Should The State Fund Schools Run By Particular Faiths?
Should the state fund schools run by particular faiths?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Religion is a very powerful thing. Of course, it is everyone’s right to believe in what they will. T...
Religion is a very powerful thing. Of course, it is everyone’s right to believe in what they will. The state should not prescribe what people should believe. However, this is a separate question to what a state should do regarding the education of its children. If a state is aiming at the most united community it can possibly get, then some things should be common to everyone. The obvious candidate for commonality is education; a population that has gone through the same education system shares a common set of knowledge and values that can only be beneficial to social cohesion.
It is discrimination to prevent religious groups from running schools. It is showing preference to a secular philosophy of value, which is no more credible than any religious scheme of values. Why should you disallow religious involvement in education?
The state has no responsibility to subsidise any religion’s involvement in a school environment. Chi...
The state has no responsibility to subsidise any religion’s involvement in a school environment. Children can get instruction in it at home and in places of worship and can enjoy the “community spirit” outside school hours. Any spirit of community that defines the community along exclusive lines (i.e. the membership of a religion) actually excludes from this community spirit those pupils whom are not believers in the faith of the school.
Religion is an integral part of many peoples’ lives. The state is just recognising that when it enables faiths to run schools; it is catering for the needs of its people. This is important for community spirit, which faith schools are effective in creating.
To claim that faith schools correct bad explication of doctrine is insulting to parents and religiou...
To claim that faith schools correct bad explication of doctrine is insulting to parents and religious leaders. It also raises serious issues about the role of teachers in prescribing a certain ethos and certain beliefs about the world. Is it appropriate for a teacher, in such a position of power when he or she dispenses objective knowledge to children, to abuse that position by teaching something subjective as if it were as uncontested as mathematics? This is a general argument against any prescriptive “citizenship” teaching in schools, but has specific force as an objection against religious involvement in setting the tone and content of a school’s world out-look. If some form of moral prescription is unavoidable in schools it should be the most generally applicable prescription possible. Different religions, by their very natures, are specific groups within society and as such it is inappropriate to give them exclusive influence in a learning environment.
Faith schools can be beneficial in putting forward a correct picture of that faith’s doctrine and ethos. If children get taught doctrine at home, all the more reason to teach it in a regulated way in schools. It is vital to ensure that doctrine is presented accurately and moderately, rather than imprecisely in the home outside the supervision of school.
By segregating children on the grounds of religions you polarise communities and alienate them from ...
By segregating children on the grounds of religions you polarise communities and alienate them from the youth of other faiths. This is socially destructive. Moreover, the influence of one religion in the ethos of that school skews the perception of children towards viewing that religion as superior to others. This can undermine a child’s education in other religions and what they believe. In effect, you are teaching an understanding of all other religions through the medium of an ethos of one particular religion.
Faith schools should be allowed to pick the children they want to teach from within their own faith. It isn’t unreasonable to expect a Catholic school to want to teach Catholic children, or an Islamic school to teach Muslim children. If one particular faith is influencing the ethos of the school then it is most appropriate for children of that faith to attend the school.
This “faith schools are academically better” argument is misrepresenting data. Those schools that do...
This “faith schools are academically better” argument is misrepresenting data. Those schools that do perform better do so for other reasons, for example a more affluent, suburban catchment area. The religious ethos of the school has not been established as the cause of improved results.
Faith schools consistently perform better in academic league tables. Obviously, the religious element is adding value to education.
What do you think?