My daughter is moving to an Anglican high school this year, which is supposed to be a good school. What I like about the school is the fact that it purposely takes on a significant number of kids with disabilities - resulting in seemingly poor national standards tests on average.

My older sister has sent her kids to an RC school in Surrey, which did make them attend mass etc for a while in advance of the oldest in order to be able to get a letter off the priest, but that seemed reasonable to me. Where she lives there are few schools which aren't either ridiculously expensive or cr*p - the religious schools offer good quality for a far more reasonable fee.

So to go to a government funded school she had to go to church?

A [inon sequitur[/i, to go to a Catholic school she had to go to Catholic church. (Although they do take a significant number of non-Catholics too). The point is, she did not [ihave[/i to go to that church, or any church. It was the parents' choice of school which brought the situation about.

Plus, Catholic schools have to raise about 10% of their own funding, so Catholics are in effect paying part of the cost of education of the many non-Catholics they educate, so it ain't as simple as that.

And wouldn't that be the point in getting them out of schools?

You say they didn't have to send her to that school but it was the best available so of course they 'had' to, if they take a number of non Catholics (does that include theists?) why did she have to go to church? A faster easier way?

How do the church raise this 10%? Tax exemption? Or do the 24 priests/vicars who are allowed into the house of lords, without vote, pass it through?

The system stinks.

Other loons are waiting in the wings to have their agendas promoted in our schools. The ridiculously named [url=http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/home.htmlTruth in science[/url for example.

There was a brief series on TV a couple of years ago with Richard Dawkins looking at evolution.

If I remember the details correctly, he went into schools (obviously with permission) to talk to pupils, but found a substantial reluctance among pupils to 'believe' evolution over ideas of divine creation, even after he'd done things like take them on field trips to hunt for fossils.

Now I cannot recall whether the school in question was a faith school or not, or whether this was simply a case of a group of young people whose home unbringing had created that situation, but it raises the issue of just how easy or likely it is for children to simply 'throw off' such beliefs because they decide/want to.

And if, as we already know has been the case, the lines between science and religious studies are quite deliberately blurred, then do people really simply think that youngsters will be able to sort the one from the other?

I mentioned earlier, the case of the Orthodox Jewish girls' school in Hackney, where 50% of the pupils' time is spent on religious studies. How is the conducive to anything other than continued ghettoisation?

But it also comes down to the contentious issues of selection.

Faith schools can – and do – select. So it's not difficult to see that the state schools that cannot operate selection will end up, for want of a better description, with the less desirable pupils – those with learning difficulties, those who are more disruptive, those from homes where the parents don't give a toss etc.

Is the answer selection in all circumstances, then? I don't think so – on the basis that, having seen the education that my sister received in a state secondary school and later, in a CofE secondary, having not passed her 11 plus.

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is in treating those at one end of the educational pile as not worth investing in – so you get a generally substandard level of education. To start with, we need more vocational education and training – not less.

We need streaming at some level or other for those with a more academic bent – but not treating those who don't have such leanings as inferior.

Personally, I think that insisting that all youngsters stay at school until 18 is ridiculous and counter-productive in many cases. It's just as flawed an approach to demand that someone who wants to go on a course to learn plastering has two GCSEs in order to get on that course.

Continuing the themes I touched on above, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12282505this raises some interesting points[/url.

but the counter argument is that the acquisition of 2 GCSE's shows some form of personal investment/comittment on the behalf of the individual?

The whole education system is screwed, I know people with degrees and no common sense, and I know people without degrees that are way more intelligent than their peers.

The question is, what can be done to realign things?

Nice one, I got the LOL.
First time I've seen "CofE" and "Organised" in the same sentence.



My view is simple.
Education is education, not indoctrination.
Attempts at indoctrination, regardless of their efficacy or lack of it, should not happen in the same curriculum as education.

Both my boys attend a RC primary school, my husband is Athiest & I'm CofE on paper. As I said earlier the boys attend the best available school in my area.

A few weeks ago my oldest Son, 6 asked, "Where did all the people come from?"
Bearing in mind his age and his school I told him how some people like Father Dominic believe that God created the Earth & everything in it, but other people like Scientists believe that we evolved from Monkeys. He thought about it for a while and asked which theory I believed, (Evolution, of course). Then declared that my belief was silly and how of course God made everyone & everything!
Given his age I'm not overly worried, but I do get your point.

Given his age, that's exactly the time to worry.
What was it the Jesuits said "Give me a boy until he's seven and he'll be mine for the rest of his life"
Something like that.

And that, in two sentences describes how f**ked up the English school system is.

To be honest I'm not surprised and I was going to make the point after I read Mintballs post but before I read yours - as a society conversing with pre-school children what is the most common story that we feed them ?

Its christmas and easter, two of the three biggest dates in a young childs calendar, and we tell them even in very brief terms about the birth and death of a person who we might not even believe in ourselves, we do it to "educate" them and probably partly because we don't want them starting school believing that christmas is just about santa and easter is about a bunny.

Its hardly surprising then that the idea of a god making a world and everything in it is a passable reason for being here when a six year old hears it, after all it ties in with what its parents told it about xmas and easter.

Your right.
I had a similar conversation with a Muslim friend of mine, just before Christmas. He asked why if I don't believe in God, do I celebrate Christmas? I didn't really have a reasonable answer other than, for the Children.
I ended up telling him I celebrate the winter solstice rather than the birth of Christ and some other rubbish, but it did make me think.

Actually this "quote" has appeared in several guises; usually the version used has been selected to support whatever point the user wishes to make. The generally accepted version is "Give me the boy until he is seven, and I will show you the man."

I guess any parent or dedicated teacher could say the same thing.

We could start by ditching the requirement for "collective worship of a broadly Christian nature" and legislating that any publicly-funded school does not require any form of religious adherence for entry and does not promote or encourage any form of religious following/assembly. It seems to have worked pretty well in France & the US.

Many schools have had little difficulty in ditching domestic science, sports etc, it shouldn't be too difficult to ditch religion, apart from all-embracing humanity lessons, if they felt there was a requirement.

Why didn't you tell the truth?

I'm not sure TBH, a bit embarrassed I suppose. Other than for the kids, I don't know why I, (as a none believer) celebrate Christmas. I celebrated it before I had children & I'll go on celebrating it when they've grown up. As for why? I just will!

Well if he's talking about Christmas as in the birth of Jesus then to celebrate it you'd have to do things like go to church.

If all you do to celebrate is enjoy to much food and wine with family and friends while a bigger version, designed by coca cola, of the tooth fairy drops a few presents off in return of children been well behaved (what a bribe!) at some random date then your hardly running to be the new pope.

Secularists do come across as a bunch of defensive nutjobs sometimes, as indeed they do in the Guardian article you cited.

Christian faith schools (I can't speak for Jewish or Muslim or indeed any other faith schools) generally have an extremely good reputation academically, both at primary and secondary level. That should be reason enough to allow them more freedom to operate. Surely the aim is to raise standards? The schools which offer best practice should therefore be encouraged. I'm entirely in favour of the government's proposals on that point alone.

Secondly, some of the claims in this thread are slightly erroneous. For example, when a faith school is state funded (and there are Muslim and Jewish government funded faith schools as well as Christian) they are obliged to teach the National Curriculum OR a curriculum that is of the same breadth and standard as the National Curriculum as confirmed by OFSTED. Obviously this does not apply to private schools.

Incidentally, a lot of Anglican and Catholic schools are part funded by the respective churches and therefore they are entitled to have some say over which children get priority. ALL schools make such choices, whether that be by the rather daft lottery system invoked by the previous government or by some other means. No one school can educate everybody and of course the best schools, whether faith or secular, will attract the highest number of applicants. But not all those applicants can be accommodated and so some form of discrimination has to be applied.

Thirdly, a school is a place of employment in the same way as an office or factory is and is subject to the same employment laws as any other place of employment. The furthest a school will push so far as the faith background of a teacher is concerned is in asking for references from their local clergyman and requesting specific disclosure about their personal faith. However, I have yet to meet a teacher who wants to teach in such a specific faith environment when they have no background in that faith. Most (Christian) faith schools simply ask an applicant whether they have sympathy for the ethos of the school and in that the faith schools are no different from non-faith schools. To teach effectively in any school a teacher must have sympathy with that school's ethos.

Finally, the academies that have come into being since the coalition came into power have diverse reasons for being and I think that is very refreshing. For example, there is one in London which only targets children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Presumably that sits happy in the mind of the OPer? But throw faith into the mix and suddenly the monsters are coming to get us! It's all a bit paranoid.

Which school did you go to?!

Science and Religious Education are distinct subjects and are taught as distinct subjects all the way through the education system. Within the National Curriculum, Science is a core subject which means students have to study it from day one of Year 1 and they are frequently tested on it. RE is unique in its standing in that it is neither a core subject nor a broad curriculum subject. It has to be taught but there are two broad headings under which schools have a fairly free licence: faith practice and faith traditions. All primary schools have to teach about Christianity plus at least one other faith; most teach about two others (usually Judaism and Islam). I don't know what the situation is in the secondary sector as I'm a primary school teacher. But this applies as much to a state school as to a state funded faith school (including Muslim and Jewish state funded schools) and so everybody is exposed to the two broad areas of RE teaching entirely separately from anything taught about science.

Oh, and I can assure you that youngsters are perfectly capable of distinguishing between science and faith. I've enjoyed a couple of fascinating discussions on both with Year 1. Don't underestimate the capacity of children.

Whereas all religious types are shining beacons of rationality I suppose?


As pointed out earlier, a large chunk of that good reputation is simply down to selective admission standards. Fill a school with smarter and better behaved pupils and you'll get better results. Simples.

It's also worth noting that the aim of education is not to raise standards regardless of potential negative consequences. The fudging of the Science curriculum that regularly occurs in faith schools is too high a price to pay IMO.

Religion should have no role in state-funded education. Period.

Five different ones.

Three primary schools (of which one was a faith school) and two girls' grammar schools (of which one had a deep religious connection – hence my parents sending me there after I'd passed my 11 plus. That was an exam that we all had to take in the olden days).

How about you, chucklette?



Indeed they are. Well done. They're not proper nouns, however.



Well done again. There is, however, evidence from the past 15-20 years that, in some situations, the lines between the two subjects have been blurred – mostly by evangelical creationist findamentalists. This is quite openly on record.



'Two and two are four; four and four are eight ...'

Sorry – did you have a point?



Ah. That's obviously the problem. I'm too decrepit to remember such complex situations. We did basic Christian stuff at my primary schools – yes, all three of them – and at my first grammar school, for the first two years, followed by stuff that was more about ethics.



So how much teaching about other religions do you think that that state-funded Jewish school in Hackney, which I mentioned earlier in this thread, gets in order to balance the 50% of time that its pupils spend studying the Torah and other fairy tales, at the cost of the taxpayer?



Oh, I must have imagined my own upbringing, that of my sister and the programme with Dawkins that I mentioned earlier.

What a jolly little fantasist I am.

Now, for the sake of information, are we correct in assuming that you are not, yourself, a defensive religious nutjob? Because – presumably on the basis of some fantasy or other – you don't half come across as defensive.

In Australia priests who are put into a counsellor role in schools are not required to complete a child protection course, nor are they subject to the same rules (eg they can have one on ones with the door closed) is this the case in the UK?

The teaching of faith beyond what each one represents and the various differences should have no part in the schooling, if parents wish their children to be indoctrinated then they are free to take them to church, better still wait until they are old enough to make that choice for themselves.