An Evaluation Of Four Arguments Against State-Maintained Faith Schools - Essay Example

Educational Policies November 22, An Evaluation Of Four (4) Arguments Against Maintained Faith Schools I. Introduction In the light of contentions from secularists, people who have been against UK state-funded faith schools, there have been some alarming reasons why they say that government should not fund these religious oriented educational institutions. This report will identify at least four (4) arguments with the end in view of critically evaluating them as to their validity and rationale. It requires a brief background of the term “faith schools” to understand issues in the proper perspective as well as to be able to size up available recommendations already proposed by those for or against the faith schools. There are about 20,000 schools in England, primary and secondary combined, as of 2010. 35 % or around 7000 are faith schools. 68 % of those 7000 belong to the Church of England. Roman Catholic schools make up 30 %. Of the remaining 2 %, only 58 are non-Christians, namely, Jewish (38); Muslims (11); Sikh (4); Greek Orthodox, Hindu, Quaker, Seventh Day Adventist, United Reform Church with one (1) each (DCSF 2010). We can therefore say 65 % or about 13,000 schools are NOT state-funded faith schools. Education policy has long been reviewed by the three major political parties of UK. Conservatives or the right-wing party believes in status quo, less government interventions, and less taxes. Its members have been in favor of greater individual freedom, competition, more achievements from the individual. They believe in the inevitability of unequal distribution of wealth for reasons of differences in performance and corresponding values. Another political party, the Labour Party, wants equality, stronger government influence along with higher taxes, but more budget for Social Welfare to improve the peoples’ quality of life. It is this faction who brought about “The Children’s Plan (DCSF- Dept. for Children, Schools, and Families) 2007” which was created for the education and well-being of children and young people. (Ward and Eden, p.7) The 3rd political party, known as Liberal Democrats of UK, believes in Social Justice, Welfare State, and (just like the Conservatives) less government intervention. Liberal Democrats want “university education should be free and everyone who has the ability should be able to go to university and not be put off by the cost.” This political party wants to “set colleges free from direct state control and abolish many of the further education quangos. Public fundings should be fair and follow the choices of students.” (Liberal Democrats Official Website) In the formalized Coalition Agreement between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives dated May 2010 , mentioned the political party’s stand with regards to government’s program for faith schools. “We will work with faith groups to enable more faith schools and facilitate inclusive admissions policies in as many of these schools as possible.” (Coalition Agreement, p. 29) II. The First Argument : Divisiveness of Faith Schools By definition, faith schools are “state-funded institutions that educate pupils within the context of a particular faith or denomination” (Berkeley 3). They were formed by the British to accommodate religious diversity. The 1st argument against them mentions divisiveness of such schools in contrast to secular schools where students are accepted regardless of their faith. Children will not learn to deal with a variety of faith if they do not experience actual living with others who have different beliefs. Even a Rabbi Doctor, Jonathan Romain of the Maidenhead Synagogue, said in a letter to The Times ( April 13, 2006 ) that he sent his children “ to a school where they could sit next to a Muslim, play football with Anglicans, and walk home with an atheist ” (East & Hammond 1-2). But he was referring to “single faith schools are detrimental to both the best interest of children and the social health at large (Romain, Web).” “Strong schools for strong communities, a report published by the Church of England demonstrates that schools with a religious character contribute strongly to community cohesion. The report features a study of recent Ofsted data assessing schools progress on the statutory duty to promote community cohesion and to tackle inequality; this analysis concludes that schools with a religious character are models of good practice in terms of their promotion of community cohesion.” (ICN, 1) The Ofsted ( Office for Standard in Education ) data referred to involved a government study that inspected and graded different primary and secondary schools. Ofsted reviewed and graded the 207 primary schools of the Church of England, 66 primary schools of other faith schools, and 429 Community Schools after duly inspecting them in June 2009. This government body also compared the performance of secondary schools – 74 Faith Schools, 271 Community Schools, and 66 Foundation Schools. The grading was in terms of the school’s performance of responsibility to promote cohesion. Results of the inspection and review show no difference in the grades for all types of primary schools, with a mean of 2.2 for each type. But for the secondary schools, Community Schools got a mean of 2.31 ; Foundation Schools got a mean of 2.03 ; Faith Schools got a mean of 1.86 wherein 1 – outstanding ; 2 – Good ; 3 – Satisfactory 4 – Inadequate. In summary, the review revealed no difference in the different primary schools insofar as community cohesion is concerned. But in secondary schools, Faith Schools performed better in promoting cohesion. The review after inspections proved there is no truth to allegations of divisiveness as a result of maintaining Faith Schools. They were baseless rumors and isolated contentions. The same study showed that in terms of promoting equality of opportunity to study in Faith Schools and elimination of discrimination, it was actually Faith Schools that did better compared to other types of schools. (Jesson, p.4) As of Nov. 22, 2010 however, BBC Panorama exposed some Muslim Schools in UK where the children are exposed to teachings of Islamic Extremists. 5,000 children attending 40 Saudi Arabian network of schools allegedly make it difficult for students to be a peaceful part of British Life. ( BBC, 1) Granted that this is a loophole in the system, the proposal to stop government funding of Faith Schools should not apply to all Faith Schools just because of this news. Government has to simply exert closer supervision over “suspected” problematic Faith Schools and impose preventive measures against them. To generalize all of them as troublesome is obviously wrong. As earlier mentioned, there are 7,000 Faith Schools. And Muslim faith schools are a minority. II. The 2nd Argument : Parents Are Deprived of Their Rights to Choose the Religion Roger Marples raised the 2nd argument which he said deprived the parents of their human right to decide what religion or doctrines children should believe. He feared how indoctrinations might not be morally acceptable in faith schools. In fact, he wanted to abolish all schools with religious foundations (Marples 134). In response to such an argument, it should be noted that it was the British government who encouraged to open their own faith schools in 2001 in line with the state’s concern for educational provision. The government did not impose on parents where to send their children for schooling. Parents were free to decide which school was best for their children. There were more secular schools than faith schools in UK, making it easy for parents to find one where religion was not in the curriculum. Roger Marples does not consider those who want to maintain their religious faith and who prefer to send their children to faith schools. And concerning the fear of children being indoctrinated with morally unacceptable teachings, the British Government would have discovered one if somebody reported and proved its existence. Of course, the school administrators would be held accountable if allegations prove to be accurate. What might be the reason why those against faith schools say parents are deprived to decide what faith their children should have ? In the first place, there are 20,000 schools to choose from. 13,000 are secular schools. Parents can simply be advised to find the right environment for their children by having a list of alternative schools and visiting the websites of various schools. If in doubt, parents can call and do further research before deciding where their children should be sent for schooling. The government can also assist parents with identifying the preferred environment for their children. Clearly, there is freedom of choice and no pressure as to where parents might want their children to study for purposes of nurturing the values or preserving the culture desired. The Education Act 2005 of UK is very comprehensive for people who want to set up schools. Yet it does not infringe on parents’ freedom to choose where to educate their children. From the viewpoint of Liberal Democrats who want parents to choose where their children should study and not allow the faith schools to do too much screening which leads to favoring the middle class while the poor are not accepted, there have been recent reforms. Lord Hill, in a speech to the Church of England Academy Family Conference, said: “Like us, you worry about the gap in achievement between rich and poor, and are anxious to extend opportunity to those in poorest areas." "So we are also introducing greater freedom for all schools. That is why we’ve abolished the self-evaluation form, reduced the data collection burden and told Ofsted to slim down its inspection criteria. We will also be slimming down the National Curriculum, making governance simpler and financial management less onerous. All of these steps will give schools more freedom to concentrate on their core responsibilities – teaching and learning. Our schools white paper, to be published later this month, will set out a comprehensive reform programme for this Parliament to raise the bar for every school, close the gap between rich and poor, and ensure our education system can match the best in the world." (Department of Education ) III. 3rd Argument : Faith Schools as Threat to Undermine Values Another opposition to faith schools went further with questioning the substance of education. The 3rd argument adds to the threat against social cohesion a possibility “that some faith schools will use their power to influence the curriculum to undermine the values of a liberal, tolerant, and enlightened society.” (Chitty 229) The problem with Clyde Chitty’s stand can be traced to the basis of a fear. He utilized a survey of Head Teachers and asked their opinion based on their observations. Then using the viewpoint of Keith Porteus Wood, Director of the National Secular Society, who was obviously biased against faith schools, he reported to the public the imminent danger of promoting a religion at the expense of others. (Chitty 231-232) Insofar as the values are concerned, they are found within the diversity of faith which existed long before any faith school began. Removing faith schools is therefore not an assurance that it will reduce the diversity of religions or convictions in different beliefs. And can there be use of power to undermine values of people with different beliefs ? As a matter of fact, because the state funds faith schools, the administrators can be better held accountable by government compared to a situation wherein the government is out of the picture in some schools. Educators can be governed in meetings as well as by some resolutions that faith school administrators have to comply with. Going over the Education Act 2005 (Coddan, Chapter 5), it can be seen how inspection is being emphasized for all schools, not just faith schools. This will make it very difficult to let loose any radical who plans to undermine the correct values of its citizen. In that Education Act 2005, a school may be closed if it fails to give students an acceptable standard of education, such as when “the persons responsible for leading, managing or governing the school are not demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the school ( Chapter 5, par 45).” That Education Act 2005 was meant to strengthen the accountability framework for UK schools. It includes a provision for the inspection of Religious Education in faith schools. If there will be evidence concerning corruption of values, the designated Inspectors should swiftly report it and corrective recommendations will be required. This procedure of providing schools the opportunity to correct itself is also found in the Education Act 2005. IV. 4th Argument: Teaching Religion is NOT the Work of the State Separation of Church and State can be used as a 4th argument in that secularists have a logical reason to say it is not the work of the state to teach religion. The government is known to be the promoter of science and technology. Some teachings of religion contradict the discoveries of science (East & Hammond 1). To consider this logical reason, Richard Dawkins even set up a foundation which can be viewed online. His view is in the interest of science and reasoning. The mission of Richard Dawkins Foundation is “MISSION: Support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering.” ( Dawkins ). For Dawkins, faith schools are nuisance because many of the teachings of religion cannot be logically proven. What he proposes has been understood as atheism. The book he published was entitled “The God Delusion”. Should the government therefore follow his atheistic mind? It is an option. But the reality we cannot escape is that people come from various cultures. To ignore their religions will create a great misunderstanding between government and the people who are supposed to be governed. As of December 2009, only 2 % of the world population is Atheists. The people who have no religion but are not classified as atheist were estimated to be 12 % of total population. 32 % are Christians. 22 % belong to Islam. Hinduism stands at 13 %. Followers of Jewish religion are less than 1 % (Robinson). UK has laws about religious controversies. One of them is the Incitement to Religious Hatred Law. The other one is the law on Religious Discrimination. Public Order Act 1986 Part 3A Racial and Religious Hatred Act states that acts intended to stir up religious hatred will be punished. Use of words, behavior, written materials that prove a person to be intent on promoting religious hatred, whether these are in public places or in publications, performance of a Play, recording, broadcasting, can justify arrest and imprisonment. While it is true that UK government does not directly teach religions, it governs society including some aspects pertaining to religious beliefs. The laws on religious hatred and/or discrimination are examples. The purpose is to protect people against unscrupulous members who offend others whose culture differ from their own. It is in line with the need to provide peace and order by respecting various cultural beliefs. When faith schools are attacked by atheists, it might not represent religious hatred. But it proposes a stop to the maintenance of faith schools using government funds, on the basis of another culture that teaches science and technology as the right basis for education. Unfortunately, this is another controversy that is forced to contend with the greater majority of people not only in the UK but worldwide. To reiterate, only 2 % are atheists. Governments have to educate mostly people with religious beliefs, respecting a diversity of cultures, if we want peace and order, understanding and progress. In UK, three political parties struggle to dominate government. Depending on which faction rules by way of majority votes, UK’s Education Policy can change to benefit what is believed to be the common good. V. Conclusion All four (4) arguments, namely, (1) the divisiveness of Faith Schools, (2) deprivation of parental rights, (3) a threat that can undermine values, and (4) that the teaching of religion is not the work of the State – are obviously not valid reasons for the government to discourage Faith Schools. UK government inspectors proved as part of their work that there is no basis for allegations of divisiveness according to their study of primary schools. In fact, faith schools did better than other schools insofar as promoting community cohesion is concerned. They have provided the UK with the maintenance of cultural diversity without much disruptions to peace and order since 1902 when Faith Schools began. There is no such deprivation of parental rights because nobody in government obliges them to enter a school they do not want. With 20,000 schools to choose from, perhaps what parents need is a list of choices and information materials about the schools, so they can choose what is best for their children. If parents question why some children are favored over others when they have chosen the school, and assuming reforms are instituted to preclude favoritism, a way to resolve the protests would be by raffles of new, qualified applicants, in situations wherein a quota should not be exceeded. It is true that there have been reports of some schools selecting rich students over the poor. Raffles open to the public should resolve this issue so that the poor students will not be discriminated. The issue of threat of undermining values is debatable and depends on how well Faith Schools are governed. Education Act 1986 includes provisions for inspectors to find out evidences pointing to possible threats or misconduct or failure to provide a good standard of education. Finally, although the teaching of religion is not the work of the State, the government must ensure peaceful co-existence of various cultures and religions within the country. It should be worth mentioning that faith school systems have lasted for over a century. In my own evaluation, based on these facts, supporting faith schools will have far greater benefits compared to discouraging the educational system of the UK. The stalwarts against faith schools will most probably be made up of atheists or people who believe in science and technology more than a spiritual Supreme Creator of the Universe. Most people call them secularists. However, Liberal Democrats can put faith schools to a decline or closure if they gain power or be the majority in UK government, in its desire to promote freedom of choice insofar as religion is concerned. The political party’s ideas look so captivating with the offer to provide free education. Behind its ideology, however, there lingers the preference for separation of Church and State, which can be a prelude to an end to maintaining faith schools. A ruling party, that is, whoever wins the majority of seats in the Parliament will have the opportunity to redefine the Education Policy. After all, as Warden and Eden had stated in the book entitled Key Issues in Education Policy, “Education is politics. It is the means by which a nation defines itself and sustains its cultural existence, transmitting beliefs, ideas and knowledge from generation to generation.” (p.1) Furthermore, Warden and Eden continues by saying that education is also about change, and that the change in government policy can be faster than book publication of one policy. Another author, Stephen Ball, argued “that faith schools are now primarily for the middle class, community schools for the working class, and private and public schools have been kept the preserve of the upper class.” (Shepherd, Web) If we follow the logic of Stephen Ball, believing children are being educated in preparation for the economic showdown in the trend towards globalization (Wrigley) , faith schools might someday be evaluated in terms of how well the graduates made a country succeed or fail in economics. As soon as the atheists see economic downturns, graduates of faith schools can be blamed. Then they will offer the people change for the better by abandoning religion. A new set of radical leaders might someday actually put an end to the maintenance of faith schools. Education Policy is therefore always subject to change depending on who rules in government. Works Cited Addison, Neil. “The Religion Law of UK.” www.religionlaw.co.uk. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. Ball, S. . “The Education Debate.” Bristol: Policy Press, 2008. Print. BBC. “British Schools, Islamic Rules – Join in the Debate.” British Panorama. 22 Nov. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2010. Berkeley, Rob. “Right To Divide ? Faith Schools & Community Cohesion.” Runnymede Reports. The Runnymede Trust, 2008. Print. Chitty, Clyde. “The Malign Effect of Faith Schools.” FORUM. 49. (Nov. 3,2007: 229-232). Print. Cameron, David and Clegg, Nick. “The Coalition: Our Programme for Government.” May 2010. HM Government. Web. www.libdems.org.uk/coalition_agreement.aspx . 2 Dec. 2010 Coddan. “Education Act 2005.” Coddan CPM Core License. 15 April 2005. Reprint. Dawkins, Richard. "The God Delusion". Published by Bantam Press, Transworld Publishers 2006, Uxbridge Road, London, UK. Print. Dawkins, R. and Matt. "British Humanists contribute to documentary against faith schools." International Humanist and Ethical Union. www.iheu.org . 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. Department for Children, Schools and Families. “Faith Schools.” www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/faithschools. London DCSF 2010. Web. March 2010. Department of Education. "Lord Hill to the Church of England Academy Family Conference." Speeches. 16 Nov. 2010. Web. 25 Nov. 2010. East, P. and Hammond, J. “Faiths Schools: Arguments For and Against.” London Metropolitan University and St. Martin’s College, Lancaster. Dec. 2006. Web. Nov. 2010. EUMC. "Muslims in the European Union: Discrimination and Islamophobia". Published by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, 2006.Vienna, Austria. Print. ICN."Report shows faith Schools build community." Independent Catholic News 2008. 30 Nov. 2009. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. Jesson, David. “A Study of Recent Ofsted Data Assessing School’s Progress on the Duty to Promote community Cohesion and tackle Inequality.” Church of England, Archbishop’s Council Education Division. New York. Nov. 2009. Print. Johnson, Helen. “Reflecting on Faith Schools: An exercise in the Sociological Imagination.” International Journal of Childrens Spirituality. 10, 2. ( Aug. 2005: 115-121). Print. “Liberal Democrats: What We Stand For.” 2010. Web. http://www.libdems.org.uk/education.aspx . 2 Dec. 2010. Marples, Roger. “Faith Schools: Concensus or Conflict ?” British Journal of Educational Studies.54, 2. (June 2006: 249-251). Print. Marples, R. “Against Faith Schools: A Philosophical Argument For Children’s Rights.” International journal of children’s Spirituality. 10, 2, (Aug. 2005: pp.133-147). Print. Robinson, B.A. “Religions of the World.” www.religioustolerance.org. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 20 Dec. 2009. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. Romain, Dr. Jonathan. “Faith Schools are a Recipe for Social Disaster.” The Sunday Times. (1 Oct. 2005). www.timesonline.co.uk . Web. 22 Nov. 2010. Romain, Dr. Jonathan.”About Us: Our Chair.” Accord. accordcoalition.org.uk.2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2010 Sheherd, Jessica. "Know Your Place..." The Guardian. 29 January 2008.guardian.co.uk . Web. 2 Dec. 2010. The National Secular Society. “The Government has indicated that it intends to give faith schools a central role in Britain’s education system.” www.secularism.org.uk . 19 Nov. 2010. Web. 22 Nov. 2010. Ward, S. and Eden, C. “Key Issues in Education Policy.” London: Sage. 2009. Print. West, A., Barham, E. & Hind, A. “Secondary School Admissions in England: Policy and Practice.” London, Research and Information on State Education Trust. 2009. Web. 11 Aug. 2009. West, A., Hind, A. & Pennell, H. “School Admissions and Selection in Comprehensive Schools: Policy and Practice.” Oxford Review of Education, 2004. Print. 30(3) 347–369. Worseley, Howard. “The Birth of a Faith in the Post-Dearing Era: Asking Questions and Consultation and Getting Things Done.” International Journal of Children’s Spirituality. 10, 2. (Aug. 2005: 173-181). Print. Wrigley, Terry. "Book Review : the Education Debate." Socialist Review. March 2008. Web. http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10312 . 2 Dec. 2010. Read More