Losing Faith in Schools

 

According to the British Humanist Association there are currently 7000 state funded faith schools in the UK, mostly Christian, but all are legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. Furthermore, all are exempt from the normal classroom inspections that other schools are subject to.

This discrimination is unfair to children and teachers who don’t belong to a religion, or who are affiliated to a religion that is different from that of the school. This discrimination is also inconsistent with other values we uphold in society. For example, it is illegal and unjust to deny someone a job because of their ethnicity, nationality, sex, disability and religion. So why is discrimination in one sphere of society acceptable and not another? The reason could be historical: religion, especially Christianity, has played a pivotal role in education throughout British history – it is a source of culture, values, and it is arguably essential to studying English literature.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is completely opposed to the existence of state-funded faith schools.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) is completely opposed to the existence of state-funded faith schools.

A more likely reason, however, is that parents want the right to bring their children up with their values, and so see faith schools as a good vehicle to further instil these values. So it seems that there is a conflict here between the parent’s right to choose their child’s education and the child’s ability to make their mind up about what they believe. Humanists believe that the latter takes precedence, because if the former is considered more important then there will be much less room in the child’s educational life for scepticism and critical thinking.

There is no reason to prevent parents from teaching their kids whatever values and beliefs they want, but if the State endorses (by funding) a particular religion in a school then the State is also promoting a particular religion at the expense of others, or at the expense of those who have no religion at all.

In Richard Dawkins’ documentary ‘Faith School Menace?’ Dawkins visits a Muslim school and interviews a biology teacher who informs him that most of her pupils do not accept the theory of evolution. When some of these pupils are questioned about this, they tell Professor Dawkins that they consider the Koran a source of scientific knowledge, and because the Koran is in conflict with the fact that we evolved, they put their trust in the Koran.

In the documentary, 'Faith School Menace', Richard Dawkins talks to Muslim school children who do not accept the theory of evolution.
In the documentary, ‘Faith School Menace’, Richard Dawkins talks to Muslim school children who do not accept the theory of evolution.

Perhaps this is one reason to be against state-funded faith schools. In religious education classes in faith schools, because there is no standardised curriculum, the school can teach what it wants to without the classes being subject to Ofsted inspections. If there was a Marxist school, funded by the government, which had a politics class only teaching Marxist theory and attacking capitalism, many would criticise the government for sponsoring one ideology at the expense of others.

But once again the government is fine with having double standards when it comes to religion. In any politics class in the country you will be taught about a wide variety of political ideologies without any of them being preferred. In a religious education class in a faith school this is not a case. You are primarily taught about the particular religion of that school, with less focus and attention on the tenets and practices of other religions.

This is why creationism is allowed to flourish in faith schools in the UK (and more prevalently in the U.S.) because one religion dominates the classroom. The purpose of religious education should be to inform pupils about different religions just as we teach them about different opinions in politics and philosophy. Religion is a belief system and has values which are no more special than values found in politics or philosophy. If the diversity of religions was taught it would encourage an understanding and tolerance of other people’s religion (or lack of religion) and would also discourage divisiveness and xenophobia.

Furthermore, if all state funded schools were secularised it would give children a chance to question their religious beliefs and form their own opinions about the world. For those who believe that thinking for yourself is a necessary component of education, state-funded faith schools are quite problematic. They encourage children and parents to convert for the sake of entrance into the school, they can promote a confusion between myth and scientific fact, and they continue to proliferate segregation in society.

5 COMMENTS

  1. “it seems that there is a conflict here between the parent’s right to
    choose their child’s education and the child’s ability to make their
    mind up about what they believe. Humanists believe that the latter takes
    precedence”

    What does this mean in practice? That humanists want religious schools prohibited? If it doesn’t mean this, it means little more than parents shouldn’t force their children to believe what they themselves believe. Fine. Who would disagree?

    • Humanists don’t want faith schools to be prohibited, but say that they should be privately funded or set up and maintained by voluntary groups.

      • Well, let the same apply to humanist schools. Let all schools be privately funded. If the humanists made this case, that would be compatible with liberty, but they seem to want to keep the state system in place but take it over, so that it pushes only their worldview, whilst those who prefer religious schools are forced pay for that system as well as for their own children’s education..

  2. “If there was a Marxist school, funded by the government, which had a
    politics class only teaching Marxist theory and attacking capitalism,
    many would criticise the government for sponsoring one ideology at the
    expense of others.”

    That’s most state schools, actually.

    I think your argument is a little dishonest. It seems to me you are against schools having a religious identity, so you are attacking this via the issue of state funding, with a load of PC phraseology thrown in. What makes you think, if the state ceased to fund religious schools, these schools would be “secularised” rather than continuing as religious schools but funded independently? The libertarian approach would be to make all schools independent, then if you wanted to have a Humanist or Marxist school you could do so, and others could send their children elsewhere.

    • Do you have any evidence to show that “most state schools” teach Marxist theory (or any particular ideology) at the expense of others?

      If religious schools were not state funded they would, by definition, be secularised. Secularisation is the separation of religion and government, not the absence of religion. I’m not against schools having a religious identity – I’m all for them existing independently as you say. As far as I’m aware, A.C. Grayling is setting up a Humanist school – I’m not against that at all.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here