As a Liberal I believe that parents or guardians have a right to educate their offspring in the tenets and practices of their religion if they have one. However, such “education” should be at their or their religious institutions’ expense. It should take place outside the formal state system, at Sunday School, Saturday School, or in the evenings. If faith groups and parents absolutely insist on a complete alternative to a secular full-time education offered by the state, they can run their own schools, but at their expense and not with the help of public funds.
I’m aware that for centuries the Church was just about the only provider of education in this country, up to and including university level – hence all those lovey chapels and talented choirs at the Oxbridge colleges. And, as a vestigial remnant of the system of mass education that has developed there remain 4 500 C of E schools in England (about a quarter of the total), nearly 2000 RC schools, 139 run by other Christian faiths, along with 50 Jewish schools to which can now be added 34 Muslim, 12 Sikh and two Hindu faith schools.
But this tradition and the recent additions are looking to the past. We can be duly grateful for them, as I am. I was educated in a church school and have taught in two of them. But today they are not only irrelevant but a positive hindrance to our development of a relaxed, co-operative multi-faith society.
That is why today’s announcement by the Conservative Government that the 50% cap on selection restricted to members of the faith in any new faith school is a step backwards. The progressive way forward is for all faith schools to be gradually phased out or to become exclusively faith maintained.
It is interesting to see the importance of the Liberal Democrats in our attitude to this policy. Apparently during the Coalition (2010 to 15) the Conservatives wanted to promote the expansion of faith schools. The Liberal Democrats complied, but only with the provision that 50% of the places should be available to pupils not of the faith. This is the sort of sensible compromise which coalition government produces. The majority partner (305 seats) wishes to take a step in a direction the other thinks is misguided, the minority party (57 seats, I think it was) can’t stop it but limits what it sees as the damaging effect.
Sir Ed Davey has had the courage to condemn the present Tory move. I’m not aware of Labour’s official response, but Ruth Kelly, their Education Secretary under Tony Blair, is enthusiastically in favour of it.
As we used to say, “Which twin is the Tory?”
a positive hindrance to our development of a relaxed, co-operative multi-faith society
ReplyDeleteHas there ever, in the history of the world, been such a thing as a 'relaxed, co-operative multi-faith society'?
If you can't think of a single example, what makes you think such a thing is possible?
India, perhaps, before the British resorted to "divide and rule."
ReplyDeleteIndia, perhaps, before the British resorted to "divide and rule."
DeleteSeriously? Exactly what period are we talking about here?
I'm not sure when it started (or ended) but I've read somewhere that they all lived happily together until the British started tuning then against each other in order to "divide and rule."
DeleteI'm not sure when it started (or ended) but I've read somewhere that they all lived happily together
DeleteYou’ve ‘read somewhere’? Where? The cloud-cuckoo history book of things that didn’t happen?
Wikipedia has info on this under HISTORY OF EDUCATION INTHE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT before British rule endind with a bit on when Britain took over,
ReplyDeleteWikipedia has info on this under HISTORY OF EDUCATION INTHE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT before British rule endind with a bit on when Britain took over
DeleteHm, even by the Wiki-pædia' low standards they say 'This article has multiple issues'.
More to the point though I can't see anything on that page about some mythical era when 'they all lived happily together' dancing around throwing flower petals everywhere.
So if there aren't any real examples of a 'relaxed, co-operative multi-faith society' occurring anywhere in the entire history of the world, does that not rather suggest that such a thing is impossible?
If we wish to have an inclusive population, schools should be non sectarian for all reiigious groups. They should engage/mix with each other to understand each other. Separating them is a sort of divide and conquer scenario where we are different from you keeps people apart. If religions are proud of their belief there is nothing wrong with them funding their own schools independent of the National system that should be for all
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me most about this isn't the naïve utopianism — and I mean don't get me wrong, naïve utopianism is bad and does immeasurable social harm — but that it's fundamentally a dog-in-the-manger view of the world.
ReplyDelete(You know the story of the dog in the manger, right?)
This really only affects schools run by the Roman church, because that's the only Christian denomination that has the resources to run schools (the others are too small, and the Church of England isn't Christian). And Roman schools have some properties that are beyond dispute:
1. They are generally better than other state schools (or else why would people go to such lengths to get into them?)
2. They disproportionally serve pupils from lower socio-economic classes
3. They also disproportionately serve pupils from ethnic minorities.
So the effect of banning them would be to deprive poor, ethnic-minority pupils of good schools and force them instead into the crappy state schools.
So this (banning church schools) is a policy which harms poor, ethnic minority pupils.
And the rationale for this seems to be that if church schools are allowed then they will benefit poor, ethnic minority pupils, but only certain poor, ethnic minority pupils.
So the basic message you seem to pushing is: you're not allowed to help (by providing better schools for) any poor, ethnic minority pupils, if that help isn't available to all poor, ethnic minority pupils.
And I find that attitude odious. Yes, naïve utopianism is bad — possibly from a practical point of view worse in that so much harm has been done in the past, so many millions of people have been slaughtered, by people operating on naïve utopian principles — but it at least is well-meaning.
But this dog-in-the-manger, nobody-can-be-helped-unless-you-help-everybody, everyone-must-suffer-equally attitude is active malice. It's horrible.
I do not see anything wrong with all religions being incorporated into state schools I had Religious Studies at school where we learnt about all religions where we ended up making up our own minds. The human race has always had conflicts with other groups but surely we need to try to be tolerant to others ro live happily .Yes I am a dreamer wishing for a Utopia for all but I doubt if it will ever arise but that does not mean we do not have to strive for all to live together.
ReplyDeleteYes I am a dreamer wishing for a Utopia
DeleteThat’s how it always starts…
And then it always ends with guillotines…
According to a BBC Radio 4 News Bulletin I heard yesterday (03/05/24) the various religions in the state of Kerala still manage to live very harmoniously together and are very proud f the fact.
ReplyDelete