I believe in education, but that is not enough

[rug]

Atheist Nicholas Barber had his daughter baptised to help get her into get her into the local Church of England school. But, he says, why should he have to do so?

Nicholas Barber
Sunday 30 June 2013

The news that parents are still scrabbling to secure primary-school places for their children fills me with profound sympathy. Well, no, that's not exactly true. What it actually fills me with is profound relief that my own daughter is due to attend the lovely Church of England state primary across the road in September. But my relief – all right, my smugness – is mingled with my guilt over how my partner and I nabbed that precious school place. Yes, you guessed it. We had our daughter baptised. Even though I'm an atheist of the Dawkins-for-prime-minister variety, I promised to renounce the devil and steer my daughter towards the pearly gates.

It was an infuriating decision. The school is so close to our house that if I lobbed my copy of God Is Not Great out of the bedroom window it would land in the playground. But in the school's "oversubscription criteria", proximity lies in a lowly sixth place. Above it, in descending order, are being in care, going to the parish church, being a practising Anglican, being a practising Christian, and being a baptised Christian.

It is a mind-boggling, somewhat sinister list to read. And it doesn't seem to have much to do with what church schools were set up for, back when there was no such thing as a comprehensive system, and when pretty much everyone in England identified themselves as Anglican. In the 21st century, when we have taxes rather than tithes to pay for education, and when a quarter of us tick the "No religion" box on the census form, it's strange that we haven't scrubbed something as divisive as theology from school admission policies. Just think of the social-cohesion benefits that might follow. Instead of instructing our youngest and most impressionable citizens to separate themselves along religious lines, we could be spending five days a week teaching them what they have in common.

Nonetheless, even the most heathenish of us view faith schools with amused resignation. We echo Alexander Armstrong's catchphrase in BBC2's Rev: "On your knees, avoid the fees." But all of us, devout or doubting, should be outraged by unfair discrimination wherever we see it. As opinionated as my daughter is on the questions of ice-cream consumption and cartoon watching, she has no more influence over her religion than she does over her skin colour, so why should it have any more of an impact on her education? If a school hired Nick Griffin to sort out its over-subscription problems, we might not chuckle so indulgently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/i-believe-in-education-but-that-is-not-enough-8679943.html

What would you do?

[Jim__]

1. Are Church of England schools tax supported?

Are other church schools in England tax supported?

If a church runs a school, then I'd think they should set the criteria for who attends. If the church is tax supported, the question becomes more complicated, especially if only one church's schools are tax supported.

In Nicholas Barber's case it sounds like he benefits by baptizing his daughter, and, if the baptism is not offensive to him and he is still free to raise his daughter as an atheist, the baptism doesn't seem to come at too high a cost. I'm not sure what alternative education is available in England and what the difference in cost would be. What I would do, would depend upon what my full set of options were.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Yes; they're about one thirds of state schools in England

Around 34 per cent of maintained schools in England are schools with a religious character. That is 6750 maintained faith schools out of a total of 19,783 maintained schools.
Around 68 per cent of maintained faith schools have a Church of England religious character and 30 per cent have a Roman Catholic religious character. The first minority faith schools to open in the state sector were Jewish.
The first Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh state schools have all opened since 1998, and the first non-Christian faith academy (a Sikh school in Hillingdon) opened earlier this year.
All but a very small number of the maintained faith schools are associated with the major Christian denominations.

http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/maintained/b00198369/voluntary-and-faith-schools

All running costs are paid for by the state; for 'voluntary-aided' schools (4221 of them), 90% of capital funding comes from the state, while for voluntary-controlled schools, all capital funding comes from the state. There's a bit about admissions policies at those links too.

[Jim__]

4. It does seem that Barber has some options.

He is deliberately choosing a religious school; even though his choice is not based on the fact that it is religious. I think giving people options in what type of school they want their children to attend is preferable to prescribing one type of school for everyone.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. The problem is that any hurdle for admission attracts active parents

and filters out unconcerned parents; which affects the average of the behaviour and achievement of the children at the schools. The only hurdle in the area is religious belief (in a few local authorities, there are still entrance exams at age 11 for 'grammar' schools, which get the children that pass the exams; these inevitably end up getting better coached, and better behaved, on average, children, and type of segregation can start).

It ends up as a self-sustaining system - schools that can make parents go through some hoops get children from homes with better resources, who do better; this makes those schools over-subscribed, so they can continue making the parents try harder (by making them support a church, in this case).

[Jim__]

10. That doesn't sound like a problem with religious schools; but rather with sub-par schools.

My assumption is that schools that are not over-subscribed (default schools?) are in some way inferior. The best solution that I can think of for that is to have a high minimum standard for all normal schools - presumably there will be students that can't keep up with the minimum and they would have to be assigned to some type of special education schools. As long as there is school choice, there are likely to be some superior schools; but if the standard is high enough, then it should be acceptable that superior schools are harder to get into than standard schools.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. As the article says:

Defenders of faith schools don't tend to concern themselves with such ethical niceties. I've read numerous apologias in newspapers over the years, but they all come down to the same central thesis: "My own children go to a faith school, and it's excellent, so that's all right." Conveniently, the writers of these pieces invariably belong to the same religions as the schools they're talking about. Whether they'd be so complacent if they worshipped a different deity is never discussed. And they never acknowledge that it's exclusivity, not godliness, that gives these schools their edge.

If the comfortable middle class, who have more influence, didn't have selective faith schools to ensure a better education for their own children, they might push harder to get the sub-par schools up to standard.

[rug]

6. There does seem to be some privileged hypocrisy at work here.

It is apparently a well-regarded and desirable school.

I suspect bourgeois privilege trumps principle here.

[Jim__]

11. I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Is he a hypocrite for having his daughter baptized? If so, how is that privileged hypocrisy? Can't anyone have their children baptized into the Church of England?

Personally, I want public schools to adhere to a high educational standard. But, if I live in a district where the public schools are sub-standard, and I can afford to send my kids to private school, I will. I don't see that as hypocritical. I can't control the public school standards in my school district. I fight for a high standard; but, I wouldn't make my children suffer an inferior education if I could afford to send them to a better school.

[rug]

13. I am making one assumption here.

The assumption is that the school is desirable and caters to an upper middle class population. (That assumption is partially based on the author's statement that it is located literally a book's throw away; I do not think the author is anything leas than upper middle class.)

I am familiar with the elite public schools in NYC and the lengths people go to in order to get their children in.

That said, to baptize his child and engage in a charade solely to get his child into the school, is hypocritical for one espousing the views he says he holds.

In short, his desire to maintain his child in his economic class is apparently more important to him than practicing whatever antitheist opinions he has.

This is not simply about getting one's kid into a good school. It's about what depth of hypocrisy one reaches to do so.

Would you have your child baptized to get into a good school?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. But the baptism was suggested by the vicar

The hypocrisy includes him, too. It looks like he's glad of one more in the total of baptisms he's achieved, even if he knows it's nothing to do with the parents believing. Or perhaps he hopes he can persuade the child with the extra exposure to Christianity in the CofE school.

[rug]

17. Taking the suggestion is the hypocrisy.

Since the government supports these schools the vicar was doing what he was supposed to do, not doing something against his beliefs.

Apparently these schools (I assume there are ones for other religions) reflect a deliberate decision on what constitutes a social good there.

He doesn't have to baptize his child to get her in a school - and he probably shouldn't given his views. I'd rather send my child to a secular school or one that did not require a religious ritual than explain to her at some later time that her atheist parents baptized her to obtain a social edge.

Would you baptize your child solely so she can attend this school?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. I can see hypocrisy in what he did, but also the vicar

Assuming he lives in a town or city, there will be non-faith schools within reasonable distance (though they all, by law, must still have regular religious assemblies of a mainly Christian nature, unless the make-up of the families' religions indicates another religion would be more suitable. If you go through hoops, you may be able to keep your children out of these, but it makes them the 'outsiders', which can be a problem with children - it would be the equivalent of "now we're going to say the Pledge of Allegiance, but Alice's dad says she mustn't, so she's going to wait outside&quot . If they were in a village, the only school might be a CofE one (but in that case, I don't think they'd be able to turn away any child from the village).

It's also the closest state school to him. It's a poor set-up if a child has to walk past the school closest to her house, even though it's paid for by the state and taxes, because a religion gets to decide the admissions policy.

No, the vicar suggested the parents come and lie in his church about their beliefs - that is most definitely against his beliefs, and his duties.

[cbayer]

19. Sounds to me like the whole system is ridiculous.

What is being done to address this?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. The government likes faith schools, and wants more

There are some challenges being made, but this one, for instance, failed: http://humanism.org.uk/2012/12/14/full-judgement-published-in-richmond-catholic-schools-judicial-review/

As well as local councils handing over school sites to churches, the central government favours Christian faith schools in applications to set up the new 'free schools' (free from local council control, that is): http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jun/28/christian-faith-schools-islamic-hindu

There is the Accord Coalition, which includes teachers' unions, secular and religious groups, that think the country needs less, not more, faith-based schools: http://accordcoalition.org.uk/our-members/

[cbayer]

26. The whole separation issue needs to be addressed, imo.

I would start at the top and examine why the monarch is the head of a specific church, which I am sure is being done.

To say nothing of non-believers, how does this make believers in other religions feel? With a growing Muslim population, it seems this could cause nothing but trouble. And the public opposed faith based schools by a margin of 4:1? Sounds like a referendum to me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. The public, on the whole, still support it

and non C of E denominations and religions usually do as well, on the grounds that some religion inside the state is better than none.

Queen 'should remain Defender of the Faith' - BBC poll

In a poll by Comres to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, 79% of respondents said the monarch's religious role remained relevant.

Meanwhile, 73% said she should continue as supreme governor of the Church of England and keep the Defender of the Faith title first given to Henry VIII.
...
Farooq Murad, the general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the Queen's role in the Commonwealth meant other faith communities felt at home with her leadership of the Church of England.

"The largest Muslim countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, are part of the Commonwealth and (people) arrive here having heard of the British monarchy from their fathers and grandfathers to the extent that many of them fought for the British Empire - we feel strong Christian values are good for us, we are very much on the same grounds."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18056322

The poll: http://comres.co.uk/polls/BBC_Defender_of_the_Faith_Poll_April12_data_tables_rerun.pdf

50% thought a switch to "Defender of Faith" (ie dropping the 'the') would be a good idea for Charles's coronation.

At the next level down, a majority now want the automatic seats in the House of Lords for C of E bishops to be abolished: http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/house-of-lords-reform/

But there's not much chance of that - Lords reform (mainly about electing most of them, rather than having a few hereditary ones and appointing most for life) was quashed by Conservative backbenchers who were against it, and Labour would have joined them, to cause trouble for the coalition (showing they're not that worried about increased democracy themselves): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19149212 .

[cbayer]

28. Thanks for all the great info.

And I thought we had troubles.

From what I read, is appears that faith schools don't necessarily have to be CoE, though most are. Is that correct.

In New Orleans, there is clearly segregation down class/color lines that is reinforced by the Catholic Schools.

Most public schools are primarily black and they are free, of course.

The Catholic schools are mostly white and mostly catholic, but you don't have to be catholic to attend. They are rather reasonably priced.

The other schools, including a Jewish school, an episcopal school, a Lutheran school and some others are prohibitively expensive and very predominantly white. But I don't believe there is any religion "test" to attend any of them.

When I was growing up, pretty much everyone went to their local public school. This provided for a more eclectic student body and issues of state/church separation didn't really come up, that I recall.

[rug]

20. The article doesn't say a word about what the vicar suggested.

It simply recited the requirements to enroll.

It's not difficult imagining that the person who wrote this

The news that parents are still scrabbling to secure primary-school places for their children fills me with profound sympathy. Well, no, that's not exactly true. What it actually fills me with is profound relief that my own daughter is due to attend the lovely Church of England state primary across the road in September. But my relief – all right, my smugness – is mingled with my guilt over how my partner and I nabbed that precious school place.

is capable of lying to nab "that precious school place".

Bourgeois privilege - 1
Principles - 0

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Maybe you missed this:

But there's another reason why I don't feel too bad about the baptism, and it brings us to the unlikely hero of this story: the vicar. It was his suggestion that we have our daughter dunked in the font. When I objected that, as a church-dodging sceptic, I wasn't comfortable with the idea, he floored me with his reply. "You don't have to see it as religious if you don't want to," he said. "When I was younger, everyone got baptised; it didn't matter if their families went to church or not. You can just see it as a traditional way of welcoming your daughter into the community." I had my diary out 10 seconds later.

But there is, as the article points out, the "renounce the devil" bit.

In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
You speak for them today.
Will you care for them,
and help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ’s Church?
With the help of God,we will.

In baptism, God calls us out of darkness into his marvellous light.
To follow Christ means dying to sin and rising to new life with him.
Therefore I ask:
Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.
Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.
Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?
I repent of them.
Do you turn to Christ as Saviour?
I turn to Christ.
Do you submit to Christ as Lord?
I submit to Christ.
Do you come to Christ, the way, the truth and the life?
I come to Christ.

http://www.churchofengland.org/media/41165/cibaptismandconf.pdf

[rug]

22. I did miss that.

Still, two hypocrites do not absolve each other.

But you haven't answered yet. Would you do that?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. I don't think I would

As I said, I can see hypocrisy in what he did. But it would annoy me intensely that a faith-biased system would make my child walk further to school. If I thought she was building up friendships with many other local children who were all going to use the closest, faith, school, I might decide it would be best for her if I did the lying in church thing.

[rug]

25. Thanks for your answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. A clip from the 'Rev.' sitcom, on this subject

The vicar is talking to the head teacher of the Church of England school associated with the parish; because the school is getting graded well, attendance at the church is looking up, as prospective parents are keen to be seen as 'supporters':

[cbayer]

7. Doesn't he have a public school option?

If he makes the decision to forgo that, then he has to jump through whatever hoops they ask of him.

I am glad that in the end, he didn't regret their decision, but I really don't have much sympathy for his position.

[rug]

8. I'm still trying to figure out religious cheerleaders in Texas.

Don't get me started on the UK where the monarch is a Fidei Defensatrix.

[cbayer]

9. I understand. Apparently they use the terms public and private to mean very different

things than we mean here when it comes to schools.

And that whole Fidei Defensatrix really needs to be the first thing on the chopping block is there is any hope of moving towards a more secular state, I would think. But then, I think the whole monarchy thing needs to go.

My husband has repeatedly told me that they don't have a written constitution because the monarch is the constitution. That all seems a bit chancy to me.

[rug]

14. For all our commonality, England remains in many ways an alien place.

(Not your husband of course.

[cbayer]

15. Obviously, you have not made the acquaintance of my husband.

(Just kidding, honey)