Nothing to do with rich and poor. It's to do with selecting the brightest kids and often smaller class sizes. If a school can exclude less-abled children (such a christian thing to do) then it stands to reason exam results will tend towards better than average.
If they produce better behaved kids (a claim which I am highly skeptical about) then that is merely a side-effect of being able to exclude potential trouble-makers. Nothing to do with so-called 'christian values'.
The kids who went to my school were selected on closeness to school and nothing else, that may have changed nowadays.
I didn't mention Christian values either, faith schools have been shown to be more successful whatever the faith.
The kids who went to my school were selected on closeness to school and nothing else, that may have changed nowadays.
I didn't mention Christian values either, faith schools have been shown to be more successful whatever the faith.
Faith groups recently united to protest at plans government plans to reduce their power to select. It would be rare for a faith school to only select only by distance to the school.
Near where we live there are two schools, a CofE and a none faith school. Both schools had similar results although truth be told the CofE edged it. When a (llegal) gypsy camp was setup the CofE claimed to be full up, and it was the none faith school that had to have the disruption of the gypsy kids. Kids that are suddenly turn up after months of absence, discipline problems, teaching in temporary accommodation .
The effect on the school results is expected to be a dramtically negative one. Local children are now moving from the none faith to the faith schools (the one that was supposedly full).
I belive another DS member has the exact scenerio occur in thier area (Acton?).
Other cases are expulsions, children excluded from one school do not get moved to a faith schools. Instead the council has to place them in "its" schools where it controls the intake, which are none faith schools.
The kids who went to my school were selected on closeness to school and nothing else, that may have changed nowadays.
,,,
Individual faith schools may operate local non-divisive and discriminatory admissions Policies. The Churches nationally however have defended their privilege to select on the basis of religious discrimination over many years.
Indeed far from accepting totally egalitarian selection procedures they have even fought off government proposals for modest minimum quotas of children from other faith and non-faith families.
How a State school can itself practice discrimination and than have the nerve to attempt to teach pupils about fairness and morality frankly baffles me.
I think it is faintly ridiculous to suggest that anyone who hasn't read the KIng James is a semi-barbarian.
As a Christian it's more important to read an up-to-date, accurate, translation - and as an atheist you could get more literary heritage from Shakespeare.
I can't help but feel Dawkins' support is just another example of his wish to mothball Christianity as a museum piece.
You simply can't say it's got nothing to do with the teaching or discipline.
Faith schools select their students based on ability. That is a fact. Some will try to claim otherwise. A class in a faith school is made up of students with a higher average starting point of ability than one in a standard high school, despite both schools being funded from the public purse.
If the same teacher taught the two classes in exactly the same way - regardless of the content of the course - the class in the selective school would most likely achieve a higher average grade than the class in the non-selective school.
Personally, I'm not sure what sort of moral lession you think that is teaching kids who attend faith schools.
I think it is faintly ridiculous to suggest that anyone who hasn't read the KIng James is a semi-barbarian.
As a Christian it's more important to read an up-to-date, accurate, translation - and as an atheist you could get more literary heritage from Shakespeare.
I can't help but feel Dawkins' support is just another example of his wish to mothball Christianity as a museum piece.
To be honest that is the only place christianity is heading, if not there already in the uk
You simply can't say it's got nothing to do with the teaching or discipline.
I agree but the levels of discipline and teaching; particularly discipline; that can be maintained are very closely tied to the levels of support that parents give to the school
Parents who have been prepared to jump through the hoops (usually or often) involved in obtaining a place in a faith school are going to be the kind of parents who are going to give their full support to the school. Other schools have to; by law; take any pupils resident in the catchment.
It is probably the inherent self selection of committed parents that gives faith schools their edge; more than any other factor. Most if not all schools would impose high levels of discipline if the parents where supportive.
It is an unequal playing field on many counts and I have yet to hear anyone present an ethical and indeed religious argument for the discrimination that faith schools are allowed to practice.
No they should seek moral guidance from their parents. I have no problem with everyone reading the bible - its a work of fiction though so as a guide to how you should live is worse than useless.
Even non believers would not regard The Bible has a work of fiction.
Faith schools select their students based on ability. That is a fact. Some will try to claim otherwise. A class in a faith school is made up of students with a higher average starting point of ability than one in a standard high school, despite both schools being funded from the public purse.
If the same teacher taught the two classes in exactly the same way - regardless of the content of the course - the class in the selective school would most likely achieve a higher average grade than the class in the non-selective school.
Personally, I'm not sure what sort of moral lession you think that is teaching kids who attend faith schools.
It is a fact that some do. Not all. My daughter goes to a faith school which selects based first on whether the child is in foster care a 'looked after child' and is Catholic, then secondly Catholic children who live in the area (it is not by any definition a posh area), then 'looked after' girls who live in the area who are not Catholic, then a couple of other categories. It's not until we get to point 7 or 8 that 'any other' girls are mentioned. It is one of the best schools in my city. There are aprox 210 admissions each year. Ability is not a factor.
Faith schools select their students based on ability. That is a fact. Some will try to claim otherwise. A class in a faith school is made up of students with a higher average starting point of ability than one in a standard high school, despite both schools being funded from the public purse.
If the same teacher taught the two classes in exactly the same way - regardless of the content of the course - the class in the selective school would most likely achieve a higher average grade than the class in the non-selective school.
Personally, I'm not sure what sort of moral lession you think that is teaching kids who attend faith schools.
Some may well; covertly; select on the basis of ability but they are not allowed to. Surely the point here is that they allowed to discriminate at all in their admission policies. Other schools are not legally allowed to do that on any basis.
I do agree with the rest of your post though. It is worthy of notice that only religious schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. I don't believe there is any moral justification for religious discrimination; certainly none has been offered on these threads.
Some people of faith; to their immense credit; do of course oppose the laws that sanction educational discrimination.
I agree but the levels of discipline and teaching; particularly discipline; that can be maintained are very closely tied to the levels of support that parents give to the school
Parents who have been prepared to jump through the hoops (usually or often) involved in obtaining a place in a faith school are going to be the kind of parents who are going to give their full support to the school. Other schools have to; by law; take any pupils resident in the catchment.
It is probably the inherent self selection of committed parents that gives faith schools their edge; more than any other factor. Most if not all schools would impose high levels of discipline if the parents where supportive.
It is an unequal playing field on many counts and I have yet to hear anyone present an ethical and indeed religious argument for the discrimination that faith schools are allowed to practice.
i dont understand? what is stopping other schools striving for the same levels of support and achievement? if they cannot attain it, because of lack of support from parents, then therein lies the problem. i'm reading your stance as being one where you think it would be better to abolish faith schools in order to drag everyone back to a certain level of equality, rather than push the laggers behind forward by encouraging more support and effort from parents. i might be completely wrong though?
i dont understand? what is stopping other schools striving for the same levels of support and achievement? if they cannot attain it, because of lack of support from parents, then therein lies the problem. i'm reading your stance as being one where you think it would be better to abolish faith schools in order to drag everyone back to a certain level of equality, rather than push the laggers behind forward by encouraging more support and effort from parents. i might be completely wrong though?
I do not want to abolish faith schools. I simply ask that they are subject to the same laws concerning discrimination and equality that all other schools have to conform to. i.e. Have to take all comers.
If faith schools are inherently more effective then they will clearly still excel. There should therefore be no problem in removing the special privleges to discriminate that State faith schools currently enjoy.
I have just completed a PGCE year. Some of the things I have seen and heard in schools have shocked me the the core. So much so that I very much doubt whether I will go on to actually teach. If the public knew what goes on there would be an outcry.
But as far as this thread goes I can say that I was placed in a faith school (C0fE) =- admissions criteria is that you live in the area. The second school was 5 miles away in a similar type of area and not a faith school. The difference was stark. There may be leafy suburbs where lentil eating parents fight to get Jocintha and Zeus a place at St Posh but that is not the case where I live.
The difference was solely down to policy and staff.
I do not want to abolish faith schools. I simply ask that they are subject to the same laws concerning discrimination and equality that all other schools have to conform to. i.e. Have to take all comers.
If faith schools are inherently more effective then they will clearly still excel. There should therefore be no problem in removing the special privleges to discriminate that State faith schools currently enjoy.
Promoting any particular relgion should not be the job of any state funded service so, ideally, they wouldn't exist imo. However, it's not exactly practical to just abolish them so I'd agree that requiring them to conform to the same rules as everyone else would be a good idea and a step in the right direction. Additionally I don't think we should be funding any new faith schools.
^ that is not an abstract concept though. a "lake of fire" in reality does not exist, unless you believe in it. therefore the idea that somebody thinks you may end up in a lake of fire is like telling you witches will put a spell on you or something. it's beyond the realm of any meaningful effectiveness.
I spent most of my childhood in Catholic schools and I can assure you I was not taught about hell as an abstract concept. The people who threaten hell fire seem to mean it literally.
I have just completed a PGCE year. Some of the things I have seen and heard in schools have shocked me the the core. So much so that I very much doubt whether I will go on to actually teach. If the public knew what goes on there would be an outcry.
....
The difference was solely down to policy and staff.
Plus ca change. I did a PGCE in the late 1980s, and had the same feeling as you.
I was so atheist I made Dawkins look like someone sitting on the fence.:D Yet... went to a catholic teacher training college, and did TPs in both C of E and RC schools. Later taught in C of E, RC and bog standard schools.
I came to the conclusion there's not a great difference between the three. Faith schools may well have a great ethos - I rather liked them despite my personal views on religion. But I worked in some faith schools where kids lived in rat infested blocks of flats, etc etc. I;ve worked in catholic schools where the majority of the kids were muslim/sikh. I've worked in non faith schools where the majority of kids were either muslim or sikh. I've worked in C of E schools with minimal obvious religion going on. And I have seen non faith schools where the vicar does regular assemblies and the kids go to the village church.
And to those reading this who are ardent christians, and have gone to great effort to get your kid into a faith school - there's people like me, who would make Dawkins look neutral - teaching your kids. Right now.:D Similarly, my kids in a non faith school have had some right manic bible bashers for teachers.
Dawkins has a point, that if you read the bible you will realise what tosh it is. But on the other hand, in the 21stC kids shouldn't really be wasting their time on it, when there are more important things to learn.
Plus ca change. I did a PGCE in the late 1980s, and had the same feeling as you.
I was so atheist I made Dawkins look like someone sitting on the fence.:D Yet... went to a catholic teacher training college, and did TPs in both C of E and RC schools. Later taught in C of E, RC and bog standard schools.
I came to the conclusion there's not a great difference between the three. Faith schools may well have a great ethos - I rather liked them despite my personal views on religion. But I worked in some faith schools where kids lived in rat infested blocks of flats, etc etc. I;ve worked in catholic schools where the majority of the kids were muslim/sikh. I've worked in non faith schools where the majority of kids were either muslim or sikh. I've worked in C of E schools with minimal obvious religion going on. And I have seen non faith schools where the vicar does regular assemblies and the kids go to the village church.
And to those reading this who are ardent christians, and have gone to great effort to get your kid into a faith school - there's people like me, who would make Dawkins look neutral - teaching your kids. Right now.:D Similarly, my kids in a non faith school have had some right manic bible bashers for teachers.
Dawkins has a point, that if you read the bible you will realise what tosh it is. But on the other hand, in the 21stC kids shouldn't really be wasting their time on it, when there are more important things to learn.
At the second school I was told on many occasions that the children who misbehaved did so because they come from deprived homes. This was one of many many examples of things that shocked me. I was told not to say much when the kids said '******' as they come from a deprived area where everyone is white. I could go on.
This same 'deprived area' (it's the whole city really) had the faith school.There was zero tolerance for bad behaviour.
Even non believers would not regard The Bible has a work of fiction.
Oh i think most would say its pretty much complete fiction. There obviously a few bits that are vaguely historical but plenty of bits that are provable not to be true. Most of it is a collection of various myths and legends that existed well before the bible was written, but with the names changed.
Either way its a thoroughly unpleasant book featuring a nasty petty, arrogant, jealous, murdering arsehole of a god and i have to agree with Dawkins that the best way to become an Athiest is read the damn thing,
At the second school I was told on many occasions that the children who misbehaved did so because they come from deprived homes. This was one of many many examples of things that shocked me. I was told not to say much when the kids said '******' as they come from a deprived area where everyone is white. I could go on.
This same 'deprived area' (it's the whole city really) had the faith school.There was zero tolerance for bad behaviour.
Guess which school had the behaviour problems.
So if the faith school was markedly more effective should not gaining those benefits be made available without discriminating against any particular groups?
You are arguing that faith schools are better; fine but why should they alone be allowed to exercise discriminatory selection policies?
The simple fact is that there is a huge variety of faith schools. Some are over-subscribed and are in a position to "select." Others are inner-city schools and open their doors to any kid just to keep the numbers up (thats the kind I chose to teach in.) While in other places the local CofE primary is the only school in the village.
Where I live there are too many school places. Parents generally get their first choice and nobody asks any questions.
As to putting the Bible in schools - I would be amazed if the RE departments didn't already possess a bible and has it on the shelf next to all the other examples of religious texts.
The simple fact is that there is a huge variety of faith schools. Some are over-subscribed and are in a position to "select." Others are inner-city schools and open their doors to any kid just to keep the numbers up (thats the kind I chose to teach in.) While in other places the local CofE primary is the only school in the village.
Where I live there are too many school places. Parents generally get their first choice and nobody asks any questions.
As to putting the Bible in schools - I would be amazed if the RE departments didn't already possess a bible and has it on the shelf next to all the other examples of religious texts.
Absolutely. The point is however that they all State faith schools are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion whether they are in a position to exercise that discrimination or not.
I have yet to see a moral or religious defence of that privilege.
Comments
The kids who went to my school were selected on closeness to school and nothing else, that may have changed nowadays.
I didn't mention Christian values either, faith schools have been shown to be more successful whatever the faith.
Near where we live there are two schools, a CofE and a none faith school. Both schools had similar results although truth be told the CofE edged it. When a (llegal) gypsy camp was setup the CofE claimed to be full up, and it was the none faith school that had to have the disruption of the gypsy kids. Kids that are suddenly turn up after months of absence, discipline problems, teaching in temporary accommodation .
The effect on the school results is expected to be a dramtically negative one. Local children are now moving from the none faith to the faith schools (the one that was supposedly full).
I belive another DS member has the exact scenerio occur in thier area (Acton?).
Other cases are expulsions, children excluded from one school do not get moved to a faith schools. Instead the council has to place them in "its" schools where it controls the intake, which are none faith schools.
Individual faith schools may operate local non-divisive and discriminatory admissions Policies. The Churches nationally however have defended their privilege to select on the basis of religious discrimination over many years.
Indeed far from accepting totally egalitarian selection procedures they have even fought off government proposals for modest minimum quotas of children from other faith and non-faith families.
How a State school can itself practice discrimination and than have the nerve to attempt to teach pupils about fairness and morality frankly baffles me.
Yes, because they are selective - the vast majority on the basis of ability, not distance.
Nothing to do with religious teachings, regardless of the religion.
Actually we can if we like.
As a Christian it's more important to read an up-to-date, accurate, translation - and as an atheist you could get more literary heritage from Shakespeare.
I can't help but feel Dawkins' support is just another example of his wish to mothball Christianity as a museum piece.
Faith schools select their students based on ability. That is a fact. Some will try to claim otherwise. A class in a faith school is made up of students with a higher average starting point of ability than one in a standard high school, despite both schools being funded from the public purse.
If the same teacher taught the two classes in exactly the same way - regardless of the content of the course - the class in the selective school would most likely achieve a higher average grade than the class in the non-selective school.
Personally, I'm not sure what sort of moral lession you think that is teaching kids who attend faith schools.
To be honest that is the only place christianity is heading, if not there already in the uk
There are already enough museums out there in the name of Christianity so that's all good.
I agree but the levels of discipline and teaching; particularly discipline; that can be maintained are very closely tied to the levels of support that parents give to the school
Parents who have been prepared to jump through the hoops (usually or often) involved in obtaining a place in a faith school are going to be the kind of parents who are going to give their full support to the school. Other schools have to; by law; take any pupils resident in the catchment.
It is probably the inherent self selection of committed parents that gives faith schools their edge; more than any other factor. Most if not all schools would impose high levels of discipline if the parents where supportive.
It is an unequal playing field on many counts and I have yet to hear anyone present an ethical and indeed religious argument for the discrimination that faith schools are allowed to practice.
He may well be cool at the moment.
That's a ridiculous statement.:o
It is a fact that some do. Not all. My daughter goes to a faith school which selects based first on whether the child is in foster care a 'looked after child' and is Catholic, then secondly Catholic children who live in the area (it is not by any definition a posh area), then 'looked after' girls who live in the area who are not Catholic, then a couple of other categories. It's not until we get to point 7 or 8 that 'any other' girls are mentioned. It is one of the best schools in my city. There are aprox 210 admissions each year. Ability is not a factor.
Some may well; covertly; select on the basis of ability but they are not allowed to. Surely the point here is that they allowed to discriminate at all in their admission policies. Other schools are not legally allowed to do that on any basis.
I do agree with the rest of your post though. It is worthy of notice that only religious schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. I don't believe there is any moral justification for religious discrimination; certainly none has been offered on these threads.
Some people of faith; to their immense credit; do of course oppose the laws that sanction educational discrimination.
i dont understand? what is stopping other schools striving for the same levels of support and achievement? if they cannot attain it, because of lack of support from parents, then therein lies the problem. i'm reading your stance as being one where you think it would be better to abolish faith schools in order to drag everyone back to a certain level of equality, rather than push the laggers behind forward by encouraging more support and effort from parents. i might be completely wrong though?
I do not want to abolish faith schools. I simply ask that they are subject to the same laws concerning discrimination and equality that all other schools have to conform to. i.e. Have to take all comers.
If faith schools are inherently more effective then they will clearly still excel. There should therefore be no problem in removing the special privleges to discriminate that State faith schools currently enjoy.
But as far as this thread goes I can say that I was placed in a faith school (C0fE) =- admissions criteria is that you live in the area. The second school was 5 miles away in a similar type of area and not a faith school. The difference was stark. There may be leafy suburbs where lentil eating parents fight to get Jocintha and Zeus a place at St Posh but that is not the case where I live.
The difference was solely down to policy and staff.
Promoting any particular relgion should not be the job of any state funded service so, ideally, they wouldn't exist imo. However, it's not exactly practical to just abolish them so I'd agree that requiring them to conform to the same rules as everyone else would be a good idea and a step in the right direction. Additionally I don't think we should be funding any new faith schools.
I spent most of my childhood in Catholic schools and I can assure you I was not taught about hell as an abstract concept. The people who threaten hell fire seem to mean it literally.
I was so atheist I made Dawkins look like someone sitting on the fence.:D Yet... went to a catholic teacher training college, and did TPs in both C of E and RC schools. Later taught in C of E, RC and bog standard schools.
I came to the conclusion there's not a great difference between the three. Faith schools may well have a great ethos - I rather liked them despite my personal views on religion. But I worked in some faith schools where kids lived in rat infested blocks of flats, etc etc. I;ve worked in catholic schools where the majority of the kids were muslim/sikh. I've worked in non faith schools where the majority of kids were either muslim or sikh. I've worked in C of E schools with minimal obvious religion going on. And I have seen non faith schools where the vicar does regular assemblies and the kids go to the village church.
And to those reading this who are ardent christians, and have gone to great effort to get your kid into a faith school - there's people like me, who would make Dawkins look neutral - teaching your kids. Right now.:D Similarly, my kids in a non faith school have had some right manic bible bashers for teachers.
Dawkins has a point, that if you read the bible you will realise what tosh it is. But on the other hand, in the 21stC kids shouldn't really be wasting their time on it, when there are more important things to learn.
At the second school I was told on many occasions that the children who misbehaved did so because they come from deprived homes. This was one of many many examples of things that shocked me. I was told not to say much when the kids said '******' as they come from a deprived area where everyone is white. I could go on.
This same 'deprived area' (it's the whole city really) had the faith school.There was zero tolerance for bad behaviour.
Guess which school had the behaviour problems.
Oh i think most would say its pretty much complete fiction. There obviously a few bits that are vaguely historical but plenty of bits that are provable not to be true. Most of it is a collection of various myths and legends that existed well before the bible was written, but with the names changed.
Either way its a thoroughly unpleasant book featuring a nasty petty, arrogant, jealous, murdering arsehole of a god and i have to agree with Dawkins that the best way to become an Athiest is read the damn thing,
So if the faith school was markedly more effective should not gaining those benefits be made available without discriminating against any particular groups?
You are arguing that faith schools are better; fine but why should they alone be allowed to exercise discriminatory selection policies?
Where I live there are too many school places. Parents generally get their first choice and nobody asks any questions.
As to putting the Bible in schools - I would be amazed if the RE departments didn't already possess a bible and has it on the shelf next to all the other examples of religious texts.
Absolutely. The point is however that they all State faith schools are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion whether they are in a position to exercise that discrimination or not.
I have yet to see a moral or religious defence of that privilege.