Schools are bastions of education, the idea that ancient myth is taught as fact without a single piece of evidence is preposterous and insulting. If you want to teach religion, keep it in Church's. or temples or mosques, but never in schools.

Originally Posted by crashdump

I've started this thread after a few annoying discussions with friends/colleagues about religious schools.

A positive argument for the formation and support of religious schools seems to be that parents/certain sectors of society want children to grow up within the comfy walls of their culture. Their listed pros for these schools appear (add some more if I've left anything out):

- teaching of their own ethnic and religion

- a higher more controlled standard of education, which can be controlled by the local ethnic community

and that's it, that's all I've come across. The first one is usually said like this: "we want our kids to know about our culture and religion", whereas the second point is usually made like this "we don't particularly agree with the level of discipline and education available in the local secular schools"

But these schools just seem plain wrong IMO, they inherently divide societies and groups of future generations. This is true, I think for all religious schools, including christian/muslim/jewish/hindu/sikh/....

In regards to the first argument from above - teaching your kids your culture and religion is the job of your local place of worship / yourself. If you did it properly then perhaps your children would have a strong identity of their own religion as well as an understanding of other religions also.

In regards to the second argument from above - teaching discipline to your child is your job. Keeping them in a controlled environment just increases the likelihood that they will not be able to handle themselves if they are placed in an environment for some of the vices you define are present. Secondly the level of education at your local schools vary across the borough, if you are dissatisfied you can take it up with your local authority -- this would benefit the society in which you live and possibly help improve the local environment.

So here are some arguments against religious schools:
- they restrict pupils to a narrow point of view of their own religion, none of their religions values are challenged. This leads children to take a more offensive stand on their views if challenged in the future
- they promote the language relevant to the ethnicity of that religion. This may seem a non-issue but entire communities currently exist in the UK who can not speak English fluently. These schools promote the parents within these communities to not learn English. Seems fine for some but in the case of an emergency, exactly how do you explain to a paramedic (for example) that your partner has type 2 diabetes or is allergic to peanuts in a language different to English?
- the children who attend these schools will in most circumstances be within an environment filled with like minded individuals, they will develop little tolerance to opposing views and so these schools inherently develop a more extreme outlook on life for their pupils. This is a more general argument to that made regarding religion in the first point.
- issues and problems within the school can often be dealt with within the community. So for example cases of sexual abuse or violence may just be confronted within the community, particularly if the head of the school is an approchable and well known figure in that community. Hence some of these cases go unrecorded, the perpetrators enter the radar of the authorities later on and so gives them opportunity to commit more offenses.

Hi Crashdump, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended “Welcome” message in the “Rules and Guidelines” section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just different.

If you need help with anything at all, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; details can be found here, listed as “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to introduce yourself, which you can do here, or tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Enjoy the debates

As far as this topic itself is concerned, and very briefly, as far as I'm concerned religious schools can narrow down the viewpoint of pupils to that expounded by the religion concerned and can widen the gap of understanding between various sectors of society, especially when they teach that 'their' version of religion is 'right'. You might be interested to read this current thread on the same subject.

I fully agree, crashdump. An excellent post!

Welcome to the forum!

For the most part I totally agree with Crashdumps comments. There are a couple of points that perhaps come across as too strong, when in reality it is a little harder to be so objective, but I totally agree.

I am not religious at all, I have no time for it and won't allow it in my life, but if a person chooses to believe or follow a chosen faith, then that is their choice and they have my support to that, but children are vulnerable and easy to influence, religion and education do not mix except to explain about all the religions to the children as part of sociology or perhaps a Philosophy class.

My (limited) experience of religious (Christian) schools are that there is a greater emphasis on behaviours promoted by the religion (respect for others, self-discipline, hard work, self-awareness and compassion) than on pushing religious doctrine, I suspect this emphasis explains (generally) better educational results and are oversubscribed by parents wanting the best non-fee paying education for their children. So I must be in favour of such schools? No, for most of the reasons set out by crashdump I am not; in particular I believe that religion should be a private matter.

Thank you all for your posts, there are a few things I'd like to just add to the thread though.

Firstly, I apologise for the use of strong language in places -- I have a tendency to use slightly stronger language than necessary although I assure you I am completely open to other peoples views. So sorry once again if they come across as slightly overpowering or unnecessarily strong.

Also, this is my first post on any forum so I'm very pleased to see so many replies, I thank you all for your contributions. I am however looking forward to reading some form of opposing view perhaps?

Thanks again,
crash

Crash, your OP is obviously not agreed with by most parents out there in the real world. This is evidenced by the fair means and foul used to try to get kids into Christian schools, which in the main have a much better performance than others.
So, although you will have lots of agreement on here from the backslapping atheists and agnostics on this forum, just take a look at how popular those schools really are.
The proof of the pudding, as they say...

Originally Posted by Barry

Crash, your OP is obviously not agreed with by most parents out there in the real world. This is evidenced by the fair means and foul used to try to get kids into Christian schools, which in the main have a much better performance than others.
So, although you will have lots of agreement on here from the backslapping atheists and agnostics on this forum, just take a look at how popular those schools really are.
The proof of the pudding, as they say...

True Barry, however (and it just so turns out that my child goes to an infant school "attached" to a local church-it wasn't our first choice due to being slightly longer journey) there is very little overtly Christian content in the curriculum. They do projects in RE about non Christian festivals etc. and this is how it should be. The reason competition for "church schools" is fierce has more to do in my opinion with the location of such schools, you will find they tend to be in more "middle class" areas (social housing rarely having been built near old churches) and as such do not have to deal with the same scale of social problems as those schools built in inner cities and near sink estates etc., than with the fact that the local vicar does an assembly once a month.
I actually think that local communities should have much more control over things like the curriculum, so if the majority of parents wish to see RE being predominently christian/ muslim/ jewish then so be it, as long as the alternative is presented alongside (afterall education should be about expanding minds and widening horizons). Personally I would vote for a predominently non religious curriculum despite my own faith, as my child learns that stuff through my example and that of his grandparents etc., all I want from his school for him in that regard is that he should be taught there are a myriad of beliefs out there and he must respect everyone's right to hold such no matter how ridiculous he may find them.

I went to a religious school and as Op said, yes, it was situated in a more middle class area. The competition was tough to get in, and parents did the usual thing of suddenly going all religious in the year prior to their son/daughter applying (not us mind, we were religious back then). Anyway, I think that there should be a place for religious studies on the cirriculum, but parents should have the option to opt out and kids should be taught 'this is what religion X belives' etc, and not 'this is what you should believe'. How religion relates to education is going to be a massive issue in the coming years, and it will require a strong government to solve this problem, and by strong government I mean 'not Cameron and his lightweight no-policy chaps'. The answer I think lies in allowing local government to take greater charge of the curriculum, reflecting the local population's interests.

Its not a coincidence that religious affiliated schools on average have better test scores, but the link isn't as simple as 'child+God=better education' either (directed at no one in particular, ok...at Barry)

Originally Posted by DTE

Its not a coincidence that religious affiliated schools on average have better test scores, but the link isn't as simple as 'child+God=better education' either (directed at no one in particular, ok...at Barry)

I'd quite agree with that assessment, and without wanting to sound distainful of the average person, could a large part of the answer be that parents who send their children to church schools are already more aware of the need for education and better overall behaviour than average and want to place their children in that environment regardless of their religiosity? I think to a considerable degree it's the school performance and ethos which is the draw more than anything, and in an ideal world every school should be the same in that respect. As DTE says there's really no basis for 'child+God=better education' at all; exactly the same result can come about from 'child + good school' - witness the superior performance of most private schools.

I understand the comments that many have made about the fact that Religious schools seem to do better than normal state schools...I'd like to try to comment on that if I may...not sure about the success though..

Right, our 10 year old, from my Girlfriends 1st marriage, currently attends a C of E funded school...not my choice but the Girlfriend found God hiding some place and she is her daughter..and in general I have to say I see no difference to the standard of the education, in fact the school and I are about to have a ding-dong over her homework...we would like her to get some..and they have ignored three visits and two letters...I think the real difference is actually the Parents of the kids. I meet a lot of the parents when I drop Stacey off or pick her up and in general they are all decent people who want the best for their kids and will do what they can to achieve this..including actually helping to educate them...I found that, in the main, the parents are no more or less religious than the next person in the street, but they make the effort to engage with their children, to add to their education and make an effort to take a serious interest....I am sorry to say that this cannot be said for the majority of parents in the run of the mill state schools. Income must be a factor I would concede, I think in the run of the mill states schools you get a mix of society but in general there is a high number from backgrounds where parents won't, can't or don't know how to make the time for their children for many various reasons. There are those at the very bottom of society (metaphorically) and these parents do not care about their kids or their education. These kids are allowed to run amok and they act the same at school causing untold disruption to the class and thus dragging things down to their level. Also, and this one is important, Religious schools do have a fantastic record at identifying kids that have special needs or special abilities, and they will try their level best to accommodate them and make all flourish within their ability. The state schools don't do this, they don't have the time, the training or the resources to cater for the "special" kids, so everyone ends up dragged down to the lowest common point.

As a parent, that is how I see it. I hope I have explained what I mean well enough for everyone to see what I mean.

I read in some august journal some time ago that the biggest determinants on how a child will fare at school are (1) their parents (2) their friends (3) the school they attend. And in that order.

Imo the reason why religious schools and schools with a high % of students from middle class homes perform so well is the parents' interest in their childs education and the support they give and aspiration they pass onto their children. When these factors are allied to the child's friends also having their parents support and aspiration(s) passed down to them, a self-sustaining push for the child to accept the importance of education and the doors it can open is created. A study came out a few years ago showing that within 6 months a less-able child from middle class parents would be outperforming a gifted child from a working class background, the reason given? The interest in and support given by the middle class childrens parents: nothing to do with wealth or money thrown at the child, everyhing to do with investing time and effort in the child.

Going off subject a bit here, but it never ceases to amaze me that the Labour party keep pushing initiative after initiative involving teachers and schools doing more here, there and everywhere whilst doing nothing is counter the aspirational poverty of poorer parents and children, poverty that blights lives and limits opportunities.

Originally Posted by The Untalented Mr Ripley

I read in some august journal some time ago that the biggest determinants on how a child will fare at school are (1) their parents (2) their friends (3) the school they attend. And in that order.

Imo the reason why religious schools and schools with a high % of students from middle class homes perform so well is the parents' interest in their childs education and the support they give and aspiration they pass onto their children. When these factors are allied to the child's friends also having their parents support and aspiration(s) passed down to them, a self-sustaining push for the child to accept the importance of education and the doors it can open is created. A study came out a few years ago showing that within 6 months a less-able child from middle class parents would be outperforming a gifted child from a working class background, the reason given? The interest in and support given by the middle class childrens parents: nothing to do with wealth or money thrown at the child, everyhing to do with investing time and effort in the child.

I would certainly agree that home environment is exceptionally important to a child's overall well-being which will then be reflected in the classroom, right down to their basic needs being met at home regarding nutrition, proper sleep etc. As a child's primary role model is their same gender parent it stands to reason that if the parents went to university and are professionals then the child's attitude to that path will be positive. Do you have a link to that report? As a middleclass (I guess) parent with a special needs child I'd be very interested to read it.

Going off subject a bit here, but it never ceases to amaze me that the Labour party keep pushing initiative after initiative involving teachers and schools doing more here, there and everywhere whilst doing nothing is counter the aspirational poverty of poorer parents and children, poverty that blights lives and limits opportunities.

In actual fact (I hate to defend them) sure start and children's centres along with every child matters were designed to do just that and from what I have heard said in the staffroom teachers believe they are beginning to see the benefits in the reception children passing through now.

I agree strongly with the concept that the parents are what matters, in some cases more so than the school and the standard of education offered at the school itself (I reiterate here SOME cases). In regards to what Opinionated said about how these initiatives are showing some improvement -- that sounds promising to me and I feel that these sorts of initiatives are key to improving the standard of education in poorer areas. Certainly in my experience, this is definitely the case.

However, in the cases where people that local authorities need more power and more of a say in how religion is integrated into teaching, wouldn't that just exacerbate the problem of narrow minded students? Surely a local authority with a clear majority of one particular religion will favor that religion in order gain support from voters, hence the children in the community would be more exposed to their own religion and less exposed to opposing views giving them a single dimension in their understanding of religion?

Originally Posted by crashdump

However, in the cases where people that local authorities need more power and more of a say in how religion is integrated into teaching, wouldn't that just exacerbate the problem of narrow minded students? Surely a local authority with a clear majority of one particular religion will favor that religion in order gain support from voters, hence the children in the community would be more exposed to their own religion and less exposed to opposing views giving them a single dimension in their understanding of religion?

I quite agree, any attempt to advocate schools which promote one religion over and above another is bound to create a narrower perspective in their pupils than in pupils from a school which treats religious education purely on a comparative basis. Perhaps not so much a factor where we're talking of the mainstream Christian religions, but definitely so when minority or more fundamental religious views are being advanced as being 'right'.

Originally Posted by Midas

I quite agree, any attempt to advocate schools which promote one religion over and above another is bound to create a narrower perspective in their pupils than in pupils from a school which treats religious education purely on a comparative basis. Perhaps not so much a factor where we're talking of the mainstream Christian religions, but definitely so when minority or more fundamental religious views are being advanced as being 'right'.

Let us not forget that mainstream christianity still considers homosexuality immoral, pre-marital sex an affront to God and a woman's right to choose as "natural birth or ceasarian". Just because their bigotry is practiced more quietly, doesn't mean the influence exerted is any less.

Originally Posted by DTE

Let us not forget that mainstream christianity still considers homosexuality immoral, pre-marital sex an affront to God and a woman's right to choose as "natural birth or ceasarian". Just because their bigotry is practiced more quietly, doesn't mean the influence exerted is any less.

The influence exerted by Christianity is far far greater, and is not quieter. There are just people who have less problem with Christians espousing these beliefs than Muslims. Showing some thinly veiled Xenophobia or racism in some sectors.

For some it is fine for something disgusting to be said in the Bible, but if the same disgusting thing is said in the Koran, it is used as a sign that Christians are good and Muslims are evil satanic warriors.

Thats probably because there aren't many militant Christian groups out there Kiwi.

Its all gone majorly as most religious debate eventually does. One option would be to allow an "opt out" procedure for RE in schools, and giving the students the chance to do another subject like er...civics or something.

Originally Posted by DTE

Let us not forget that mainstream christianity still considers homosexuality immoral, pre-marital sex an affront to God and a woman's right to choose as "natural birth or ceasarian". Just because their bigotry is practiced more quietly, doesn't mean the influence exerted is any less.

That's true to a variable extent, more so in some countries than others, however if the latest statistics are anything to go by, the influence of the church on these matters on today's generation is weaker than ever, certainly in the UK. Although I've got nothing specific to go on, I'd guess that the majority of kids leaving church schools don't have these opinions to anywhere near the extent of those even a few years ago and certainly not to the extent their parents might have.

Although the Bible clearly warns against homosexuality, the Islamists take the following action:



OK, it is off topic, but I do get sick of Christianity being lumped in with other religions as some demonic force, when it is not.

Although the Bible clearly warns against homosexuality, the Islamists take the following action:



OK, it is off topic, but I do get sick of Christianity being lumped in with other religions as some demonic force, when it is not.

How can I put this lightly ... your comment is not just off topic but wayyyyy of the mark ... ? I take it you're a christian but errr your post was just a teeny weeny itsy bitsy little bit implicitly racist -- islam is some demonic religion, hmm? What happened to love thy neighbour, or is that only applicable to fellow christians?

Anyway DTE made good point about the discussion deteriorating into the average run of the mill religious cussing match. The fact is that whatever religion you believe in and whichever religion you may feel is superior or better or correct, probabilistically you didn't actually chose to follow it over other religions. In fact the majority of religious people on the planet follow a particular religion because they are born into families or communities that are also of that religious group. Of course there are exceptions but the religion someone follows tends not be the result of conscious thought and years of serious philosophical understanding or internal debate but more likely it's because that's what your mama and papa told you to do. So can we please not sink to the level of trying to defend something that you yourself haven't actually bothered to evaluate in the light of other alternatives.

Anyway, returning to the point of the thread, yes we seem to agree that parents have a big role to play, there also seems to be some consensus that christian schools in the UK tend to perform better in the UK because of their location near middle class areas, which also points in the direction that parents play a big role. We also seem unable to justify benefits of religious schools. So my question is, why are they allowed? If one problem caused by these schools is to narrow the opinions of future generations then surely religious schools have a more detrimental role to play in society than secular ones. Particularly as we've identified the effective advantage of these schools is in essence where they are located and who they allow to join.

Crashdump

Originally Posted by Barry

Although the Bible clearly warns against homosexuality, the Islamists take the following action:

OK, it is off topic, but I do get sick of Christianity being lumped in with other religions as some demonic force, when it is not.

Ever heard of the KKK?

Originally Posted by joethfc

Ever heard of the KKK?

What, pray tell, does the KKK have to do with Christianity? Claiming to be Christian is not, necessarily, the same thing as actually being. All to often, extremist groups, claim the mantel of belonging to one religious orientation or another, while having no actual correct concept of that religion's precepts, or simply using it as a smokescreen.