Gideon's Bibles

[ProfessorDavey]

Somebody attempted to open an explicitly secular school a few years ago (I assume that this meant a school without daily worship of a broadly Christian nature, etc.) and was refused permission to do so.

That's right - because to do so would require a change to the law.

So Rose continually using the term 'secular school' is inappropriate - there are no secular schools, although I think that all state funded schools should be secular - i.e. totally neutral toward religion. But that doesn't, of course, mean that they would teach about religion - but would do so in a manner which is neutral.

[ProfessorDavey]

But thats ridiculous, and I don't think it happens.

For a start most large state schools can't have assembly because they can't get all the children in the main hall at the same time. ( so bang goes the collective worship)

I know that was the case when mine were at primary even more so at secondary.
M
I'm not even sure we had religious assemblies once I got to about 14. ( many years ago)

It was straight to the form you were in  and being registered as attending and then it was straight off to classes.

That was 40 odd years ago, has something changed in the last 20 years?

Firstly collective doesn't necessarily mean every kid in the school. Collective worship might be half the school, a single year group or even just one class, it is still collective.

But sure plenty of schools don't comply with the (farcical) law, but it remains in place. There are no secular schools in the  UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

It might not totally be the faith thing that does it, but about how the school is supported in the community, and teamwork.

I think the worst secular ones are the ones where that sense of outside community help is missing.

Do you really have any insight into non faith schools Rose - given the stuff you come out with I suspect not.

Don't forget many non faith schools are a type of school called a 'community' school (or rather used to be before they were effectively force to become academies). And the clue is in the name - schools embedded in and inherently part of their local community.

There is no issue with non faith schools being embedded in their local communities given that's who they represent, most have admissions criteria based on distance so they are local schools for local kids, at the heart of local communities.

Sure faith schools tap into a different kind of community - the narrow community that are of a particular faith (perhaps just 10% of the actual community) but often they are very detached from their actual local community. Indeed round my way most primary schools almost outdo each other in being visible in the local community - every event advertised for all to see (and everyone welcome to attend) christmas and summer fairs advertised up and down the local streets, often on altered estate agent boards. But there are some that don't, that are invisible as you drive, walk or cycle up and down the local streets. And those schools are the faith schools, who seem to have a deliberate policy not to interact with the community outside their narrow faith group. Sad but true.

So for example, I go past two local catholic schools (infant and junior) on my way to work. You'd never know they existed for all their visibility within the local community - yet look in the local church newsletter (which I see regularly as my wife is a parishioner) and there it all is. Happy to engage with their 'faith community' but deeply unwilling to engage with the actual community on their doorstep - you know the one that includes people of all faiths and none.

There is no problem with the sense of community amongst non faith schools - in part because the parents whose children attend are also your neighbours - unlike many faith schools where kids come from miles around and often there are very few who actually life locally.

[ProfessorDavey]

A church school has a service at Christmas and is connected to an outside community in a way that is lacking in the secular schools I've seen.

Then perhaps try and emulate that, in a secular school.

And what makes you think non faith schools don't Rose.

Guess what they do - indeed I was at my kids school christmas service/concert the week before christmas - packed to the rafters. Held in a local church (I'm sure the church is very rarely that full), and with quality of musicianship that was breathtaking - recorded by the local radio station as they know what a fantastic event it is.

And raising money for a local hospice.

And of course that's jut one of dozens of events that the school puts on - many of which are entirely open to the local community, who are very welcome to attend, and do in large numbers.

Rose you are terribly jaundiced about non faith schools - maybe you should find out about the best (or even mediocre ones that still engage very well with their local communities) and you'd change your mind. Don't forget that a school (along with a pub, shop and once upon a time a church) were always at the heart of a community. And they can only be at the heart of that community if they are the organisations that most in that community use. And most people in a local community use their local non faith schools - they are at the heart of a community in a manner that a faith school (except tiny villages where there is only one school) can simply never be, as they only represent perhaps 10% of the local community rather than all of it.

[Shaker]

I don't actually dislike non faith schools, it's just I think people should have a choice.

Why not make non faith schools really secular by removing the Christian worship?

It'll take a change in the law, and the usual suspects will be hopping up and down and bleating about the marginalisation of Christianity of course, but I suspect such a move is on its way.

[jeremyp]

Funny thing is ( according to some ) when it's not about religion it's ok to force something onto children which isn't their choice, it's a double standard.

I'm just justifying the point that a vegetarian school makes as much sense or more than a faith school. Personally I wouldn't allow either in the state sector although I would cater to special dietary requirements for vegetarian or religious reasons where possible.

Suddenly if it's about God,  it's abuse.  Veganism and it's suddenly ok.

I don't think it is actually. Child nutrition is far more critical than adult nutrition and a vegan diet needs to be planned very carefully to avoid malnutrition.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/20/veganism-safe-children

[ProfessorDavey]

Well the schools near you obviously do a lot, it doesn't make me wrong,  it just means that the schools I've come into contact with, just haven't done the same things.

Yes it does make you wrong when you generalise about the 13,000-ish non faith schools that you have no experience of on the basis of, what would appear to be a single poor non faith school that you do have experience of.

Just because that one was poor it doesn't mean all are poor - just as just because the faith school near me is poor it doesn't mean that all faith schools are poor. But I base my more general comments on actual data relating to many schools - including data on attainment and progress of students from every single school in the country.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't actually dislike non faith schools

You could have fooled me.

, it's just I think people should have a choice.

No you don't. You won't even countenance the notion of schools for the 12% of the population that are vegetarian or vegan. Yet you seem perfectly happy for tiny religions, with less than 1% of the population (e.g. Sikh) having their own schools. You don't actually support choice, you support maintenance of religious privilege.

Why not make non faith schools really secular by removing the Christian worship?

I couldn't agree more, and I suspect this will happen pretty soon.

And allow state faith schools,  for those who want the religious element.

That way you have more choice.

That's where we disagree for the reasons I have stated. I don't think any state funded school should have an ethos aligned with any belief, religious or otherwise. And part of the reason for that is on principle, that education transcends narrow differences in belief etc.

So schools (and other educational establishments such as universities) should welcome everyone regardless of their belief, race, religion etc. Our current approach is increasingly divisive - with kids of this religion off to that school, those of a different religion off to another, the non religious kids off to another and so on. How does that help social cohesion when we schooling our kids in a manner which means they are likely to rub shoulders with a narrow section of other kids who are broadly like them, rather the diversity of the society outside the school gate.

We worry about lack of understanding of religion, we worry about radicalisation, yet we resist the very things that would help instantly. Rather than learn about some other kids religion in theory, how much better if there is a strong likelihood that the kid next to you (who you do school work with, play with etc) is from that religious tradition. Rather than being told that some parents and their kids don't believe in god, how much better if there is a strong likelihood that the kid next to you (who you do school work with, play with etc) is atheist.

[Leonard James]

It makes more sense to me to keep faith schools to keep diversity in this country and the freedom to bring up children in your own tradition without having someone interfering and telling you what bits you should be following.

It isn't that I believe in any one religion or anything, but that other people have a different interpretation of their religion than I do, because we all make value judgements.

Faith schools give people freedom to do it their way.

I'm acknowledging that the way I see the world is not the only way, and I would like us as a country to keep a certain amount of freedom, so that people can have choices.

The trouble with the NSS and the BHA is the want to do away with that freedom by removing all secular faith schools and degrading religion down in to something else which fits their definition of that religion and their value judgements.


But it doesn't fit and will reduce the freedom and diversity in this country, and I think that's a wrong turn.

Since all religions are nothing more than the beliefs of ancient people, with no basis in facts, it is clearly wrong to educate children as if such beliefs ARE facts.

[ProfessorDavey]

I know that, but you were doing the same thing with faith schools earlier.

It seems ok to make out all faith schools are bad and have bad results but unfair and wrong when aimed at non religious schools.

No I haven't.

When I talked about academic results I used data from every school in the country. When I was talking about popularity I used data from every school in the county and my city - and also every school in the country (from the Telegraph data).

I have never said that faith schools are bad - I have said when proper comparisons are made (taking account of school type and student intake so that the only difference is faith vs non faith) that they are no different from non faith schools.

I do assert that there is no evidence that they are more popular, and plenty of evidence that they re less popular than non faith schools (based on evidence).

I do also assert that their admissions approaches are often unfair, specifically bringing in more affluent and higher prior attaining kids than their local demographic would suggest. But again that is based on comprehensive assessment of the intake of every school in the country - so based on evidence.

[Leonard James]

I would like to see the education system include classes on morality and good citizenship, and relegate religious beliefs to mythical studies.

[Leonard James]

Oh dear!

I really don't think you can all see how dictorial and judgemental you all are.

 

It's no good, you can't see my point.

 
We all have to be forced to see things your " one true way" .

Reminds me of a certain religious attitude.

I'm afraid until evidence is forthcoming for the existence of any "gods", it is the only sensible way to go.

[Leonard James]

People have a variety of opinions on what is sensible.

I would love to hear one reason why it is sensible to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh dear!

I really don't think you can all see how dictorial and judgemental you all are.

 

It's no good, you can't see my point.

 
We all have to be forced to see things your " one true way" .

Reminds me of a certain religious attitude.

Bizarre comment - I think it is the other way around.

It isn't me that is making sweeping judgements on the quality and popularity of 13,000 non faith schools based on your personal, and negative, experience of one.

It isn't me who is happy for everyone to have a school for that aligns with their own personal beliefs, however tiny a proportion of the population they are ... but only if that belief is religious, while failing to even countenance the possibility of a school for the massively greater proportion of the population who believe that eating meat is wrong on moral grounds.

Where I have made points about faith schools they have been based on broad evidence, not on narrow personal experience and anecdote.

Where I have provided an opinion on what schools should and should not be funded by the state I have based it on a cogent principled and pragmatic argument and also one that is consistent. So my personal opinion is that the state should not be funding schools run on the basis of a specific belief system. However if the state choses to do that it cannot reasonably limit those belief systems merely to religious beliefs - so if it is appropriate (in principle) to fund a Hindu school, it should also be appropriate to fund schools aligned with other non religious beliefs that are protected under current equality laws, so to include vegetarianism, secularism, humanism, environmentalism plus political beliefs too.

But of course I actually don't want to see a state funded humanist school or vegetarian school any more than I want to see a state funded christian school or jewish school. Rather I think that all state funded schools to be suitable for children regardless of their religious or other beliefs.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well they can't be, and they're not.

As I explained.

What can't be? and what isn't what?

Not really making much sense Rose.

If you mean that vegetarianism or veganism aren't beliefs as defined within UK equalities legislation, then sorry but you are wrong. Where they are based on a belief that eating meat is morally wrong then without doubt they qualify. Remember the requirements are:

'It must be genuinely held;
It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on information available at the moment; (2011 the present state of information available)
It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
It must attain  a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance;
It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society; (2011 and must not be incompatible with human dignity…)
It must be compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.'

Clearly fits, as does humanism for example too.

And do you mean they can't be allowed schools - why not. There is no reason, in principle, why schools associated with non religious beliefs cannot exist if those associated with religious beliefs are allowed.

The consistent view is to either accept that all are possible, should be supported and allowed (religious schools, vegetarianism schools, veganism schools, humanist schools, environmentalism schools etc) - or that none should be allowed state funding. To claim that only religious beliefs should be afforded state funding for schools is special pleading of the highest degree.

My view that none should be funded is consistent and based on a sound principled and pragmatic argument (even if you don't agree). Your view isn't consistent and that undermines your argument on both principle and pragmatic grounds.

How can you accept that a group of Sikh's want to set up a school based on Sikh principles and beliefs should be allowed to use state funding, but a group of vegans wanting to set up a school based on vegan principles and beliefs shouldn't be allowed state funding. Nonsense.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry
I was responding to this part of your post

My feeling was that no one size fits all

Indeed but you there are many, many ways to develop diversity in schooling that doesn't involve slicing the community into pigeon holes based on real or nominal religion. It is critically important (probably now more than ever) that our children have the opportunity to learn, play, fall out, make up etc etc with kids from all faiths and none. That is one of the most important educational lessons we can provide to our children. While we salami slice our communities and send the christian kids to one school, the muslim ones to another, the vegan kids to a third, the atheist kids to another (the one left) we won't achieve this and we will fail our children.

In no other publicly funded service would we possible accept separate provision based on religious faith and prioritising the access to service based on that faith - why do we accept it in schooling. Imagine if you went to the local hospital and they said 'sorry this is CofE hospital - you are jewish - to the back of the queue you go - we might treat you but not if there are any CofE patients who need treating - they will always get priority over you'. Nope we'd never allow it and nor should we in state funded schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

But ok if there was sufficient demand and was more definable, I'd give it a chance.

So exactly how many schools would you have to set up in each area. So you'd need:

CofE
RCC
Methodist
Jewish
Buddhist
Sikh
Muslim
Hindu
Vegetarian
Vegan
Environmentalist
Labour
Tory
LibDem
UKIP
Humanist
etc, etc, etc

Because you can't reasonable allow some but not all provided there is some demand (and lets be honest the current system tolerates and supports tiny religious schools that if the were faith would never be allowed to continue due to such limited demand).

Plus sufficient other school places for the 'ignored' majority who want their kids to attend a school without an 'ism' and to be able to rub shoulders with all sorts of kids.

It is pragmatically impossible and non-sensical, while of course (in my opinion) wrong on principle.

[Leonard James]

But it isn't like that, many Muslims will go to non religious schools, so will many Christians.

There will always be diversity in non religious schools, faith schools is just freedom for some who want something different who are perhaps stricter.

It's just not comparable to a hospital.

Unless of course you compare it to a private one, that will only treat you if you have money.

It's just about choice, not being forced to conform.

None of which excuses teaching children beliefs as facts.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it isn't like that, many Muslims will go to non religious schools, so will many Christians.

There will always be diversity in non religious schools, faith schools is just freedom for some who want something different who are perhaps stricter.

It's just not comparable to a hospital.

Unless of course you compare it to a private one, that will only treat you if you have money.

It's just about choice, not being forced to conform.

You wouldn't allow any NHS funded hospital to discriminate against people in treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. Nor I suspect would you in other publicly funded services. Indeed it would be unlawful. Why do you accept such discrimination in state funded schools?

[ProfessorDavey]

Because I don't see schools in the same way as hospitals.

But both are state funded and both school provide their services without discrimination on the basis of faith or belief. Hospitals don't, but faith schools do discriminate.

A hospital is something we all may need at sometime or another, but for medical treatment, which is a physical thing.
People go there when they are ill and in need. When you go into a hospital its goal isn't to mould your character and educate you.

Since when is it the job of the state to mould your character - that is surely the responsibility of parents, not the state. I am actually rather frightened by the notion that the role of the state is to mould the character of my children. I think that's what happens in some rather authoritarian countries but should not in a country that respects individual freedoms such as the UK. The role of state funded schools should be to provide the highest quality education for children.

[Leonard James]

The role of state funded schools should be to provide the highest quality education for children.

And teaching them that "God" is real rather than an illusion isn't included in 'quality education'.

[Outrider]

Schools are different, they are there to educate and mould the future generation something entirely different to a hospital.

As we all think different things are right, have differing opinions of what is important and see the world in different ways (and how children are raised matters a lot to most parents) I think we should cater for some differences of opinion within the education of children.

Yes, we should - we should give the children information and intellectual tools so that they can decide for themselves what their opinions will be.

Making all faith schools private schools deprives poor religious people of choice.

But allowing religious people to limit their children's exposure to other ideas deprives those children of choice - whose rights take precedence? In my view those children deserve to have their own lives and their own choices, whilst their parents have already made their choices.

So I think there is room for state funded faith schools.

That rather depends on what you think the role of faith within the school is - if it's to skew the curriculum to represent a particular view of reality to children then no; if you think it's an opportunity for a religion to back education as a charitable endeavour then I whole-heartedly agree.

What qualifies can depend on many factors such as demand, and how many children in the catchment area. That they teach a positive message about other religions and the rest of society.  They would have to be measured on what they taught the children aside from religion.

Unfortunately, particularly in rural areas, that idea that you can choose between local schools is a myth. In Oxford - not a rural area - there's a huge swathe that's only served by C of E schools, there is not a state-funded secular option for parents to choose.

In the small town in which I live there are two C of E primaries, a Catholic primary and a Jewish primary - not only does that leave atheist/secular parent with a quandry, what are the options for the few muslim families in the area?

But there is only so much money and room for themed schools ( perhaps that's better a word than faith schools).

Exactly, and if you're unfortunate enough not to fit the theme what do you do? Do you send your five or six year old on a two or three mile walk? A seven or eight mile bus trip across town? The point of small, local primaries is to facilitate getting small children who can't easily travel long distances to them to keep the school day short and the disruption to parents low.

A drama school is a themed school, or could be.

Specialist academies is a slightly different issue.

It's about not being judgemental, and acknowledging what other people who differ from me,  want.

No, it's about not being judgmental and not presuming that a child of people with a particular faith position should be restrained in their life choices by those parents' faith position.

If there is enough demand for a faith school, fine.

No, a child's future shouldn't be subject to market forces.

As long as it is properly run and the children cared for and taught about the world around them.

If that's the case, why not have a universal curriculum that applies to all, why create faith schools that have exemptions from certain areas: either something is worth learning or it isn't.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

It happens in just about every country in one form of another, or it takes a slightly different form in say a communist country.

But it is there.

Look up non cognative skills.

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/Non-cognitive_skills_literature_review_2.pdf

Also this is in part what teaching citizenship is about.

It's about moulding children to how the state wants them to be.

Did you not know this?

One of my friends taught citizenship and is a sociologist, and we often discussed it.

http://www.citized.info/pdf/commarticles/James_Arthur.pdf

Citizenship is a very obvious way of the state moulding children.

To someone who is strictly religious they may see something like citizenship as an attempt to mould their child into something the state wants, rather than adhering to their faith.

Therefore you have this battle going on which deep down is about the moulding of a child's mind.

A lot a religious people want their children to go to a school that is going to mould them in line with what they believe.

It's the same for the non religious I guess, they don't really want their child to leave school as a catholic.

Children are going to be moulded anyway, because it's natural for them to learn from those around them.

Hence religious or non religious people sometimes want schools that are fertile to them being moulded a certain way, one that fits in with their philosophy of life.

Non religious schools mould them another way, which has a more independent veiw on life to the point where they feel the religious element isn't a moulding the approve of.

It's the reason why very very strict religious groups see non religious schools as brainwashing their children and why the whole discussion is some what embittered.

They, like you, see the state moulding their children as a frightening and undesirable thing.

No schools my kids have attended have moulded their character and I'd be very concerned if they tried to do so.

And I have no idea where (and most importantly when) your notion of citizenship comes from but in my experience it certainly isn't 'the state moulding children', in other words attempting to create uniformity - quite the reverse. Where it touching on 'character' much of it is about understanding individuality and developing respect for individuals regardless of their individual attributes etc.

Actually most of it is rather 'factual' - for example ensuring kids understand how our government and democracy work, likewise our judicial system. And also developing skills and 'tools' to help support kids as they become independent adults - such as critical thinking and debating skills and financial management.

Nothing in the agreed curriculum could remotely be considered to be the state moulding the character of the kids.

So rather than some clearly outdated article (your link), here is the latest national curriculum on citizenship:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239060/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Citizenship.pdf

Explain to me where this equates to the state moulding the character of the kids. It doesn't and there would be an outcry were it to do so, and not just from parents and pupils but from teachers too.

[ProfessorDavey]

The trouble is everyone thinks children should be moulded to think like they do 

No they don't, speak for yourself.

I want my children to develop their own voice, their own opinions their own passions - if those align with mine, fine, but if not that's fine too. Children aren't mini extensions of their parents, they are separate and individual people and should be allowed to develop in the way that is right for them, not necessary the way their parents think.

[Outrider]

The trouble is everyone thinks children should be moulded to think like they do 

No, some of us just think that children should be taught to think, and given the tools and the information to do so.

But by teaching them to think like you ( giving them the tools) you are hoping they will find your answers in life or ones that fit in with your own philosophy of life.

No, and yes - my philosophy is they should have the personal liberty to find their own philosophy. They don't have to find my answers, they have to find their own, but they have to be given the freedom to do that. I think they should be taught about various religions and religious ideas, because they can't make an informed choice if they aren't, but I don't think they should be exposed to a limited number of them, or a particularly line of them, or treated as though they are predestined to cleave to the thinking of their parents.

e is trying to do the same thing, give the children the tools ( mould them) to find the right answers in life.

The " right"  answer here is subject to what an individual believes.

Exactly, there are no 'right' answers - education shouldn't be giving answers, it should be giving tools to find answers.

For a religious person it could be the tools to find God, to you it's the tools to make their own discoveries ie " science"

No, not necessarily 'science' - science applies to everyone, regardless of their beliefs, they don't need to accept it, it happens anyway. They should have the freedom to look at religions, look at atheism, look at spirituality and find their own path for themselves.

Not be beholden to a state-sponsored 'acceptable' list, not be pigeon-holed by what their parents beliefs are, and certainly not be constrained to my feelings of what works for me.

O.