Homo economicus’ Weblog

In London a new primary school has opened – the Krishna-Avanti primary school.  At present just taking 30 children the plan is by 2014 it will have 236 pupils and a nursery; by next year the school will be in its new £10 million site.

Part of the curriculum is appreciation for the divine and holistic health

The school charter is based on the Hare Krishna movement, funded by the taxpayer, and located in Harrow where a quarter of the population that is Hindu live. Whether they will be teaching their sales technique for  raising money is unclear.  My concern for a faith school is the selective nature of education, and that it reinforces segregation in society.

Not least when you consider the broad mission statement:

The Krishna-Avanti School helps children realise their spiritual, moral and academic potential in a welcoming, secure and supportive environment centred about loving service to Lord Krishna. The school enables pupils to enjoy learning, to develop character and competence, and to prepare for secondary education and the responsibilities of adult life in contemporary Britain.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain of Accord Colaition said:

Some parents will feel reassured by a school that shares their faith and cultural background, but everybody should be aware of the impact this may have – limiting their children from other cultures, and also depriving other community schools of Hindu participation.

Categorically the children are being classed as Hindu. While a poll suggested that Hinduism has the highest retention rate in the US from childhood to adulthood (over 80%), considering children’s identities as based on the faith of their parents is worrying because the child should be able to develop that identity for themselves.

That concern is followed by what the chair of governors at the school said:

By helping children to develop strong self-identities, the best faith schools also give children the confidence to play a full part in the wider community.

Which really means encouraging Hare Krishna faith so that it thrives in the community. This is not coincidental when clearly the purpose of the school existing is to educate children within a particular religious ethos.

Parents want schools that instil discipline, and give a good education. No loving parent would want less. However, separating children on the basis of parent’s faith is encouraging people developing in their own corner of the community. This is called multiculturalism – that with respect for people developing from cradle to grave in their own sub cultural diversity is enhanced, racial relations improved, respect and understanding are enhanced.

We cannot afford to take this myth at face value – it has not played out that well. Children growing up in their own neighbourhood, cut off from daily interactions with people that are different, do not aid social cohesion. Rather it builds entrenchment, people do not understand one another because they do not interact or grow up with each other. Without understanding people have misgivings on one another. It is a part of our human nature; the insider outsiders divide. It does not improve human relations in the long run – and if we value our kid’s futures encouraging segregation is not in their interests.

Comparative religious education, teaching children about humanity – it would be great to think all schools do these things well. Yet if we have learnt anything, categorising people on faith or ethnicity is not a recipe for making society harmonise or encouraging good race relations.

Comprehensive school means being in classes with children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, catholic and protestant children. Those interactions allowed me in time to compare my own culture and belief system.  Everyone else seemed so sure of their faith and on the same level of reasoning that this was true – and that others were not only wrong but heading for damnation.  It also encouraged me to learn firsthand about other people’s cultural backgrounds. It allowed me to question the views of people my parents age that had never gone school with children from that background.

Parents want the best. They think an education within a religious school will help their kids become moral upstanding members of their community.  With a good education behind them, and encouraged to be involved with the community. Yet they have been brought up to think that community is with people of their own faith and ethnicity. That their self indentify is separate from people outside their own background.

The world is bigger than the background of faith – and failure to recognise and understand that is one reason where religion is one of those labels by which people ignore our common humanity. Whenever they can separate one another, demarcate one another. Growing up separate does not make people more homogenise. It makes the world smaller, the focus narrower – and the world’s problems that little bit bigger. As a taxpayer I do not want to finance an experiment that will narrow participation in the school system and legitimise segregation for children in the school system.   

An education system that actually gives children a decent education no matter what their parents background or the location. State financed faith schools are not the answer to this problem – properly funded schools are. Deepening the social divisions in this country further with a widening religious divide in education is going to fracture society further. We need less, not more faith schools.

Two key events happening this week for secularists happening in the UK.

Archbishop Dr Rowan “Sir Humphrey” Williams 

Earlier readers will know that a Private Members Bill in the House of Commons to scrap the blasphemy law was pulled so the government could introduce the amendment after consulting the Church of England. This week that amendment will be discussed this week in the House of Lords.

While this amendment enjoys cross party support, the earlier enthusiasm of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York has now waned with the prospective passing of the bill. The rejection is based on the fact that they are in favour in principle but:

1. The time is not yet ripe after 20 years of the church saying it should be scrapped
2. This should not be seen as making British society more secular
3. The Church of England should still have a special regard, which would amount to a first among equals kind of respect in society
4. That comedians and satirists may be beastly to people of faith

The digging of the heals of the clergy could be explained by the fact that they feel under threat. The in principle I am in favour but cannot happen yet is a tactic of Sir Humphrey in the Yes Prime Minister comedy. The Religious Hatred Act does not single out one faith as more true as another. Other faiths have been getting more vocal in their organising, whether it is Sikhs threatening a theatre or Muslims getting violent in their protests about cartoons of a person (that they regard as a Prophet and off limits to such a depiction regardless of context). A key part of the Act states:

29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Then there is the wave of books questioning the basis of God, from The God Delusion, god is not great, The End of Faith, Breaking the Spell. The arguments ranging from the legal status of faith groups compared to others, to the special status given to people of faith have struck a nerve. From unelected Bishops in a legislative chamber to faith claims impacting on public policy that defy ethical consideration. Perhaps nobody expected the Secular Inquisition using humour, argument and passion making such headway. The Archbishop’s response is an attempt to be seen tough against this wave of reason.

In practise though 9/11 in the USA and 7/7 here is perhaps the catalyst for much of society’s attitude to faith. There is concern about passions in faith that make people treat others differently whether wishing everyone that does not believe ever lasting torment in the after life or death right now in the service of God. The non theistic arguments just got a better hearing then they normally would and perhaps people in this climate feel more confident about raising their concerns about faith. That wave is the one that Dawkins et al have successfully surfed to draw attention to the issue and problems – because how religion and faith claims are treated are a concern for all of us.

The Liberal Democrats, where the original bill came from, are also trying to fix other arcane bits of legislation that can still be used. These include lewd behaviour in a church yard being considered worse than anywhere else in terms of sentence, and the ability to fine someone for interrupting the Archbishop giving a speech compared to anyone else.

More on this story can be read here.

Faith Schools admission in practise

As readers of this blog will know I have an issue with faith schools based on the selection of children on faith accessing state education to the segregation and labelling of children. Right now some parents are seeking a judicial review based on such selection.

Legal Aid (state pays costs) has been given for the case going through the high court. The school in question was formerly known as the Jewish Free School (now JLS). It refused admission because it did not recognise the mother’s conversion to Judaism.

The school policy shows preference to pupils whose mothers were born Jewish and claim this is a religious issue not based on race. However non practising children whose mothers were born Jewish are favoured in the code of admission over those whose mothers converted to the religion and regularly practise it.

With such a policy, based on the idea that a faith line is passed through the mother, it does make me wonder why people think there should be more faith schools with such selective criteria. The idea that this does not encourage segregation in access, let alone in how children are taught to think about others, is one that the government urgently needs to rethink.

Faith is not a basis for limiting publicly funded services.

My previous blog on faith schools resulted in an e mail from someone very hurt that their fond childhood memories at a faith school were not only being insulted, but they felt under attack due to my passion on this issue. As someone that is concerned about the separation of church and state you have to appreciate where I am coming from on this; I am not belittling your experience or diminishing you because you went to a faith school.

You must understand that you had a good educational experience at a faith school; I on the other hand due to faith nearly had my life chances ruined because faith was considered by the government an acceptable reason for me to be taught at home. But that is not the principle that matters here. I am not saying that educational experiences cannot be wonderful in a good (faith or none) school. Of course they can. My own secular school after being taught at home lacked character or inspiration. Given the choice between the school you went to and my old one, hands down I would go for yours.

If you look carefully at the blog I am attacking the selection of pupils on the basis of religion. That for me is more crucial then the religious character of a school. I do not think that a tax paid institution of education should be able to select pupils on the basis of faith. It provides a public service and as such should not discriminate places on the basis of religion.  

That is my contention as well as with more faith schools covering more religions we are actually not promoting social cohesion. Rather, we are deepening and widening the social divisions that already exist. The future is that these will become fault lines – misunderstandings and intolerance will be reinforced by never having known people outside your circle. The curriculum itself of religious education is not the same as being with people from different backgrounds.

If faith schools did not use the faith of parents as the basis of selection in a state school I would still have concerns that not all faith schools would be as well run as many are – but at least what I regard as an inappropriate way to select children for an education placement in a tax paid institution would be negated. Not to mention less segregation.

The simple maths – segregation reduces social cohesion, and the earlier in life that happens the worse it is.

If you disagree with that argument then by all means state why I am wrong, that children born of Islamic parents that go through the whole of their educational life in a Muslim school, live in a Muslim area of town, will be just as socially cohesive as one where the local kids go to a state school open to all regardless of faith? Or that in Northern Ireland the fact that children grew up in segregated schools did not add to tensions during the troubles that lasted over many generations?

Where parents make the choice out of educational opportunity, I understand that. When it is done out of religious conviction I am concerned, but the education on offer is what matters. My concern is public provision that is limited based on religion I find abhorrent – children should not be turned away on the basis of faith.

Social cohesion and use of tax payers money where children are excluded based on faith would therefore be my two greatest concerns. For more on that, people may want to look at the following links:

 http://www.learning-together.org.uk/docs/quotesIndex.htm

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1915

I have written about my lack of faith in them here.The Government has responded to a petition to end faith schools in the UK:

The Government remains committed to a diverse range of schools for parents to choose from, including schools with a religious character or “faith schools” as they are commonly known.

Religious Education (RE) in all schools, including faith schools, is aimed at developing pupils’ knowledge, understanding and awareness of the major religions represented in the country. It encourages respect for those holding different beliefs and helps promote pupils’ moral, cultural and mental development. In partnership with national faith and belief organisations we have introduced a national framework for RE.

In February 2006, the faith communities affirmed their support for the framework in a joint statement making it clear that all children should be given the opportunity to receive inclusive religious education, and that they are committed to making sure the framework is used in the development of religious education in all their schools and colleges.

The Churches have a long history of providing education in this country and have confirmed their commitment to community cohesion. Faith schools have an excellent record in providing high-quality education and serving disadvantaged communities and are some of the most ethnically and socially diverse in the country. Many parents who are not members of a particular faith value the structured environment provided by schools with a religious character.

The issue is not religious education. I think it very important too that people learn about different faiths and culture. Community cohesion – the ability to appreciate our similarities rather than our differences is important. I think they should learn all faiths. They should learn their claims and what they are based on. One can only begin to imagine the consequences of learning all faith claims without bias or prejudice – perhaps that is why Religious Education is still not regulated by the National Curriculum. It must be taught but there are no specifics the way that there is for history.

How is learning in an environment where children may be selected on the religious belief of their parents is considered a fair way for state provision of education? Perhaps it is also morally relevant to take into consideration the political convictions of the parents and their favourite philosophers. Why is cosmology different?

The argument that children may be segregated on the basis of faith, as a means of providing a good quality education. We would not stand for that argument if it was government policy that schools along ethnic character shall be allowed. Even if in such a segregated school the children would learn in a quality environment, and that it should be 100% people of an ethnic type or near so by actual selection. Shall we allow this if it were in the interests of parents that believe it gives a relatively better education, that it is in accordance with their wishes, or because the government believes it helps raise standards?

Let us say instead that the separation of children on the basis of the religion of their parents for education is one that beggars belief. The historical legacy of Churches providing education is not one that works; how many things would not be changed if we invoked the habit to which something occurred in the past and thus should continue. This is a conservative argument that does not befit a Labour government.

The reason this matters is that more faith schools for different religions are being created. This is not borne so much out of GCSE results. Rather I think religious parents, and others, fear that young people lack a moral education which they think will be met by a religious character school. More religions than the traditional Church of England and Roman Catholic schools  are being set up. Where selection is predominantly based on faith of parents how such segregation is expected to meet social cohesion is dubious – both cannot be true, both cannot be met at the same time. I cannot accept that you can have both – the government advances educational apartheid while claiming that the educational framework promotes social cohesion while the selection process does not!

Why on an earth should a faith school provide a relatively better structured environment? Is it part of government policy to advocate the fear of god as a means to provide order in the classroom, or that religious ritual and worship heals a rebellious spirit in a troubled child? Is the act of legislated school worship one that is beneficial when done more that the statutory minimum?

Now I am all for what works well in schools being shared. Yet the supposed factors that seem in the favour of faith schools are not I feel based upon their religious character but more in the way that school policy is conducted at the micro level. I am not convinced that this of its own is reason enough to allow children to be segregated. Issues of discipline, parental involvement in school, innate academic ability of students, social economic background – these factors may play more of a role then the religious ethos ascribed too.

This is a time when we need to make bridges, we need communities to come together. Where people are separate from birth and through the education system it is difficult to have cohesion later on in a community. Sub cultures develop along racial and religious lines. This is not one that encourages respect and understanding. The government by encouraging this in education increases segregation in society. It is one that is not a victory for parental choice, but for mistrust and lack of real experience of people that differ from you and your family. That darkens the lines of an already fragmented community.

Regular readers of this blog will know my opposition to Jehovah’s Witness dogma being enforced on a child who would be refused a blood transfusion that may be the best, and possibly in a critical blood loss situation the only, treatment that gives them a chance at survival. The principle derived here is that a parent cannot enforce the consequences of their religious belief on a child who may as an adult choose to reject that religious belief, let alone a life or death situation.

Where do I stand on faith schools then? Well I have to start with the fact that my mother pulled me out of my first year of Secondary School (High School) when I was 11 years old because she firmly believed as a student of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the end of the World was coming – the generation of 1914 would still be alive when the Second Coming would happen as taught by the Society. Also, I wanted to read a book – The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy – which was blasphemous because it suggested that an alien race built the earth for mice (for more on that read here). The school curriculum approved it but my mother did not.

So I was pulled out of mainstream education and taught at home for the next three years. This involved studying the bible and reading Watch Tower and Tract Society books such as Live Forever, The Bible God’s Word or Man’s?, Life How Did it Get Here by Evolution or Creation, Revelation and many other works that were pumped out by the Head Quarters. The parents of others were so impressed at what I knew of the bible and teachings that they considered making similar arrangements for their own children.

I must point out that this is the United Kingdom we are talking about here – this is not an outback in the sticks. Throughout the three years an inspector visited twice – and each time he was impressed by my good manners, ability to quote scripture and talk about world events (which I watched intently for signs of the end of the world, though I did not mention that to him).

Thankfully, my intense studying allowed me to read the original publications of Russell and Rutherford – and the full horror of how I had lived my life hit me between the eyes. That this was a man made organisation that had believed in many things which had not come to pass. The internet did not exist then, and the ease by which you can find out about the history and even read the scanned book pages that I actually read in the original volumes makes me marvel that the organisation still barely hangs on. The power of the meme is one to be reckoned with.

I mention this because from talking to people that went to Church of England or Roman Catholic schools the experience was very different. Education did not suffer – evolution was for example taught, as was languages and science (things that suffered under my home tuition which was actually me being self taught). That faith schools have on average supposedly higher grades is one reason the Labour Government has been a supporter of them. Schools of a religious character are in demand by parents.

My concern though is that segregation of any kind is wrong. To divide people on sectarian grounds is not the way to have a community that understands the differences that make up the whole. Also I am concerned that religious education – which I think vital – is not one that is properly a part of the curriculum. It has to be taught, but there are no standards on how it is taught as it is not included in the National Curriculum.

Religious prayer for children is actually a legal requirement on schools in England. However parents can opt for children not to attend Religious Education lessons. For me I find it odd that the State should legally require a religious function to be carried out by a school – such as school prayer – but say that learning about other faiths is not compulsory.

The main contention is that it seems that parents are reinforcing their religious belief on children. On this score I have to make clear that I am not suggesting that religious parents to do not take their children to church, or tell them about their faith. But the faith most people have is based on where they are born and who their parents are – it is factors that have nothing to do with the choice a child makes. My contention is that children should be aware of other faiths, and be brought up to be capable of independent thought and critical analysis.

That is not because I want all children to become atheists when they grow up. But I want them to have the choice, with the best information at their disposal and the faculties to understand what they believe. To genuinely believe something is to appreciate and understand something – most tenants of faith are beyond the comprehension of a minor and even many adults have difficulty expressing certain aspects of dogma. As such they are children of faith parents – they have yet to reach an age where they have made an informed choice.

To put in perspective no one would say of Socialist parents that their child is a socialist child. There is no school of Socialist character where children in addition to learning the National Curriculum learn about the great traditions of the Labour Party, the leaders and policy through the ages. A mention is made of other political parties and philosophy but the school reflects the foundation of a mainstream political philosophy.

We would be aghast at children going to such a school, let alone one existing. Children are too young to choose such political ideology. Partisan politics is something kept out of the classroom. Yet we treat religion very differently. While the principle – a religious school or an ideological school – are similar the main difference is one of history. The Church of England was the provider of education before the State was. It should be noted that ideological education really developed more in higher education (think of the founding of the London School of Economics) with universities having a left or right wing reputation. Even then that campus distinction is not so marked now compared to the hey day of the 1960s unless you come across a particular lecturer that makes their feelings clear.

The other is should we allow all faiths to have their schools? For example suppose that the Jehovah’s Witnesses could start their own secondary school – would it have been alright for me to have gone there instead? The National Curriculum would have been taught up to standard so the school stayed open, but there would have been extra religious classes. I wonder if there would have been one entitled “The ever changing date of Armageddon in religious thought”?

The issue for me is that religion is for the private sphere not the public sphere. State education should not be financing religious establishments, and schools should be centres of learning not of a religious character. A school should be made up of students not selected on the basis of who their parents are. Religious education is one that should be taught as an appreciation of culture, literature and differences in thought among people – without this differences cannot be appreciated.

As such I would not want to see any more faith schools opened. I am concerned that because faith schools receive tax payers money and then additional money from their Church means there is not a level playing field of resources for State schools. I wonder if faith schools are chosen because they are on average better resourced and are considered in higher regard rather than because of the religious devotion of their parents (who according to the media are prepared to go to church and read up on the faith to pass the interview for selection – even move to the right catchment area).

We have been left in this country with an anachronism in the education system. Either we allow all faiths to provide education if they can do so allowing society to become further segregated. We would not allow this on racial lines, political lines, social class lines. We do for religion. It is time we seriously considered that if we do not take this issue seriously we will end up with more faith schools that make our nation even less tolerant and more divided.

And the elephant in the room is even more accepted despite the damage wrought in it’s name.

The links below are to a debate about faith and religion in schools as on The Big Debate which Richard Dawkins took part in with others on the panel:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2194,Richard-Dawkins-on-The-Big-Debate,Richard-Dawkins-Jonathan-Dimbleby-BBC

http://www.teachers.tv/video/24057