faith schools v non faith schools.

[In Bloom]

Yep, I'd be fine with Satanists having their own private school, provided of course that as with everybody else they complied with all laws relating to the treatment of children in their care

Do you have any particular reason to think that they'd be less likely to do so than Christians?

 

[JHE]

Yep, I'd be fine with Satanists having their own private school...

What about Satanist state schools? There are loads of Christian state schools, some Jewish ones, half a dozen Islamic ones (and a further 100-150 coming soon ) and others. If people of those religions get public dosh to help them indoctrinate children, why shouldn't Satanists?

 

[david dissadent]

Scientologists anyone.......

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I guess the argument could be made that state support goes by numbers, but in that case, unless I misread the census results, if the state supports Jewish schools it should also support Jedi ones because 0.7 % of the population claim to be Jedi, whereas only 0.5 in England and less elsewhere claimed to be Jewish on the religious faith question.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's the breakdown by census data, people who answered 'Jedi' were classed as 'no religion' which seems a bit unfair to me even if they were taking the piss.

 

[JHE]

Here's the breakdown by census data, people who answered 'Jedi' were classed as 'no religion' which seems a bit unfair to me even if they were taking the piss.

If they were taking the piss (as I imagine almost all were) it's reasonable not to count them among the stated religionists - though I think it'd be better to bung them in 'not stated'.

 

[david dissadent]

I guess the argument could be made that state support goes by numbers, but in that case, unless I misread the census results, if the state supports Jewish schools it should also support Jedi ones because 0.7 % of the population claim to be Jedi, whereas only 0.5 in England and less elsewhere claimed to be Jewish on the religious faith question.

how fucking cool would Jedi school be.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm struggling to find the detailed breakdown by religion. Has anyone managed to locate it?

I know I found it once before, so it is there someplace.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/default.asp

 

[david dissadent]

edited: that made no sense.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Well, I found this site that summarises the census data and stuff from various other sources talking about it.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rib.html

source

 

[JHE]

Well, I found this site that summarises the census data and stuff from various other sources talking about it.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/rib.html

source

Only 10,357 atheists?

Ah, I see: most atheists marked 'no religion' (as I did) and 10 thou wrote in 'atheist' as if it were a religion. Oh, well.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So from that, I think you could make a reasonable case at least that 40,000-odd more or less pagans, including wiccans, druids and whatnot, deserve to get state funding if monotheisms are going to get it to program their kids with their preferred brand of nonesense.

At least a bunch of Goddess worshipping hippies are fairly unlikely to try to convince kids to reject the science of evolutionary biology or global warming, unlike the christian fundies.

 

[david dissadent]

Native American Church.

Wonder why people joined that, given there sacrament involves psychadelics....

 

[In Bloom]

Scientologists anyone.......

IIRC, scientologists already run their own private school, and it's not like they're short on funds as an organisation, so I doubt they'd see it as worth the added scrutiny into their dodgy activities.

 

[zion]

Well, that's the thing isn't it. If you endorse the idea that government funds should subsidize religion, then I guess doing it by percentage of the population is one way you could do it. But I don't want my government funding any kind of school with a religious ethic, and I say that as a Christian.

I don't think that Satanists are inherently more likely to run worse schools than Christians. I think that the same rules should be applied to all private schools irrespective of religious ethos.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

An ICM/Guardian survey found 64% of people opposed the idea of government funding for faith schools.

source

Of course, that won't stop fundies in the Cabinet from ramming it down our throats anyhow.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

If parents want to indoctrinate their children in religious nonsense, let them do it in their own time, not pretend it is education (it isn't, it's the opposite). And they certainly shouldn't be given tax money to do it.

hear! hear! this man speaks sense.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

The solution is to make Britain a properly secular state, and forbid religious schools of any kind to receive public funds. If people want a publicly funded education, they should have to accept that it will be neutral with respect to religion. If religious indoctrination is paramount to them, they should be free to educate their children privately or at home.

definitely a proper secular state. and if they want to educate them at home because of their religious faith, let's have a little bit of outside supervision as well.

 

[Wilf]

I think that success comes from having a clear central ethos that is defined, believed in and enforced. .

I don't think thats the case (as an explanation of the supposed success of faith schools). There was a report recently (Ofsted?) which said faith schools don't teach better, organise learning better etc*. Any advantage they have is almost entirely down to selection. They are allowed a certain amount of formal selection nowadays, but much more important is the de facto selection that comes from the education marketplace. As such they are seen as desirable for middle class and aspirational parents - who do all they can to get their children a place ... and then push them all the way. Grammar schools without the 11+, in essence.

* my grammar in that sentence confims that i did not attend a faith school

 

[Azrael]

Grammar schools without the 11+, in essence.

Exactly. When grammar schools were abolished it was inevitable parents would find a way to play/distort the system to rescue little Tristrian from a sink-comp.

The sooner proper grammars are restored the better. The sectarian sinkhole our educations system is becoming is a national scandal.

 

[Wilf]

Exactly. When grammar schools were abolished it was inevitable parents would find a way to play/distort the system to rescue little Tristrian from a sink-comp.

The sooner proper grammars are restored the better. The sectarian sinkhole our educations system is becoming is a national scandal.

Whoa! I don't think that's the answer to the 'problem of faith schools'. Grammar schools were just another way of shoring up inequality and the lack of social integration. Just like faith schools

 

[Azrael]

Whoa! I don't think that's the answer to the 'problem of faith schools'. Grammar schools were just another way of shoring up inequality and the lack of social integration. Just like faith schools

Grammars shook up inequality of outcome, basing it on ability, not circumstance. Comprehensives have done the complete opposite and shored up pre-existing inequalities. Grammars did wonders for equality of opportunity. The number of working class children attending Oxbridge has dropped some 20% since their abolition. The explicitly stated aim of abolition was to trap children in the economic class to which they were born. The social mobility grammars offered ate into "class loyalty" and solidarity. This economic marooning is the only social integration their abolition has achieved, and I remain shocked by its callousness.

A grammar education gave intelligent children a chance regardless of creed or circumstance; the polar opposite of faith schools.

 

[Wilf]

I think the problem with that is that 'equality of opportunity' is not itself a form of equality. But anyway the idea that the 11+ operated as a simple, unproblematic IQ test is way off. Middle class schools trained kids for the test; grammar schools also used interviews to filter kids; many working class parents couldn't afford to send their kids to grammar schools (cost of uniforms, rugger boots etc). Equally, there were far less girls places in grammar schools. In essence grammar schools were pretty formalised mechanisms to reproduce class inequlities and, in many cases, ways of isolating bright working class kids who got through to them.

I'm equally dubious about that too:

The explicitly stated aim of abolition was to trap children in the economic class to which they were born

Whilst, I would grant, there were some pretty mixed reasons why various interests supported comps in the mid 60s, I don't think that was the dominat one amongst the actual Labour politicians responsible for cicular 10/65. Certainly not for Tony Crossland.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yep. When I was a little kid, I passed the exam to get a scholarship to the local posh school, but they then interviewed my parents, sounded them out about their finances so subtly that they didn't figure out what it was about until months later, and I didn't get in. Just as well really, the kids from that school used to get beaten up a lot by the kids from the school I did go to.

 

[In Bloom]

I think the problem with that is that 'equality of opportunity' is not itself a form of equality. But anyway the idea that the 11+ operated as a simple, unproblematic IQ test is way off. Middle class schools trained kids for the test; grammar schools also used interviews to filter kids; many working class parents couldn't afford to send their kids to grammar schools (cost of uniforms, rugger boots etc). Equally, there were far less girls places in grammar schools. In essence grammar schools were pretty formalised mechanisms to reproduce class inequlities and, in many cases, ways of isolating bright working class kids who got through to them.

Quite. This idea that there can ever be a 'class neutral' test of scholastic ability is ludicrous. A million and one factors, from private tuition to greater home stability, effect a child's performance in any test you can come up with, and most of them are ultimately tied to class in one way or another.

 

[Azrael]

I think the problem with that is that 'equality of opportunity' is not itself a form of equality.

Not of outcome, no. That's impossible (not to mention morally dubious) and the utopian meddling that comps embody has only succeeded in reinforcing class boundaries.

But anyway the idea that the 11+ operated as a simple, unproblematic IQ test is way off. Middle class schools trained kids for the test; grammar schools also used interviews to filter kids; many working class parents couldn't afford to send their kids to grammar schools (cost of uniforms, rugger boots etc). Equally, there were far less girls places in grammar schools. In essence grammar schools were pretty formalised mechanisms to reproduce class inequlities and, in many cases, ways of isolating bright working class kids who got through to them.

All of which are arguments for improving the eleven plus (and there used to be a thirteen plus to give kids a second chance) and providing more hardship money, not destroying grammar schools as a concept. Of course grammars had flaws, but the comprehensives that replace them, where quality is tied to buying into the right catchment-area, are in another league of unfairness. Both my parents were born poor and escaped through grammar schools, so I obviously have a vested interest, but figures back me up.

With grammars social mobility was still much better than it is now. An LSE study has found inequality of outcome is widening, and is increasingly tied to parental income. The notion that children of unequal ability should receive an equal education is sheer absurdity; and drags everyone down to the same level. Selection by ability defines every other aspect of life; why should schools be any different?

Whilst, I would grant, there were some pretty mixed reasons why various interests supported comps in the mid 60s, I don't think that was the dominat one amongst the actual Labour politicians responsible for cicular 10/65. Certainly not for Tony Crossland.

It was to Crossland that I was referring:-

"Society's educational talent scouts will spot the future Bevins and Morrisons at an early age, and rush them off for training as members of the elite; and the Trade Unions will be led by the indifferent residue, and the Labour Party entirely by Old Etonians."

Or of course, ""If there's one thing I do, I will smash every fucking grammar school in the country."

The Future of Socialism attacks the notion of meritocracy, afraid that it would replace an economic elite with an intellectual elite. Of course, all comps have succeeded in doing is combining the two, and entrenching the result. You said bright working class kids who made it were "isolated" from their class. If class is what defines you, and if class war is the vehicle for a better society, then that thought will obviously repel; if class is something that should reflect ability, then nothing is fairer than redressing an accident of birth.

 

[Azrael]

Quite. This idea that there can ever be a 'class neutral' test of scholastic ability is ludicrous. A million and one factors, from private tuition to greater home stability, effect a child's performance in any test you can come up with, and most of them are ultimately tied to class in one way or another.

Then why, from the introduction of the tripartite system, were bright working class children increasingly accepted to grammars as dull middle class children were increasingly excluded? Middle class kids being consigned to secondary moderns played a large part in consigning grammar schools to the dustbin of history.

If meritocracy can exist without egalitarianism, socialism becomes a lot harder to sell. As with the false notion that "poverty causes crime", claims that unfairness and social damage can be remedied without making everyone equal will inevitably be attacked, because without them the socialist project crumbles.

 

[Haller]

"the Trade Unions will be led by the indifferent residue, and the Labour Party entirely by Old Etonians."

He hadn't allowed for Fettes.

 

[zion]

Speaking as a bright kid who was isolated from his class through Thatcher's assisted places scheme -

of course it sucked on one level to be the guy who wore the handmedown clothes and got mocked for it. One of my classmates even tried to discourage my girlfriend from going out with me by asking her whether she knew how poor I was (we're married now ). But I did get a very thorough and intense education out of it that has really helped me find interesting work to do. It made me passionate about how absurd and limiting the bloody British class system, but I don't generally weep for the loss of whatever solidarity I would have hypothetically experienced if I had been educated with people who were comparably badly off. It's not like going there betrayed my true self, because my true self is partly someone who did get that private education.

 

[Wilf]

Not of outcome, no. That's impossible (not to mention morally dubious) and the utopian meddling that comps embody has only succeeded in reinforcing class boundaries.

The idea that comps amounted to 'utopian meddling' shows a lack of understanding of the last 40 years of educational history. There was a kind of apologetic egalitarian position in the decision to go for comprehensives as a strategy in the early 60s - in the Labour Party, the Unions and some educational pressure groups. HOwever Labour only got the balls to go for it (10/65) by diluting this ideological position and getting a grand coalition, including industrialists and others. It was sold to the electorate in a rather mushy way - emphasising modernisation, improved economic performance and the like (rather than simple egalitarian principles). This rather messy set of priorities was confirmed by the slogan that comps would be 'grammar schools for everyone' (or something similar). After that, Labour were pretty timid about taking on local coalitions of parents and tory politicians who wanted to keep thier local grammar or 6th form - so much so that the whole project pretty much stopped around 1975 (legal challenges from Tameside etc.). And... of course, education has been in the hands of tories and nu Labour since 1979 - with free markets, competition, increased internal streaming, specialist schools, selection on 'aptitude' etc. Within the shell of something that is nominally non-selective, the reality - the substance - has been the creation of a ne0-market, designed to actually give the middle classes better outcomes. Hardly an 'egalitarian' project.

All of which are arguments for improving the eleven plus (and there used to be a thirteen plus to give kids a second chance) and providing more hardship money, not destroying grammar schools as a concept

Certainly the 11+ was flawed in a technical sense - flawed in ways that ensured that working class kids had a disadvantage. However that isn't the point - they were structures designed to reproduce the inequalities of an unequal society. The tripartite system was a social process - not some technicallly flawed system that could be tinkered with.

With grammars social mobility was still much better than it is now. An LSE study has found inequality of outcome is widening, and is increasingly tied to parental income. The notion that children of unequal ability should receive an equal education is sheer absurdity; and drags everyone down to the same level. Selection by ability defines every other aspect of life; why should schools be any different?

Just on the figures, well, I personally haven't a clue as to whether the comps are worse than the grammars with regard to social mobility. But to pose the question like that suggests you are still under the illusion that comps were genuinely seeking to deliver some kind of equality. After a few attempts at liberal education in the late 60s and ealy 70s - the kind of thing that irritated the Black Papers - they were about nothing of the kind. I thinkyou are factually wrong on that. However your points about the 'absurdity' of teaching kids with different abilities are actually offensive.

It was to Crossland that I was referring:-

"Society's educational talent scouts will spot the future Bevins and Morrisons at an early age, and rush them off for training as members of the elite; and the Trade Unions will be led by the indifferent residue, and the Labour Party entirely by Old Etonians."

Or of course, ""If there's one thing I do, I will smash every fucking grammar school in the country."

The Future of Socialism attacks the notion of meritocracy, afraid that it would replace an economic elite with an intellectual elite. Of course, all comps have succeeded in doing is combining the two, and entrenching the result. You said bright working class kids who made it were "isolated" from their class. If class is what defines you, and if class war is the vehicle for a better society, then that thought will obviously repel; if class is something that should reflect ability, then nothing is fairer than redressing an accident of birth.

So, grammar schools 'redress an accident of birth'? That seems to be suggesting that being born bright and working class is odd - a kind of alien amongst an underachieving mass of thick proles. Not sure I like the tone of that.

But that aside, if you are keen to address class inequality, why not try and change the society that produces that inequality (rather than pulling out individuals and giving them access to the glittering prizes)?