We need to talk about secular humanism.

[ProfessorDavey]

Proportionate to who?

Proportionate to the numbers of people who are actively religious in the UK, and to proportionately include non-religious moral philosophical standpoints. Now you love the term 'world-view', so here is an organisation using that in the context of reform of the RC curriculum to fit the 21stC. This seems very reasonable and sensible:

21st Century RE for all - It's time to reform religious and belief education

A high quality education for all

We want every pupil to have the same entitlement to high quality, non-partisan education about worldviews. We want to see all schools preparing young people for life in modern Britain by teaching pupils about:
- The diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews.
- How people's worldviews may influence their thinking on philosophical, moral and cultural issues.
- Worldviews and rights: how the freedom to manifest religion and belief interacts with the rights of others.

Any form of confessionalism/religious instruction should be separated from this subject, and should only take place in a voluntary - non-state funded environment.

Of and that organisation ... the NSS. Now I guess had you not realised this was the campaign statement from the NSS you'd have no issue with it, but will disagree simply because you don't like the NSS. But nonetheless does this sound like an organisation that wants to abolish RE - clearly not.

[ProfessorDavey]

I understand that the NSS consider the amount of religious broadcasting to be disproportionately high, when it is in fact miniscule.

Really - evidence please. As far as I can see the campaign information from the NSS makes no comment about the amount of religious broadcasting. It's main point is about the discriminatory nature of Thought for the Day which bans non religious participants even though they might have interesting and valid moral and philosophical 'thoughts'.

On religious broadcasting, their view is:

There is a place for high quality, critical religion and belief programming on the BBC. The public broadcaster undoubtedly can promote literacy on contemporary matters of religion and belief. We think the BBC should completely move away from proselytising, discriminatory or extremely deferential programming.

[ProfessorDavey]

OK...But there must have been a class of school that wasn't a catechical establishment nor a secular school and that people were suggesting should, if not actually, be funded.

Not really as in 1870 a secular school was one that was defined as not having a religious foundation. So all schools were, in effect, one or the other. The church establishment opposed the provisions of the 1870 act to allow the establishment of secular state schools, funded from taxes and controlled by an elected school board. The churches wanted only their schools to be allowed - ones that had a religious foundation, were private (but they wanted grants from the state to support them) and under the control of religious authorities.

[ProfessorDavey]

But here's where you are in error linking all non catechical schools with modern state schools where RE is taught.

Not really - sure things have moved on in the last 150 years, but the foundations established for the secular schools in the 1870 act remain clearly visible today in our non-faith schools. Notably that RE must be on the curriculum, should be taught without favouring one denomination over another and that parents have the right to remove their children.

Where was the evidence that founders of secular schools wanted these ''bible-reading'' schools abolished...

Again you are misunderstanding things - the 'bible reading' schools was a derogatory term used by the church establishment and the National Educational Union to describe the secular schools - in effect that they merely 'read the bible' rather than were required to worship and be instructed into a particular denomination. So, of course the secularists didn't want to abolish the 'bible reading' schools, as these were, in fact, the secular schools that they had established.

... or even church schools abolished?

As far as I am aware they didn't want the church school abolished, however they did campaign against them receiving public money. This all came to a head with the 1902 Education Act which established the system of funding of church schools which isn't a mile away from what we have today - at that time state funding became available for secular teaching in the church schools, but not for religious instruction nor for maintenance of the buildings.

The reality is that the relation of the churches towards eduction and the state has followed a familiar cycle over the past 150 years, namely.

1. We want to be in control of education, we don't want the state involved - we oppose anyone else being involved (1870)
2. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1902)
3. Sure we have state funding but we must be private, we don't want the state involved (1902-1944)
4. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1944)
5. Sure we have state funding and are state schools, we don't want the state involved in any decision making (1944-1959)
6. We've gone bust, we can't afford to maintain our schools, we want the state to bail us out
7. Repeat 6 several times as the amount of funding churches are required to input into maintaining their schools (despite them owning the assets) has dwindled to effectively no different to any other state school (who don't own the assets).

So in effect cycles of the churches telling the state to F-off out of their business and then going cap in hand to the state when they'd run out of money.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - sure things have moved on in the last 150 years, but the foundations established for the secular schools in the 1870 act remain clearly visible today in our non-faith schools. Notably that RE must be on the curriculum, should be taught without favouring one denomination over another and that parents have the right to remove their children.

But there seems to be no attempt to convert schools to secular humanity schools, the onus being on foundation. Therefore afar less hard secularism.

Again you are misunderstanding things - the 'bible reading' schools was a derogatory term used by the church establishment and the National Educational Union to describe the secular schools -

And again is this correct since you cannot have a group of secular schools (yet to be founded large scale) and a separate group perjoritively called bible reading. The detractors give evidence of two distinct types here. Where is your evidence that they are one and the same?

in effect that they merely 'read the bible' rather than were required to worship and be instructed into a particular denomination. So, of course the secularists didn't want to abolish the 'bible reading' schools, as these were, in fact, the secular schools that they had established.

Neither did they wish to ban church schools proper. And they had a foundation drive unlike the Faith schools campaign

1. We want to be in control of education, we don't want the state involved - we oppose anyone else being involved (1870)
2. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1902)
3. Sure we have state funding but we must be private, we don't want the state involved (1902-1944)
4. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1944)
5. Sure we have state funding and are state schools, we don't want the state involved in any decision making (1944-1959)
6. We've gone bust, we can't afford to maintain our schools, we want the state to bail us out
7. Repeat 6 several times as the amount of funding churches are required to input into maintaining their schools (despite them owning the assets) has dwindled to effectively no different to any other state school (who don't own the assets).

This account seems to be really biased, romanticised and revisionist. Can you point to any evidence for it? The question is of course were church schools providing a public service...if they were then why not public funding?

[ProfessorDavey]

But there seems to be no attempt to convert schools to secular humanity schools, the onus being on foundation.

None of this discussion has anything to do with humanism or even humanity [sic]. It is about secularism - you know separation of state and church. Hence a state funded school with a religious foundation and controlled by religious authorities isn't secular. A state funded school without a religious foundation and controlled by secular authorities is, err, secular.

[ProfessorDavey]

Neither did they wish to ban church schools proper.  And they had a foundation drive unlike the Faith schools campaign

Actually, despite being separated by some 150 years the campaign objectives are incredibly similar - namely that they both had no issue with schools with a religious foundation existing, but they objected to public funding for those schools.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of this discussion has anything to do with humanism or even humanity [sic]. It is about secularism - you know separation of state and church. Hence a state funded school with a religious foundation and controlled by religious authorities isn't secular. A state funded school without a religious foundation and controlled by secular authorities is, err, secular.

So on a thread about secular Humanism does that represent derail, a successful shimmy to not talk about humanism or what?

I think humanism has been at least touched upon since a secular school where religion is taught in the form of a hybrid of geography and history yet has a humanist ethos is a uniquely secular humanist establishment. Not a bad thing in itself perhaps but it representing all of educational contexts? Not sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, despite being separated by some 150 years the campaign objectives are incredibly similar - namely that they both had no issue with schools with a religious foundation existing, but they objected to public funding for those schools.

But what about this type of school perjoratively called ''mere bible reading schools'' mentioned as a separate category from secular schools.
Did they want these schools to have funding? Again a reference or two might be handy.

[ProfessorDavey]

So on a thread about secular Humanism does that represent derail, a successful shimmy to not talk about humanism or what?

I think humanism has been at least touched upon since a secular school where religion is taught in the form of a hybrid of geography and history yet has a humanist ethos is a uniquely secular humanist establishment. Not a bad thing in itself perhaps but it representing all of educational contexts? Not sure.

As a sub-component of this thread we are discussing the history of state education in England & Wales. The distinction between secular and non-secular schooling has been at the heart of that debate since 1870 when the first state schools were established. Humanism has never been a part of that debate as there are no state humanist schools today, nor have their been over the past 150 year. So a complete red herring and let's get back to the discussion of secularism in state education in England & Wales.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As a sub-component of this thread we are discussing the history of state education in England & Wales. The distinction between secular and non-secular schooling has been at the heart of that debate since 1870 when the first state schools were established. Humanism has never been a part of that debate as there are no state humanist schools today, nor have their been over the past 150 year. So a complete red herring and let's get back to the discussion of secularism in state education in England & Wales.

No I don't think it is a red herring seeing this is a discussion of the aims of people and the evidence coming from discussion of these matters is how antireligious are the campaigns, what effectively seeps into any vacuum resulting and why is it that Humanists are pushing this?

Also there is another mystery we have touched on. Why have secularists and humanist given up on school foundation but not say university foundation and why are Humanists majoring on minimising religious influence but completely blase about how their own world view is taught.

[ProfessorDavey]

But what about this type of school perjoratively called ''mere bible reading schools'' mentioned as a separate category from secular schools.

They are the same thing. There were only two types of school established through the 1870 act, which first created state schools. Firstly so-called voluntary schools, that had religious foundations and remained private schools. Secondly secular 'Board' schools which were the first state schools in England, established without religious foundation and under the control of a secular School Board (hence secular).

If you actually want to educatE yourself a bit, there is huge amounts of information here:

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/index.html

However I suspect there may be a little too much information for you Vlad and also you might not like what it says.

This is also very interesting, but covers really just Church of England schools and the history of the The National Society (Church of England and Church in Wales) for the Promotion of Education which has been around since 1811 and is effectively the body that has overarching responsibility for CofE schooling. It is a little one-side both in its content (understandably) but also its editorial slant (perhaps not unreasonably as it is a history of the society produced by the society).

https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2012%20Distinctive%20and%20Inclusive%20-%20The%20National%20Society%20and%20Church%20of%20England%20Schools%201811%20-%202011.pdf

However if you read both document you will see that my cyclical timelines hold true, with regular points where the church schools effectively went bust, or close to bust, and went cap in hand to the state. Perhaps I use somewhat different language but the reality holds true. So for example:

In the run up to the 1902 Act:

The cost of sustaining this expanded provision was huge. 'Knowingly or not the churches had overreached themselves' (Gates 2005:19), and 'the initial impetus given to voluntary-school building by the passing of the Act could not be maintained' (Lawson and Silver 1973:320). During the 1890s the number of voluntary schools fell by over 350 (there were 14,500 in 1900), while the number of board schools rose by almost a thousand.

The Church of England's objective was

to get the maximum public subsidy while conceding the least possible control, and at the same time, if possible, to reverse the 1870 compromise embodied in the Cowper-Temple clause and obtain entry for Anglican teaching in the board schools (Simon 1965:215).

In the run up to the 1936 Act:

In the 1929 election campaign, the Conservatives promised 'actively to seek an agreed settlement which will enable provided and non-provided schools to work together' (quoted in Simon 1974:150), to complete reorganisation and to improve all 'blacklisted' school buildings. This would be a major task because many church schools were in a state of chronic disrepair: of around 3,000 'blacklisted' schools condemned by the Board of Education in 1925 as 'unfit for further use', most were church schools (Simon 1991:52).

However, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church made it clear that, unless there was a settlement which met their demands, 'they would arrest all advance - in terms of reorganisation - by any means to hand' (Simon 1974:150).

In the run up to the 1944 Act:

By 1938 more than half the schools in England and Wales belonged to the churches; they educated about a third of the nation's children. Almost all these 'voluntary' or 'non-provided' schools were housed in Victorian buildings which the churches (mainly the Church of England and the Catholic Church) could not afford to maintain. They were 'the epitome of low-level mass education' (Jones 2003:18). Many were in a state of chronic disrepair: NUT President GCT Giles (of whom more below) called them 'pigsty schools' (Giles 1946:35), and Dent said they were 'a disgrace to any civilised people' and were 'condoned and perpetuated by the very institution in society - organised religion - which properly ought to be most concerned to improve them' (Dent 1942:23). He went on:

To-day, in spite of the accumulated evidence that they are quite unable to provide and maintain schools of a satisfactory standard, the Churches resolutely refuse to surrender their buildings to the State. It is easy to appreciate their concern that children shall be instructed in the Christian Faith according to their particular tenets, but it is difficult for the impartial observer to reconcile the tender care they manifest for the children's souls with the disregard they exhibit for their bodies (Dent 1942:24).
Of particular concern was the churches' inability (or unwillingness) to carry out 'Hadow reorganisation': by 1938, 62 per cent of council schools had been reorganised, but only 16 per cent of church schools. Several million children were thus condemned to spend their entire school career within a single 'all-age' school with no access to specialised teaching. 'Local authorities, and others, were in despair about the situation' (Simon 1991:52).

And I could go on, specifically since 1944 the numerous times when the churches have said they cannot afford to maintain their schools and demanded more and more capital funding. The 1944 Act specified a 50:50 split between church and state funds to maintain the church-owned asset. In the 1959 Act 75% funding was to be funded by the state, state funding increased further to 80% in 1967, to 85% in 1975 and finally to 90% - in each case precipitated by the churches pleading poverty. And even though church schools are legally obliged to contribute 10% to certain capital projects they don't even fulfil this obligation, with the most recent evidence indicating they only contribute 7%.

Now before you claim that non faith schools contribute nothing - that is simply untrue. For any significant capital programme these days there is a default expectation of 10% school contribution at the minimum. As a school governor at a non-faith school I've been involved in several of these multiple-million £ projects, and guess what? We've fulfilled our obligation to provide 10% of the capital costs from other sources. We'd have loved to have said, no we can only afford 7%, but we didn't - we abide by the rules.

[Sebastian Toe]

They are the same thing. There were only two types of school established through the 1870 act, which first created state schools. Firstly so-called voluntary schools, that had religious foundations and remained private schools. Secondly secular 'Board' schools which were the first state schools in England, established without religious foundation and under the control of a secular School Board (hence secular).

If you actually want to education yourself a bit, there is huge amounts of information here:

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/index.html

However I suspect there may be a little too much information for you Vlad

.........

Squirrel Secularist
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are the same thing. There were only two types of school established through the 1870 act, which first created state schools. Firstly so-called voluntary schools, that had religious foundations and remained private schools. Secondly secular 'Board' schools which were the first state schools in England, established without religious foundation and under the control of a secular School Board (hence secular).

That doesn't identify what seems to be a separate category of schools which seem to predate the 1870 acts namely those perjoratively called ''bible-reading schools

If you actually want to educatE yourself a bit, there is huge amounts of information here:

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/index.html

Thanks I shall peruse that.


The cost of sustaining this expanded provision was huge. 'Knowingly or not the churches had overreached themselves' (Gates 2005:19), and 'the initial impetus given to voluntary-school building by the passing of the Act could not be maintained' (Lawson and Silver 1973:320). During the 1890s the number of voluntary schools fell by over 350 (there were 14,500 in 1900), while the number of board schools rose by almost a thousand.

The Church of England's objective was

to get the maximum public subsidy while conceding the least possible control, and at the same time, if possible, to reverse the 1870 compromise embodied in the Cowper-Temple clause and obtain entry for Anglican teaching in the board schools (Simon 1965:215).

In the run up to the 1936 Act:

In the 1929 election campaign, the Conservatives promised 'actively to seek an agreed settlement which will enable provided and non-provided schools to work together' (quoted in Simon 1974:150), to complete reorganisation and to improve all 'blacklisted' school buildings. This would be a major task because many church schools were in a state of chronic disrepair: of around 3,000 'blacklisted' schools condemned by the Board of Education in 1925 as 'unfit for further use', most were church schools (Simon 1991:52).

However, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church made it clear that, unless there was a settlement which met their demands, 'they would arrest all advance - in terms of reorganisation - by any means to hand' (Simon 1974:150).

In the run up to the 1944 Act:

By 1938 more than half the schools in England and Wales belonged to the churches; they educated about a third of the nation's children. Almost all these 'voluntary' or 'non-provided' schools were housed in Victorian buildings which the churches (mainly the Church of England and the Catholic Church) could not afford to maintain. They were 'the epitome of low-level mass education' (Jones 2003:18). Many were in a state of chronic disrepair: NUT President GCT Giles (of whom more below) called them 'pigsty schools' (Giles 1946:35), and Dent said they were 'a disgrace to any civilised people' and were 'condoned and perpetuated by the very institution in society - organised religion - which properly ought to be most concerned to improve them' (Dent 1942:23). He went on:

To-day, in spite of the accumulated evidence that they are quite unable to provide and maintain schools of a satisfactory standard, the Churches resolutely refuse to surrender their buildings to the State. It is easy to appreciate their concern that children shall be instructed in the Christian Faith according to their particular tenets, but it is difficult for the impartial observer to reconcile the tender care they manifest for the children's souls with the disregard they exhibit for their bodies (Dent 1942:24).
Of particular concern was the churches' inability (or unwillingness) to carry out 'Hadow reorganisation': by 1938, 62 per cent of council schools had been reorganised, but only 16 per cent of church schools. Several million children were thus condemned to spend their entire school career within a single 'all-age' school with no access to specialised teaching. 'Local authorities, and others, were in despair about the situation' (Simon 1991:52).

And I could go on, specifically since 1944 the numerous times when the churches have said they cannot afford to maintain their schools and demanded more and more capital funding. The 1944 Act specified a 50:50 split between church and state funds to maintain the church-owned asset. In the 1959 Act 75% funding was to be funded by the state, state funding increased further to 80% in 1967, to 85% in 1975 and finally to 90% - in each case precipitated by the churches pleading poverty. And even though church schools are legally obliged to contribute 10% to certain capital projects they don't even fulfil this obligation, with the most recent evidence indicating they only contribute 7%.

Now before you claim that non faith schools contribute nothing - that is simply untrue. For any significant capital programme these days there is a default expectation of 10% school contribution at the minimum. As a school governor at a non-faith school I've been involved in several of these multiple-million £ projects, and guess what? We've fulfilled our obligation to provide 10% of the capital costs from other sources. We'd have loved to have said, no we can only afford 7%, but we didn't - we abide by the rules.

I don't recall denying that providing a public service cost the Churches. You seem to be pushing a financial mismanagement by churches agenda here as a smokescreen. Schools, Academy trusts and Local authorities have been running short of money since 1870 I think you'll find

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to be pushing a financial mismanagement by churches agenda here as a smokescreen.

It isn't a smokescreen and certainly there have been times over the past 150 years where there has been clear financial mismanagement - most notably between 1870 and 1900 when churches built schools they new they could possibly find the money to maintain, with public funding in an attempt to crowd out secular Board schools.

Schools, Academy trusts and Local authorities have been running short of money since 1870 I think you'll find

But there is a world of difference between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure depending on who owns the asset.

So revenue expenditure - day to day spending on staff, consumables, most equipment etc etc is covered 100% in both faith and non-faith schools by the state.

The difference is capital expenditure. Realistically both faith and non-faith schools are likely to be required to cough up 10% of the costs of any major project, but the key difference is who owns the asset. In the case of non-faith schools it is, effectively, the state. So when the state invests in its asset (e.g. a new school building) it owns the asset which is now worth more. And that increased capital value sits on its books. So if the state invests £3M in a new school building the value of the state owned asset increases by £3M. Sure they have to find the money but in accounting terms they are even - they've invested £3M and increased the value of their asset by £3M.

But that isn't the case for most faith schools where the assets (buildings etc) are actually owned by the religious organisation. So if they spend £3M on a new building their asset will increase by £3M (perhaps more). Yet they are only contributing perhaps £300k. So the church invests just £300k (realistically even less than that) yet they end up owning an asset that is worth £3M more. Great deal for the church. Terrible deal for the state (i.e. the tax-payer) - they invest £2.7M but in reality in accounting terms they are simply transferring that capital value from the state to the church.

If churches want to retain ownership of these buildings and retain the cash if they sell them (which is often the case) then it isn't unreasonable that they should find the money to maintain/improve them themselves. If on the other had they want the tax-payer to cough up the bill then the value of the asset should reasonably be transferred to the state on the basis of the relative investment from the state and the church. But that isn't what happens. So since 1944 the overwhelming majority of the money to maintain and improve faith school buildings has come from the state yet the church continues to own the maintained/improved asset 100%.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't a smokescreen and certainly there have been times over the past 150 years where there has been clear financial mismanagement - most notably between 1870 and 1900 when churches built schools they new they could possibly find the money to maintain, with public funding in an attempt to crowd out secular Board schools.
But there is a world of difference between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure depending on who owns the asset.

So revenue expenditure - day to day spending on staff, consumables, most equipment etc etc is covered 100% in both faith and non-faith schools by the state.

The difference is capital expenditure. Realistically both faith and non-faith schools are likely to be required to cough up 10% of the costs of any major project, but the key difference is who owns the asset. In the case of non-faith schools it is, effectively, the state. So when the state invests in its asset (e.g. a new school building) it owns the asset which is now worth more. And that increased capital value sits on its books. So if the state invests £3M in a new school building the value of the state owned asset increases by £3M. Sure they have to find the money but in accounting terms they are even - they've invested £3M and increased the value of their asset by £3M.

But that isn't the case for most faith schools where the assets (buildings etc) are actually owned by the religious organisation. So if they spend £3M on a new building their asset will increase by £3M (perhaps more). Yet they are only contributing perhaps £300k. So the church invests just £300k (realistically even less than that) yet they end up owning an asset that is worth £3M more. Great deal for the church. Terrible deal for the state (i.e. the tax-payer) - they invest £2.7M but in reality in accounting terms they are simply transferring that capital value from the state to the church.

If churches want to retain ownership of these buildings and retain the cash if they sell them (which is often the case) then it isn't unreasonable that they should find the money to maintain/improve them themselves. If on the other had they want the tax-payer to cough up the bill then the value of the asset should reasonably be transferred to the state on the basis of the relative investment from the state and the church. But that isn't what happens. So since 1944 the overwhelming majority of the money to maintain and improve faith school buildings has come from the state yet the church continues to own the maintained/improved asset 100%.

May I just point out something of the providence of your source material as recommended by you. This from chapter six

''But in other respects, the 1870 Act failed to resolve the problem of the involvement of the churches in state educational provision. It could have begun to separate church and state, as was happening in other countries. 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism, institutional convenience and a political predisposition to enjoy religious company in spite of its irks' (Gates 2005:18).''

Since involvement of the churches is seen as a ''problem'' this is not a neutral source is it Davey?

That said, what do you see as the problem? It can't be financial after all '' 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism'' so what is it? and when is the job of secularisation in education finished, bearing in mind that as a secularist I think reducing RE to a hybrid of History and Geography as over the top yet that is where we find ourselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't a smokescreen and certainly there have been times over the past 150 years where there has been clear financial mismanagement - most notably between 1870 and 1900 when churches built schools they new they could possibly find the money to maintain, with public funding in an attempt to crowd out secular Board schools.
But there is a world of difference between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure depending on who owns the asset.

So revenue expenditure - day to day spending on staff, consumables, most equipment etc etc is covered 100% in both faith and non-faith schools by the state.

The difference is capital expenditure. Realistically both faith and non-faith schools are likely to be required to cough up 10% of the costs of any major project, but the key difference is who owns the asset. In the case of non-faith schools it is, effectively, the state. So when the state invests in its asset (e.g. a new school building) it owns the asset which is now worth more. And that increased capital value sits on its books. So if the state invests £3M in a new school building the value of the state owned asset increases by £3M. Sure they have to find the money but in accounting terms they are even - they've invested £3M and increased the value of their asset by £3M.

But that isn't the case for most faith schools where the assets (buildings etc) are actually owned by the religious organisation. So if they spend £3M on a new building their asset will increase by £3M (perhaps more). Yet they are only contributing perhaps £300k. So the church invests just £300k (realistically even less than that) yet they end up owning an asset that is worth £3M more. Great deal for the church. Terrible deal for the state (i.e. the tax-payer) - they invest £2.7M but in reality in accounting terms they are simply transferring that capital value from the state to the church.

If churches want to retain ownership of these buildings and retain the cash if they sell them (which is often the case) then it isn't unreasonable that they should find the money to maintain/improve them themselves. If on the other had they want the tax-payer to cough up the bill then the value of the asset should reasonably be transferred to the state on the basis of the relative investment from the state and the church. But that isn't what happens. So since 1944 the overwhelming majority of the money to maintain and improve faith school buildings has come from the state yet the church continues to own the maintained/improved asset 100%.

I'm interested in how this practice qualitatively or quantitatively differs from academy trusts being handed council land other than of course, the religious element.

I believe any gain like this would be open to any partaker of the free school set up?

[ProfessorDavey]

May I just point out something of the providence of your source material as recommended by you. This from chapter six

''But in other respects, the 1870 Act failed to resolve the problem of the involvement of the churches in state educational provision. It could have begun to separate church and state, as was happening in other countries. 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism, institutional convenience and a political predisposition to enjoy religious company in spite of its irks' (Gates 2005:18).''

Since involvement of the churches is seen as a ''problem'' this is not a neutral source is it Davey?

That said, what do you see as the problem? It can't be financial after all '' 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism'' so what is it? and when is the job of secularisation in education finished, bearing in mind that as a secularist I think reducing RE to a hybrid of History and Geography as over the top yet that is where we find ourselves.

It isn't non-neutral to indicate that there has been a 'problem' of the involvement of churches in state education provision. That is self evident as we are having the same debate now as people had 150 year ago. If someone talked about the 'Irish problem' that wouldn't indicate that they were pro or anti a united Ireland merely that they recognise this to be an ongoing and contentious issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm interested in how this practice qualitatively or quantitatively differs from academy trusts being handed council land other than of course, the religious element.

I believe any gain like this would be open to any partaker of the free school set up?

I am a governor (well actually a Trustee) of an academy trust school, and there are major differences between academies and VA schools which don't relate just to religion. You may be aware that not all VA school are religious - there are a tiny number of non religious VA schools.

One difference is that the ownership of the trust land and buildings by the trust/trustees is nominal only. We can do nothing with the land and buildings and our structure is effectively merely the same as a LEA but driven down a level or two. So we are really just a public body. That is entirely different to a religious diocese that is a very real thing and is not a public body whatsoever. The controlling body of a VA school has far greater authority to act over its land and buildings compared to an academy trust. You may also be aware that VA schools dug their heals in over academisation in order to gain concessions so that if they became academies they would retain control in a manner that most academies don't.

Academy land and buildings are basically public land not private land, so value on sale reverts back to the public purse. That isn't the case for VA schools where the land/buildings are owned by the diocese and are therefore considered to be private land. However there is the basic provision of 'publicly funded improvement' - effectively this is a fundamental provision that if the state improves private land or property then it must receive back the value of the investment on sale or realisation of the value of that land or building. Problem is that this doesn't apply to VA schools - this from official DfE guidance:

'In practice most previously private land at voluntary-aided schools would currently be unlikely to meet the legal definition of publicly funded land following enhancement, since central grant from the Department was not covered prior to 2007, and since 2007 has required a specific notice that the grant will act to make the land meet the definition of publicly funded land. Notwithstanding this likelihood, the Department requires that the local authority be offered the chance to give their view on whether or not the land is publicly funded.'

So the best to be hoped for is that the local authority can make an argument that the land is publicly funded, but no guarantee of success. Therefore this means that if the VA school decides to sell land and buildings it is likely to be able to pocket the value of the sale regardless of there being public funding to improve or even to build the building. And I know this has happened - I'm aware of a situation in Wales where the diocese sold off one school site for housing development and split the proceeds between building a new school on a different and cheaper site with the balance going directly to the diocese. This despite there being significant public funding on that original school over decades.

[jeremyp]

I put it to you that educational agenda was started in church schools and promoted through the numerous teacher training colleges of church foundation.

What if it was? That was then. This is now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't non-neutral to indicate that there has been a 'problem' of the involvement of churches in state education provision. That is self evident as we are having the same debate now as people had 150 year ago. If someone talked about the 'Irish problem' that wouldn't indicate that they were pro or anti a united Ireland merely that they recognise this to be an ongoing and contentious issue.

But what is the problem Davey? Apparently it was an economically expedient. Church schools existed long before state provision existed, the state wasn't entirely secular either in membership and constitution of government and local government.

Again it seems the problems are all from the Hard secularists perspective.
I do not believe there has been an Irish problem. The irish problem is as we have recently learned has always been the English problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What if it was? That was then. This is now.

But is the faith schools campaign an educational agenda really, or is it a secular humanists agenda?

[Outrider]

But is the faith schools campaign an educational agenda really, or is it a secular humanists agenda?

It's an educational issue - don't the children attending faith schools deserve an education free of overt, state-funded indoctrination into a faith?

It's a secular issue - doesn't the state have a responsibility to provide education to all free from sectarian favouritism?

I'm not sure if it's a humanist issue, particularly, beyond the humanist inference on individual agency being best realised through informed self-direction, which rather opposes the idea of religious indoctrination of children. Humanism favours teaching children how to think, not what to think.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Church schools existed long before state provision existed ...

Firstly - so what. Why does longevity have any relevance. And in other posts you don't seem to keen on private, rather than state, education.

But secondly, as we are discussing state education I could easily remind you that secular state schools existed long before faith state schools, noting that faith schools were effectively private (albeit subsidised by the state) until 1944. It was the 1944 Act that brought about the first faith state schools. There had, of course, been non-faith state schools since 1870.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again it seems the problems are all from the Hard secularists perspective.

Non-sense - for it to be 'hard' secular (under you rather arbitrary definition) there would need to be an attempt to eradicate all religious education, regardless of whether that is state, private, voluntary, Sunday School etc. I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting that, nor does the NSS, nor did the various historic campaigns as outlined in the history of education piece.

Indeed this is the softest of soft secularism, given that all we are advocating is that there should not be state funding for any school with a specific religious foundation/ethos. I, and the NSS, for example strongly think that there should be RE in schools, albeit they and I would like to see it reformed to be broader, more neutral and better matched to the current diversity of beliefs (religious and otherwise) in the UK today. There is no suggestion that schools in the private sector cannot be religious, nor that churches cannot set up extra curricular education that aligns with their religious beliefs. All fine by me, albeit I'd expect fundamental legal/regulatory expectations e.g. basic safety/quality of provision and adherence to equalities legislation to apply to these schools in the same manner as and other educational provision.