Faith schools, by and large, work. They are popular with parents, achieve better grades and are perceived to be strong on discipline and pastoral care.
Conservative leader David Cameron gave a clear indication of his education policies this week with his pronouncement on faith schools.
He said:
“I think faith schools are an important part of our system, I support them and I would like if anything to see them grow.
“I think faith organisations bring often a sort of culture and ethos to a school that can help it improve and I’m a strong supporter personally [David Cameron’s daughter attends a Church of England primary school] and politically.”
His comments were interpreted by the Daily Mail as an intent to bring about “the biggest expansion of faith schools since the 19th century”.
In this, he falls broadly into line with the policies of the Labour government since 1997, whose successive Education Ministers have consistently supported faith schools.
In 1998, David Blunkett famously said that he would like to “bottle the ‘ethos’ of faith schools” and apply it to every school in the country.
Although he has been accused recently of “undermining” faith schools, as recently as 2007, Schools Secretary Ed Balls was saying, with specific reference to faith schools:
“One thing we’ve learnt as a government is that having a distinct ethos, strong leadership, a commitment to promoting opportunity for all, those are the kind of schools where parents want to send their children.”
There are many criticisms of faith schools put forward, some easily countered. To the commonly asked question: “do they push a religious agenda in the classroom?” – the answer is straightforward. All faith schools in England – Jewish, Catholic, Sikh, Muslim or CofE – are required to teach the National Curriculum, thus evolution, not creationism.
At the same time, there remain many legitimate debates: Should all taxpayers have to fund schools which are not open to all? Are admissions and employment policies fair? Is the selection process open to exploitation by “pushy parents” willing to feign religious devotion to get their child a place? Does a policy of schools for Muslims, schools for Sikhs, etc, have a socially divisive effect?
The really pertinent question is this, however: Why are successive politicians ready to overlook these concerns? And the simple answer is that faith schools, by and large, work. They are popular with parents, achieve better than average grades and are perceived to be strong on discipline and pastoral care.
Faith schools, accused of higher levels of ‘pupil sorting’ across schools, are now monitoring their own success at social cohesion. A recent report by Professor David Jesson of York University, funded by the Church of England, found that faith schools were better than non-faith schools at building community relations.
Based on ratings from Oftsed inspectors, Prof. Jesson found that of the 74 secondary faith schools surveyed, 24 (32 per cent) were rated “outstanding” at community relations. Of the 337 non-faith secondaries analysed, 55 (16 per cent) were given the same grade.
The atheist philosopher, Prof. Harry Brighouse, has argued that religious education benefits children from secular homes, promoting understanding and intellectual autonomy. Further arguments can be made that enabling Muslim schools, for example, legitimises that religion in society – in much the way that Catholics schools have.
What attracts even secular parents to faith school is the idea of education underpinned by an established set of beliefs, values and a strong narrative. It was, after all, originally the Church of England which established a system of mass education in this country in the 19th century with the aim to educate the poor.
In the 21st century, there will be a real diversity of different sorts of faith provision – the challenge for any government is to enable all children to have access to such an education, and not to allow the provision of faith schools to become another sop to the pushy middle classes.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
17 Responses to “Faith schools improve social cohesion. Discuss…”
Max
Sadly Jeuan David, with a Tory government round the corner, initiatives like ‘Faith in the System’, more faith-based academies and an established church determined to reclaim what they think is theirs it is only going to get a lot lot worse and I really fear for the future of the secularist who wants to work in education over the next few years. I work in a church school and I want out. Sick of hearing about how good they think the school is when it’s nothing of the sort.
Zimteachnet
Faith schools improve social cohesion. Discuss… | Left Foot Forward: Faith schools, by & large, work. They are p… http://bit.ly/dlExZ5
Iftikhar
The miracle of human variety is in danger of disappearing, if all of us speak alike, dress alike, eat the same food, read the same fiction and enjoy the same music. It would be a great loss to our colourful planet. Public sector needs a multilingual work force. Teachers and police officers can help with race relations in the classroom and in the community. Public sector is seeking multilingual recruits to serve multicultural Britain. The ability to speak languages from Arabic to Urdu is considered to be an asset. Linguistic skills, in addition to the usual entry criteria, will boost the number of recruits in teaching, police, medicine, nursing and the civil service. Bilingual teachers, police officers, doctors and nurses are in a better position to serve the bilingual Muslim community. The language system has been used successfully in the United States. Mary Doherty at TTA, points out those bilingual teachers can be particularly welcome in state schools for bilingual pupils. Various studies show that bilingualism increases overall intelligence. Monolingualism leads to isolationist and inward thinking.
Exposure to different languages and cultures can increase tolerance. Language learning in childhood lays the foundations for developing real fluency in that language. Every child should have the opportunity to study a foreign language and develop their interest in the culture of other nations. Languages can be seen as an important way of putting more fun into primary learning and of broadening the children experience. Learning a second language boosts your intellectual powers by physically increasing the number of nerve cells in the language centres of the brain. A study at University College London shows that the brains of bilingual people are structurally enhanced compared to the brains of people who can only speak one language. The effect is even more marked in people who learnt a second language before they were five. Speaking a second language is like having access to another world. No other subject expands mental horizons in the same way. In an ordinary inner city school in England, nearly 100 languages are spoken, yet still essentially this is still a monolingual nation. London is the most multicultural city in the world with over 300 languages spoken everyday.
Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual teachers as role models during their developmental periods. All state schools where Muslim pupils are the majority should be designated as Muslim community schools. They are in a better position to provide balanced education by teaching the National Curriculum along with Arabic, Islamic studies, Urdu and other community languages. An Islamic atmosphere will help to develop Islamic Identity crucial for mental, emotional and personality development.
Iftikhar Ahmad
Alan W
Iftikhar,
I don’t doubt bilingualism can be a good thing, but since when has “Muslim” been a language?
The issues arising from teaching children whose primary language is not English, do not in anyway make the case for more faith schools. While it may make sense to recruit teachers in areas with sizeable ethnic communities, who are able to speak their language, there is no reason why those teachers should also have to be of the same religion.
Neither religion and language, nor religion and culture, can be treated as synonymous. Languages can, and should be, taught in every school in the country. Their value is not controversial. By contrast, the value of the various contradictory and mutually exclusive religions of the world, is obvious only to their adherents.
While I am prepared to concede (without enthusiasm) the right of parents to impart their beliefs to their children, I think it is a damn cheek to expect taxpayers of other faiths and none to help facilitate this indoctrination.
Claire W
I have to agree with Claire Spencer above, I was educated at a Normal Comprehensive and my son now attends a Catholic Primary School after a huge bullying problem at his last School which incidentally was C OF E.I have mildly christian beliefs but am not fanatical about it…I have found the Catholic Primary School to be amazing and they actively promote tolerance of all faiths, the mix is appx 60% Catholic, 40% other or no faith. The parents and Children were all very welcoming and the standards of discipline are good. My opinion is that it could be because of the strong moral ethic of the school and the families that send their children there, that is not to say that parents at other schools have no morals but in my experience many of them seemed to want to be their childrens ‘mate’ rather than a parent and that I think is where we get issues with disipline and children being exposed to highly adult media which is damaging and slowly erroding kids childhoods..I will now send all of my children to the Catolic Primary and Secondary School if I am able not because I feel part of an elite ( I certianly don’t come from a rich background!!) but because they have a clear narrative and the families that attend think along the same lines as me, and why should I not have that choice? I personally don’t want to be my childrens ‘mate’ I want to be their mother and find the only school that has a higher concerntration of like minded parents to be the Catholic Scool my son now attends. Children are slowley being exposed to more and more adult material and people are becoming less and less shockable things that 20 years ago would have been unacceptable now seem to be normal and our children have nothing to compare these things to as it is what they have been exposed to since birth by society, it is normal to them to dress like Katie Price at 8 years old! I believe if I can keep my kids protected from these things a bit longer by sending them to a Faith Scool to mix with families that think along the same lines as me then I should have that choice. The local secondary comps are by no means bad schools in fact one is rated outstanding by Ofsted and I went to it myself but I feel the Catholic School offers the ethos I want to instil in my kids and all parents should have that choice no matter what their religion, to me it isn’t about the standard of education but the ethos of the school and the happiness of my kids, my son fits in better at these schools as the other kids are like him. He was bullied at his last school for not wanting to join in when other kids were being naughty and for not wanting to swear as he being a ‘decent’ kid although by no means an angel seemed to be in the minority! In his new school it is the norm to behave well and respect others..