Faith School Problems

**PubFather** · 27 Oct 06,, 19:59

The government says schools can help prevent social division
Alan Johnson
The government is facing a battle in the House of Lords after it abandoned plans to make new faith schools take more children from other religions.

Education Secretary Alan Johnson said he had dropped the idea after reaching a "voluntary agreement" with churches.

But his Tory predecessor Lord Baker told the BBC he would table an amendment to the Education Bill next week to reinstate the quotas plan.

He accused ministers of the "fastest U-turn in British political history".

Barry Sheerman, Labour chairman of the Commons education select committee, said ministers should not seem to be "rushing around in some sort of panic introducing measures at the last minute".

He added: "I'm always very concerned when politicians seem to be making policy on the hoof."

'Not needed'

Lord Baker's spokeswoman said the peer's amendment, compelling new state-funded faith schools in England to take up to 25% of pupils from outside the religion, would be tabled on Monday.

This would be similar to the scheme the government's abandoned scheme, she added.

ENGLAND'S FAITH SCHOOLS
Church of England 4,646
Roman Catholic 2,041
Jewish 37
Muslim 9 (expected)
Sikh 2

Earlier, Mr Johnson said he had reached a deal with Catholic Church and the Church of England to "ensure" they would reserve up to a quarter of places in their schools for children of other faiths or of no faith.

He added: "As we now have the support of the two major faith organisations in the country for our proposed way forward, I do not feel the legislative route is necessary or appropriate and no longer propose to lay an amendment to the Education and Inspection Bill."

Funding

But Lord Baker, who earlier this month dropped his own amendment imposing quotas after ministers had agreed to include similar plans in the bill, was furious.

POLICY CLIMBDOWN?
Any requirement to provide non-faith places, where local circumstances make it appropriate and subject to public consultation, would be in addition to the demand for faith places

Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he accused Catholic leaders of using "deception" in their campaign against introducing quotas, by hinting that the plans would be extended to all existing faith schools, not just new ones.

He said the government "must impose some means of integration" when funding schools.

Otherwise there was a danger of creating educational "ghettos", particularly in more than 120 private Muslim schools which he said aspired to enter the state sector.

'Not sympathetic'

Vincent Nichols, the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, said Mr Johnson understood it was "quite unacceptable to force into a new Catholic school 25% of people who were not particularly sympathetic to that faith".

Although the voluntary agreement does not affect Muslim schools, the Muslim Council of Britain welcomed it, with education spokesman Tahir Allam saying the compromise was "a good position to be in".

Under the government's abandoned plans, councils could have told new faith schools to take up to 25% of pupils from other religions, or no religion.

The Conservatives said they would not support Lord Baker's amendment, while the Liberal Democrats called the current situation a "dog's dinner".

Terry Sanderson, from the National Secular Society, said ministers had "given in to... religious pressure and I'm not sure whether it's because they recognise the arguments, or because they wanted to give the religious people what they wanted".
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...cs/6090984.stm

It's all utter nonsense. There should be no state funded faith schools at all. If people want their kids to be educated with co-religionists, fine. They can pay for it. Otherwise, schools should have nothing to do with religion at all, other than education children about them.

**glyn** · 27 Oct 06,, 20:45

Originally Posted by PubFather

It's all utter nonsense. There should be no state funded faith schools at all. If people want their kids to be educated with co-religionists, fine. They can pay for it. Otherwise, schools should have nothing to do with religion at all, other than education children about them.

I entirely agree. Quite why children should be taught such nonsense in this day and age is beyond me. A retired teacher of my acquaintance went through all kinds of trouble for showing the class fossils of Ammonites and explaining that they were the remains of creatures who died out millions of years ago. The childs parents, supported by the elders of the Mormons tried to get him sacked for saying things against their religion (which dates creation at less than 5,000 years). Luckily there was a supportive head teacher who had the backing of the governors, and so nothing came of the complaint. Don't you just despair of the ignorance and bigotry religion creates?

**gunnut** · 27 Oct 06,, 21:29

The problem I have with religion is they all want to explain the entire universe based on their narrow beliefs.

I have no problem with religion trying to teach people how to live a better life. Teachings like one shouldn't gamble or murder or steal or covet are all good lessons in life. But invariably all religions cross over into the realm of science and try to disprove physical evidences with nothing but hear-say arguments from some ancient writings, and some not so ancient.

Religions trying to teach morality are good.

Religions trying to teach science are bad.

**PubFather** · 27 Oct 06,, 21:36

Originally Posted by gunnut

The problem I have with religion is they all want to explain the entire universe based on their narrow beliefs.

I have no problem with religion trying to teach people how to live a better life. Teachings like one shouldn't gamble or murder or steal or covet are all good lessons in life. But invariably all religions cross over into the realm of science and try to disprove physical evidences with nothing but hear-say arguments from some ancient writings, and some not so ancient.

Religions trying to teach morality are good.

Religions trying to teach science are bad.

They are good lessons - but not lessons that have to be taught by religion. Schools can do their part (although only a part, because such principles must come from home first of all) but without relying on religion to do this.

The problems in NI stemmed partly from a segregated education system - we need to learn that lesson. State and religion should not mix, and where they do, the result is almost always a negative one.

**Ray** · 28 Oct 06,, 09:21

Cut out faith from school and instead teach Moral Science and Good Citizenship.

**Srirangan** · 28 Oct 06,, 09:42

Originally Posted by Ray

Cut out faith from school and instead teach Moral Science and Good Citizenship.

Back in school we have moral science lessons till class 6. However our school people thought moral science equals preaching "Jesus Jesus Jesus". A few months ago they were caught taking bribes for admissions on T.V.

**Samudra** · 28 Oct 06,, 10:14

Religions trying to teach morality are good.

Disagree.
Ask that Mullah in Australia.

**Srirangan** · 28 Oct 06,, 11:00

Islam is not a religion. It is a pseudo political movement disguised as a religion.

**gilgamesh** · 28 Oct 06,, 11:06

Give vouchers and let parents decide which school they send their children to. Seperation of state and school is even bigger a priority.

**HistoricalDavid** · 28 Oct 06,, 11:21

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Give vouchers and let parents decide which school they send their children to. Seperation of state and school is even bigger a priority.

Even vouchers still constitute state aid, it's still the state helping propagate religion.

Vouchers would be good (that's a different educational/economic matter) but restricted to schools which taught within the same broad secular curriculum.

**gilgamesh** · 28 Oct 06,, 13:21

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Even vouchers still constitute state aid, it's still the state helping propagate religion.

Vouchers would be good (that's a different educational/economic matter) but restricted to schools which taught within the same broad secular curriculum.

Yes, vouchers are still a state subsidy. Best option would be to privatize education, ie, user fee for school services availed. But that may not be possible under current socialist political mindset everywhere. So vouchers are the second best option.

I don't care if somebody wants to send their kids to wiccan school(or worse to a madrassa), as long as they pay for it(or the voucher pays for it) and their kids are taught to follow the laws of the land. If they propogate hatred, violence, incompetence etc. they will be shut down and in certain cases(for violence, hatred, etc) the teachers jailed.

**Ray** · 28 Oct 06,, 14:50

No faith to be taught.

Only good citizenship since Sri does not like my idea of Moral Science.

**HistoricalDavid** · 28 Oct 06,, 15:26

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Yes, vouchers are still a state subsidy. Best option would be to privatize education, ie, user fee for school services availed. But that may not be possible under current socialist political mindset everywhere. So vouchers are the second best option.

Hmm I am certainly one of the most capitalistic people I know, but I still don't advocate entirely privatised education, because children are irresponsible and still should have a right, regardless of their parents' background. It's not even socialistic, because it's caring about the children's welfare rather than their usefulness to society.

I don't care if somebody wants to send their kids to wiccan school(or worse to a madrassa), as long as they pay for it(or the voucher pays for it) and their kids are taught to follow the laws of the land. If they propogate hatred, violence, incompetence etc. they will be shut down and in certain cases(for violence, hatred, etc) the teachers jailed.

Yup.

I'd also restrict vouchers for racially segregated, or commie schools, and so on.

**Ray** · 28 Oct 06,, 15:43

What is this "vouchers" that you all are talking about?

**gilgamesh** · 28 Oct 06,, 15:55

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Hmm I am certainly one of the most capitalistic people I know, but I still don't advocate entirely privatised education, because children are irresponsible and still should have a right, regardless of their parents' background. It's not even socialistic, because it's caring about the children's welfare rather than their usefulness to society.

I go back and forth on that. Yep, there is responsibility on the part of society in this respect. Anyhow, considering the mess public education is in, it will take at least a generation of sustained effort to undo the damage, so until then voucher stays. After stabalisation, once quality education is easily availiable andaffordable, then it can be privatised.