It is not “intolerant” to dispute the powers and the profusion of ‘faith’ schools
James Gray replies to Brendan O’Neil. Is it really “intolerant” to criticise ‘faith’ schools?
James Gray, Faith Schools officer at the British Humanist Association
Opponents of faith schools are ‘seriously, properly illiberal’ and ‘alarmingly intolerant’. That’s the accusation levelled by Spiked magazine’s Brendan O’Neill in the latest contribution to the ‘faith’ schools debate, prompted by Richard Dawkins’ More4 documentary.
Opponents of religious schools, according to O’Neill, ignore the reality of what actually goes on in them. He describes (acknowledging that it’s anecdotal) his own Roman Catholic school, where religious character pervaded all aspects of its activities but whose banter (and graffiti) was deeply irreverent and frequently blasphemous.
The religious overload in ‘faith’ schools, argues O’Neill, means that pupils are more likely to reject dogma and develop ‘a natural scepticism towards spiritual crackpots.’ Apparently groups like the BHA just can’t see it, viewing faith schools instead as ‘the churners-out of brain-raped youngsters who will hate homos and want to strangle single mums’.
Actually, you’ll find that the BHA rarely talks about indoctrination or ‘brainwashing’. This is not out of respect for the religious authorities who run schools, but rather a recognition that the religious character of ‘faith’ schools varies widely and that children will respond to it in different ways.
But just because many children are effective ‘bullshit’ detectors (as O’Neill puts it), doesn’t mean they should be taught bullshit.
The humanist view of education is that it should transmit the cultural and intellectual achievements of humanity, while developing pupils’ capacity for autonomous rational judgment. If we become too relaxed about the presence of myth, misinformation and irrationalism in state-funded schools, then the fundamental principle of education is undermined.
Take Religious Education as an example. Faith schools can opt out of the locally agreed RE syllabus and choose instead to deliver religious instruction. In some faith schools more hours are spent memorising religious texts than doing science experiments. Unsurprisingly, this leads to such schools giving creationism or even more bizarre religious ideas (such as that salt and fresh water don’t mix, an idea floated by science students at a faith schools in the Dawkins documentary) parity with scientific fact.
Or consider sex education. Perhaps some, even the majority, of pupils will instinctively understand that a syllabus devised by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (such as that used by Roman Catholic schools in the Diocese of Lancaster) is unlikely to present an impartial account of contraception. But many won’t – should their parents’ preference for a Catholic school trump their own right to make informed reproductive choices based on evidence?
O’Neill seems to think that it should. He further argues that the campaign against faith schools is ‘really an attack on the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit’. This doesn’t describe the campaign I work on, and the right of an adult to practice their religion (a right we would defend) does not impose on the state an obligation to help them inculcate their particular beliefs in their children.
But let’s not overestimate the number of parents who – out of a deeply held conviction – make a genuine choice to send their children to a school with a religious character. The reality is that religious schooling has been forced upon the majority of non-religious parents and pupils by successive governments (often stuffed full of atheists) who believe that a religious ‘ethos’ is the best way to achieve wider political aims – ‘respect’, ‘diversity’, ‘cohesion’, ‘Big Society’…
There is actually very little appetite for religious schools – a clear majority believe the state should not be funding ‘faith’ schools of any kind (59% are against state funding for faith schools according to the most recent poll, and results on this question are often even higher). The expansion of faith schools has little to do with parental choice and everything to do with politicians, and religious groups, claiming to know what’s best for us.
James Gray is the Faith Schools Campaigns Officer at the British Humanist Association.
The British Humanist Association campaigns against ‘faith’ schools and their various privileges in teaching, employment and admissions. They are raising money to fund and resource their ‘Faith’ Schools officer for another year of dedicated campaigning on religion and schools. See Faith Schools: Just Say No.
I don’t get the argument that it’s a parent’s “right” to send his or her child to a faith school. Parents aren’t necessarily the best judges of what’s best for their children. For example:
Children are denied blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witness parents;
Girls have their genitals mutilated at the behest of ignorant parents;
Girls are sent to Pakistan for forced marriages to strangers;
Jewish kids are told that menstruating women are unclean, so they’re afraid of contact with any strange women;
Children have been denied vaccinations because their parents believe they’re unsafe, so they get measles.
And let’s not forget that most child abuse occurs in the home.
Children have rights. Parents have responsibilities.
Well said Margaret. The example of the Irish catholic in Richard’s documentary being appropriate here when his only answer to why should all these kids be in effect forced into Catholic education was on the lines of it would against the parents human rights not to be able to send their kids to a school of choice.
Margaret is right. Parents do not have the right to raise their children as they see fit because some parents are not fit to be parents. Parents may also have the best intentions for their kids, but believing they are doing the right thing is not the same as doing what is right for their children. Yes, parents have the right to chose their children’s school, but the extent of that right is limited by the right of children to a balanced education which will provide them with the tools to make their own rational choices later in life. Brainwashing kids with religious superstitions and prejudicial baggage at the stage when they are most vulnerable educationally is not a parental right; It is a crime against humanity.
I strongly support the right of parents to take steps to inform their children of their religion but that is no reason it should be part of the state system. There was a good documentary the other evening about the East London Mosque, and Muslims used to spend their own time in the evenings learning about the Qur’an, in the same way that most Jewish children go to a Scheol (sp?) on the Sabbath, and most Christian children go to Sunday School. Much as this might be disturbing to us, there’s no reason people should not be able to do this in a free society.
Where it goes wrong is when the state gets to pay for this religious education. That’s a misuse of public money, and it also means that many religious groups get additional children “for free” whose parents do not have the commitment or the interest to send them to religious schools in their spare time. That not only undermines the rights of the child, but it does not align with the intentions and commitments of the parents. They are trotting out a “right” on the part of those parents, which the parents themselves would not otherwise see fit to exercise.
Mike
Religious schools are far more of an attack on the parents right to raise their children as they see fit that the BHA campaign could ever be.
The three (state) primary schools running pre-school nurseries we are in the catchment area for are all run by faith groups; two Anglican and on Catholic. The Anglicans pre-emptively refused our son a place, apparently aware of daddies nasty atheist beliefs. The local council recommended that we become Catholics in order to get a place at the Catholic school (this is apparently not discrimination, as everybody is free to become Catholic). We pointed out we found this idea repellent, and that we had grave concerns about the quality of teaching offered at Catholic schools locally. Eventually we got a place at a pre-school nursery seven miles across the city, but this was withdrawn this summer as we were outside the catchment area. Eventually our local council (Birmingham) agreed to fund a private pre-school nursery place, but then two days into the placement withdrew this funding and suggested that we send him to a day centre run by the children’s charity Barnardo’s miles from where we live and in the middle of a rough housing estate.