religions is true. However there is a lot of evidence where people have turned on their neighbours (Yugoslavia, Sri Lanks etc.) that would tend to make me think otherwise.

Dan, the world is not distrustful of observant Jews because of any sort of self segregation. Anti-Semitism is directed at all Jews religious and secular, and even to Jews who have converted to other faiths, so again your argument doesn’t hold water.

And even the most socially isolated Jewish communities, have not had any major problems functioning in Britain.

You seem to place understanding of the world outside, as highly significant. I know absolute nothing about Sikhs or Hindus, I don’t really know what they believe and I don’t have any real contact with members of those faiths. But I respect them as fellow human beings, and would extend to them the same courtesy, kindness and help that I would to any other person. And what’s more educate my children to do the same.
At my work I am surrounded most of the day by my Non-Jewish colleagues. My social interaction with my colleagues out side work is limited, but despite this, we are close friends, and value each other greatly.

Cohesion in British society, is better than in many places, and yes of course there are pockets of real and deep rooted animosity between communities. This must be addressed but pinning the blame on schools and communities that are successful, seems more than unfair

“This is why a better argument is to campaign for a school voucher system, which would allow vouchers to be used to pay, in part, for private education.

Many would oppose that. In fact, the Tories specifically excluded the use of vouchers for private education the last time they visited this issue.

Nevertheless, you might find such a system achieves your aim.”

You could well be right. I simply don’t know enough about this voucher system, to really have an opinion on it.

The argument for state funding is not so much an ideological one with me, it is simply a utilitarian argument.

Judy-great post

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/01/religion.faithschools

The Guardianistas have now got their teeth into this one.

I must be missing something because I’m unclear how school vouchers would help much if at all with the issues around faith schools.

If vouchers could be used to fund private education surely this would just increase demand for the independent sector because those families that can’t quite afford it will now be able to. In effect this would take money out of the state system.

The problem of over-subscription in faith schools will still remain because the reason the schools are in demand is because they are good and presumably will continue to be so. Of course I suppose demand will decrease by those parents who can now afford private education but it would be a fantastic coincidence if it reduced it to a level where the demand for places at any given faith school equalled the available places, thus removing the need for any selection criteria.

“If funding is removed then many of us will be forced to educate our children privatly which will plunge so many families into poverty.”

But that would be your choice.

Yossi, I don’t doubt that you would treat people with respect regardless of their religion. But I think self-segregation (I am not thinking specifically about Jews, who represent only a tiny proportion of the British population, but Christians and Muslims) can cause significant harm to social cohesion. If the government is making efforts to make non-religious comprehensives more diverse in their intake in northern towns where there have been racial tensions, then there is an acceptance that it is not good for society to have schools that are de facto mono-ethnic or mono-religious.

Then there is also the issue of access to education. I recently spoke to the leader of the Liberal Democrats in my county council who said the council was having a real problem with selective religious schools where they are the only school in the village. Instead, children who are excluded are forced to travel to schools outside their community, sometimes a fair distance away. The council cannot do anything about it, but it is still obliged to fund these schools. I see no justice in this. It is divisive and exclusionary.

The state funding issue is a totally separate one

I disagree. I think the question of state funding is at the centre of it. I’ll be open and say I don’t think religiously homogeneous schools are a good thing. But I am enough of a liberal to think that if people choose to provide them for themselves, as private institutions, then the law should not interfere with them. Once they take public money then they lose the right to operate a discriminatory admissions system.

We have at least three arguments on your side: that the State ought to seize the property of the Churches paid for by the pious either outright or de facto, that the State ought to prohibit the teaching of religion and that the State should not fund it. My main objections are to the first two

That is a ludicrous misrepresentation of what I have said. I have no objections to publicly funded religious schools teaching a religiously orientated curriculum. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be ‘faith schools’, would they. But I don’t admit their right to enforce a private version of the Test Act to exclude pupils. Got it? good.

Dan,

Of course there are difficulties with any educational model, and none are perfect. As for social cohesion problems, in my local area, there are several CofE and Catholic voluntary aided schools, and the children from each school seem to have good relations with each other and the wider community, so I don’t think that Christian schools of any denomination are such a problem. I understand that people may be concerned with Muslim schools, due to the current climate, but this too might be unfounded.

The problems between groups of people as displayed during the summer riots that occurred a few years ago in northern cities, have to be solved by dealing with the specific causes applicable in that setting. Likewise the increased level of children murdering children, irrespective of religious affiliation I might add, have to be solved also by dealing with the specific circumstances.

Christian denominations live peacefully with one another and with those of other faiths and have done so for years. The Jewish community also lives at peace with people of all other faiths and those with none.

All I am really arguing for, is to let that which is successful continue to exist, while of course, working to better and resolve any problems that might occur, such as the only school in the village scenario. And at the same time devoting our efforts to fixing what is broken.

This is why a better argument is to campaign for a school voucher system, which would allow vouchers to be used to pay, in part, for private education

Which would have the effect of turning all schools into de facto private schools. Vouchers would become a surrogate currency and unless explicitly prohibited from doing so, the voucher ‘price’ of getting into a school would reflect its popularity. Thus 1 voucher would be sufficient to get your child into Bog Standard Comp but 1.5 vouchers would be needed to get into Very Nice Comp. And if schools cannot ‘charge’ extra to reflect their popularity then we have essentially the same system as we have now, except that the state is part paying for the private education of those who afford the top up.

XofTheX

“I disagree. I think the question of state funding is at the centre of it.”

You may think it is at the centre but that does not mean it is the same argument. It is not.

“I’ll be open and say I don’t think religiously homogeneous schools are a good thing.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a good thing? Despite the fact that it is precisely those countries that have them that are tolerant and those that do not that aren’t? Interesting. Why?

“But I am enough of a liberal to think that if people choose to provide them for themselves, as private institutions, then the law should not interfere with them. Once they take public money then they lose the right to operate a discriminatory admissions system.”

Really? If they take any level of money at all? Does this apply to all institutions in the UK for any form of discrimination?

“That is a ludicrous misrepresentation of what I have said.”

Well it would be if I said you had said it. But as I didn’t I don’t know what the problem is. Go to a non-Faith School yourself?

“I have no objections to publicly funded religious schools teaching a religiously orientated curriculum. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be ‘faith schools’, would they. But I don’t admit their right to enforce a private version of the Test Act to exclude pupils. Got it? good.”

So you hold one of the three main arguments on your side of this dispute. Do you support those schools simply doing what everyone else does and pretending so they can meet the Government’s silly rules? Saying the student would not mix well with others for instance? Or was not the best use of their resources? All these reasonable grounds for discrimination in your eyes?

Regarding the argument that schools that “discriminate” on religious grounds should not receive state funding, should single sex schools also not receive state funding?

Dan,

“If the government is making efforts to make non-religious comprehensives more diverse in their intake in northern towns where there have been racial tensions, then there is an acceptance that it is not good for society to have schools that are de facto mono-ethnic or mono-religious.”

I think that this is something of a nonsense. It assumes that the government had carried out some kind of anlaysis that shows that the lack of diversity in those comps has caused racial tensions, and that the government’s solution is correct. You are also extrapolating that mono-ethnic/religious schools are not good for society as a whole without any evidence as far as I can see.

You anecdote about your local county council may well be true but it is just an anecdote. I’d be curious to know where because the vast, vast majority of village schools in Britian are CofE and their admissions policies are determined by the LEA. In fact it would be very unusual for the only school in a village to be a faith based school that isn’t CofE, and to have more that one (you said schools, not a school) in a single LEA would be rare I suspect.

Sue R:-
We all knowd what will happen, the wealthy parents will top up the value of teh voucher and opt for private schools while the poorer parents will be stuck in dump schools.

The power of conventional wisdom, eh? What happens when you become the conservative and all you’re conserving is a largely failed experiment?

Sweden has had an experiment with vouchers. You get the State money on the condition you don’t ask for top-up fees, I believe. It seems to be pretty well received.

Whichever party took this on as a manifesto committment would win, I believe.

Venichka :-The fact of the matter is that faith schools work.

I think you’re right. Where does that take us?

“That is a ludicrous misrepresentation of what I have said.”

Well it would be if I said you had said it. But as I didn’t I don’t know what the problem is. Go to a non-Faith School yourself?

Then what on earth did you mean by “We have at least three arguments on your side …” if you were not attributing those views to me?

Despite the overwhelming evidence that they are in fact a good thing?

Well if they are such a good thing then that strengthens my view that such schools should not be able to arbitrarily exclude those who may benefit from the education they have to offer. If they take public money then they should behave as public institutions. What next? Publicly funded Catholic or Islamic libraries only for the use of Catholics or Muslims?

Saying the student would not mix well with others for instance? Or was not the best use of their resources? All these reasonable grounds for discrimination in your eyes?

No they are no reasonable grounds for discrimination.

However the claim that parents of those that don’t go subsidise the parents of those that do does not hold water. All parents pay taxes. Those who send their children to public schools and so pay more for their education pay twice – through the Inland revenue and then through fees. Do you support tax relief for these people? If not, on what basis are you criticising those who send their children to Faith schools for being funded?

There is a difference between parents foregoing their rights to consume a service delivered by the state to pay for what they believe to be a superior, privately-funded service, and parents being denied access to a service they help to fund.

The claim is not that “parents of those [children] who don’t go [to faith schools] subsidise the parents of those that do”, it’s that there are parents of children who cannot go – by virtue of having the wrong or no faith – who subsidise the parents of those children who can.

So whilst I take the view that this ought to be priority number 501 on the list of redistributive measures we should be taking, I can’t deny the inequity of the current arrangements.

What about the UK National Blood Service? That too is paid for in large part through public funding, but many tax paying individuals are excluded from donating, due to being Homosexual, or having had any sort of requirement for blood (such as occurs during many operations), since 1980. Should public funding be removed too?

What about parents of girls who are unable to send them to successful boy’s comprehensives despite that fact that they help support these schools through their tax contributions. Is this unfair discrimination, and should all single sex schools also loose government funding?

What about parents who don’t want the child to conform to the uniform policy of a particular school. Should that school be denied public funding for discriminating against people who don’t conform to the requirements?

1. (a) Donating to a blood service is not a benefit.
(b) Any person might have a need for blood

2. I can make a half decent argument for the relevance of single sex schooling to education, in a way that I can’t for religious education. However, that is a parallel, certainly.

3. Uniform policies are only marginally intrusive: compared to requiring somebody to change their entire home lifestyle, and devote a significant proportion of their non-working time to communal prayer.

It is also very easy for a non-uniform wearer to put on a school cap. If conversion to Judaism were as easy, then you might have an argument.

Yossi, from a public funding point of view it doesn’t matter if someone is prevented from donating blood. They haven’t materially been denied anything. Doners aren’t really the beneficiaries of the public service.

DavidT, firstly donating is most certainly a benefit to many people, and gives them a sense of worth, usefulness etc.

Single sex education is useful as boys and girls very often have different learning requirements. The same argument can be made for religious people, who’s religion is a significant and vital part of who they are, and hence requires tailored education.

I agree uniform policy is only marginally intrusive but it illustrates a point. Are we to base the argument for public funding, on the ease at which a person can adopt the necessary entry requirements? Many institutions have a designated purpose. Not everyone is suited to attend or to be part of an institution simply because it is publicly funded.

Over all, your tax contribution is helping provide for the successful education of people, this is a benefit to you, and society, even if you personally can’t have your children educated in that place.

Ag, fair enough the blood service example might not be the strongest.

“The one place where schools are places of affiliation rather than education is the State sector which aims to produce Right On students and has no interest in education. ” SMFS

Thousands of schools are so summarised. It is unlikely that anyone one person would choose to categorise all state schools with such lazy brevity even if they had inspected them all. After reading this comment I concluded SMFS is not a serious person and moved on.

The initiative to de-couple religious affinities in state education is to be welcomed. Schools should be places for all faiths and none where the emphasis is on knowledge and personal development not belief.

OK, so let’s leave the blood donation analogy…

“Single sex education is useful as boys and girls very often have different learning requirements. The same argument can be made for religious people, who’s religion is a significant and vital part of who they are, and hence requires tailored education.”

The arguments for gender segregated schooling are as follows:

1. If you’re not distracted by sexual relationships, you’re likely to do better in exams. (Possibly. Although at my single sex school, a number of the boys were having sex with each other, and still did very well in their exams…)

2. Girls are more likely to do science subjects at single sex schools.

I understand your argument that jewish children from very orthodox family backgrounds will do badly in schools which don’t integrate everything they do with ritual observance.

However, your analogy breaks down here. An all girls school ceases to be an all girls school if it admits boys. A jewish school doesn’t cease to be jewish if it admits non jews.

“personal development”

Along what lines? After all many people have differing “beliefs” as to what personal development should be.

And religious folk, believe that personal development goes hand in hand with the teachings and instruction of their faith.

Is it only a secular philosophy that should be taught in schools?

1. How the academic success of a school is linked to (for example) the exclusion of the children of infrequent church goers

Because god makes non-church goers evil and stupid.

“An all girls school ceases to be an all girls school if it admits boys. A jewish school doesn’t cease to be jewish if it admits non jews.”

Firstly, I think by now it is clear that I am mostly referring to people from”very orthodox family backgrounds”.

A Jewish school need not cease to be a Jewish school if it admits Non-Jews, I agree with you on that, and as we have both noted, there are Jewish schools that do indeed admit Non-Jewish pupils and are successful. However, for those schools for whom a completely holistic Jewish approach with no separation between religious and secular subjects, is considered vital, and is indeed the main purpose of the school, the admission of Non-Jewish children would indeed spell the end of such schools, as they would be forced by circumstance to compartmentalise religious and secular aspects of the education, thereby destroying the whole purpose of the school. And if they opt not to compartmentalise, but to keep the same approach as exists now in 100% Jewish schools, then it would be to condemn the non-Jewish student to a difficult and irrelevant education, this would neither be fair to the pupil or to the school.

“Single sex education is useful as boys and girls very often have different learning requirements.”

How come? Unless you subscribe to the belief that women’s and men’s brains are differently wired or that one gender is intellectually superior compared to the other, then I don’t understand your point. I went to a single sex grammar school and I always regretted it. The boys’ more limited experience with girls outside their family made them immature and socially lacking. My step sister also went to a single-sex school and she had a similar experience, only she was brutally bullied because she’s pretty. I think single sex schools are awful and shouldn’t exist.

The fact is that the co-educational comprehensive is the norm and is largely successful in educating people from a diverse range of backgrounds and abilities. Since co-ed comps were established, educational levels have improved markedly. They are not failures. There may be some that are performing poorly, but these are not typical of the standard and their performance is largely related to the wider social problems of the communities in which they are located. There is a sneering snobbery towards comps, summed up by Blair’s “bog standard” comment – he was the one who pushed religious foundation schools s solutions to the perceived “problems” of comprehensives. Religion is being promoted as a panacea of all social ills, but it is not – the important thing to do is to raise the quality of education across the board, and not create exclusive pockets.

“However, for those schools for whom a completely holistic Jewish approach with no separation between religious and secular subjects, is considered vital, and is indeed the main purpose of the school, the admission of Non-Jewish children would indeed spell the end of such schools, as they would be forced by circumstance to compartmentalise religious and secular aspects of the education, thereby destroying the whole purpose of the school. ”

I don’t understand what you mean by “holistic”?

“2+2=4, by the grace of Hashem”

“Now we’re going to dissect this frog. What is the correct brocha to use?”

“The Mayor of Casterbridge would have ended very differently, if his wife has asked for a get, and the issue had been arbitrated in front of the local bet din: Discuss”

Seriously, what do you mean?

Dan,

I for one am not promoting religion as a panacea for all social ills, I just defend the right of religious people to seek an education for their children that they believe is the best, in relation to their religious needs.

I don’t think the government should necessarily promote religious schools above or instead of any other type. I believe in a free, and tolerant society, that allows people to choose the education best suited to them, and assists them where possible.

As for the difference between boys learning and girls learning, I’m not sure this is the correct forum to discuss gender difference. My point was, that such schools exist, and are publicly funded, and hence have a value to illustrate the concept of discrimination and public funding.

DavidT, :-) Your humorous illustration is not far from the truth. I mean that when dealing with any secular subject, for example the “frog dissection”, a lot of time might be dedicated to viewing the issue from a Torah point of view. Midrashim discussing frogs and Talmud passages such as Pesachim 53b and their commentaries might be discussed. So that at the end of a lesson the student knows about the anatomy of a frog, and learns about Judaism too. Plus in some schools a lot of time will be taken to analyse G-d’s wisdom evident in the intricate and complex anatomy of a simple frog.

This basically is what I mean about holistic approach. In reality there are not many subjects that do not have a religious component as far as Judaism is concerned, after all everything was made by the Creator.

hahaha, well, that’s a little bit eccentric…

But it might also be fun to know about. I’ve always got a real kick out of learning about arcane and odd ideas of all sorts; although I’ve never subscribed to them, or intended to put them into practice.

Clearly this sort of teaching style is important to a small number of very religious Jews, and works for their children. But it might equally work for others. I might have found it fun. In fact, I know a couple of ex-Hassids, who don’t believe and barely practice their religion: but have become very successful (in law and academia, respectively). So evidently, this sort of teaching style works well for all sorts of people: not simply those who intend to spend their lives immersed in Hassid-dom.

So, open these schools up, I say.

David T,

I agree that this type of education is not just interesting, but highly important, only to a very small number of Jews, and I have not advocated this for the entire country, and neither have I claimed that this is what goes on in faith schools up and down the country.

Your account of the very successful ex-Hasids, is I’m sure not an isolated case. And may I stress such education is not restricted to Hassidic children (who in any case tend to be taught in Yiddish), but can be found in non-hassidic orthodox schools too.

Different people require different things. I love the difference manifested in this great country of ours, and I have no problem at all, with our government assisting different people to educate their children in they way that they feel they require, (however odd or arcane it might seem to others :-)

There is not much more I can add to this debate, but I hope that I have been successful in explaining my point.

David T, perhaps you would have found such an education fun, but in all honesty, I think a school has the right to demand devotion, and commitment to the goals it sets. Fun just doesn’t quite cut it.

Dan, single sex schools patently work for lots of kids. There are differences between boys and girls that a co-ed school can’t always accomodate well. It’s also difficult to argue that single sex schools don’t work or are wrong when over 75% of the best state schools (academically) are single sex. The percentage is even higher in the private sector.

As you are fond of anecdotal examples I’ll give you one of mine. My daughter goes to an all girls school. She and a couple of her classmates were selected to represent the school in a local enterprise event. There were about 25 schools at there; a couple of all girls schools, some all boys schools with the majority being mixed. Each school had to make a presentation about their business idea and answer questions on it. Without exception at the mixed schools the presentations were led by a boy, the majority of the questions were answered by boys and in general girls had small, insignificant parts. This was so marked that a teacher at the table I was sitting at commented on it. This in and of itself proves nothing but it reinforces my belief that a lot of girls (not all by any means) flourish more and become more confident people in a single sex environment.

The irony is that, with hindsight, my daughter would probably have been better off at a mixed sex school.

Bullying of course happens in all types of schools. I have no idea if it happens more in single sex schools.

Yossi

Well, it has been nice chatting with you. Thanks for taking the time, and stick around.

Yossi, out of interest what would be the position on the teaching of evolution in the type of school you mention?

Andrew Adams,

This issue of evolution is a complex one in this regard. As part of the national curriculum it is of course taught in many such schools.

Many of those schools will then give the students a complimentary or in some cases an alternative view on the subject.

In any regard, there is no one view as to Judaism’s view on evolution, and by and large the issue is not one of dogma.

OK, thanks

We all know that the real objection to “faith schools” is that Catholic ones have been so good at, according to the old Christian Brothers’ maxim, “taking the sons of dockers and turning them into doctors”.

The professions, and thus the places where professional people live, now contain any number of people originally from Scotland, the North, the Midlands and the less salubrious parts of the South, with working-class grandparents or even parents, and with Irish great-grandparents.

Where will it all end?

Oh, and on creationism, how many of you were Blair supporters? He handed over many state school pupils (though nowhere near as many as he wanted to) to academies run by creationists and teaching creationism, all at public expense. The other of the pair that brought us the Iraq War is a creationist. As, probably, is Blair.

Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers. They face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the role of women in the society, and adherence to religious and cultural traditions. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters. There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Than little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.

The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim teacher or a child in a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.

Majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim culture–the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as a western community, not as an alien culture.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk