Richard Dawkins on TV

[Dreadful Scathe]

Mr. Dawkins is on TV. Wednesday at 9pm. Its about the growing menace of faith based schools, which, unbelievably, are on the increase. Keep religion out of the education system - it has no place there whatsoever.


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/f...es-1/episode-1

[sunnybunny]

Keep religion out of the education system - it has no place there whatsoever.

I have some family that are caught up with an evangelical creationist church and are home tutoring their children - which is even more scary.

[geoff332]

Mr. Dawkins is on TV. Wednesday at 9pm. Its about the growing menace of faith based schools, which, unbelievably, are on the increase.

There are plenty of good reasons why faith-based schools are increasing. The most significant is that the self-selection and school governance associated with faith-based schools tends to improve discipline in those schools. And improved discipline improves education outcomes. As a result, non-religious people are sending their children to religious schools - because they believe they will get a better education. And, when looking at the overall averages, they're right: faith schools typically perform well above the average (including in science...).

This isn't new. The Church played an instrumental role in forming education and its instutitions - including Oxford and Cambridge. In a real sense, that hasn't changed at all.

I doubt that simply banning religion from education would actually achieve much. And I know that Dawkins is smart enough to have thought about that - so it'll be interesting to see what he says.

[Franck]

Mr. Dawkins is on TV. Wednesday at 9pm. Its about the growing menace of faith based schools, which, unbelievably, are on the increase. Keep religion out of the education system - it has no place there whatsoever.


http://www.channel4.com/programmes/f...es-1/episode-1

Thanks, I've set Sky+ to record it and look forward to hearing the arguments and debate.

[Andy McGregor]

One of the good things about single faith schools is that it removes the need to be quite so politically correct about different faiths. I can still remember my daughters being taught a confusing mish-mash of different faiths and dogmas.

[Dreadful Scathe]

There are plenty of good reasons why faith-based schools are increasing. The most significant is that the self-selection and school governance associated with faith-based schools tends to improve discipline in those schools. And improved discipline improves education outcomes. As a result, non-religious people are sending their children to religious schools - because they believe they will get a better education. And, when looking at the overall averages, they're right: faith schools typically perform well above the average (including in science...).

Nonsense. Evidence please. Any selective schools will, and do, get better results. But there's very little in it (1% of a difference at 11+, see below) Also you will find private schools generally have decent discipline and good reputations too, and they are also selective and also perform better, so its not the "faith" aspect that makes the difference, and never has been. To quote Ofsted : "Selection, even on religious grounds, is likely to attract well-behaved children from stable backgrounds".

And the important thing is that the taxpayer should absolutely NOT fund schools that have a faith based approach, it only encourages an "us and them" attitude and increases divisions in society, which are already bad enough with cultural and racial differences.

Here are two links with lots of further information ( [url=http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/research/independent_evidence_faith_schools] Faith Schools info [url] , more info) , but to take a couple of quotes...

"Some teachers did explain that the religious ethos of their school or the beliefs of their pupils can be a barrier to tackling homophobia or addressing lesbian and gay issues in classrooms.”


""On the basis of our research, looking exclusively at achievement, there is not any evidence at all to suggest really that increasing the number of faith schools will improve the level of achievement"

"This much publicised 2001 report was published after the riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley. One of its key recommendations was that faith schools reserve at least 25% of their places for those of different beliefs." ...because faith schools take in who they like, despite taxpayers paying for them. If you missed the Bradford riots, don't worry, there'll be more in a few years.

I doubt that simply banning religion from education would actually achieve much. And I know that Dawkins is smart enough to have thought about that - so it'll be interesting to see what he says.

Richard Dawkins has never talked about "banning religion" so I would be surprised if he would start now. Clearly religion should be discussed MORE in school - but ALL religion - in a way that helps children understand and accept others beliefs, traditions, holidays and everything else that is either religion, culture or a mix of the two. (1 example of that is "wearing a niqab is not religious" says one muslim, another muslim says it is) - and that's another problem with religious schools, there will be a common line taken based on the people in charge of the school and the part of the country they are in, but it will differ from other schools of the same faith (or its derivation) in the same country never mind in other countries. Faith based schools are not even borderline evil - they are evil. It is no different to a school that only accepts white people and mainly discusses the superiority of the white race in "RE: race education" lessons; sure a few non-whites might slip through but they will have to pretend they are white "to fit in" and ultimately the selection criteria lies with the school (sometimes you have to pretend to be white for years to get in)

...a "supposed-to-be" civilised country cannot justify this in any way that I can see.

[geoff332]

Nonsense. Evidence please. Any selective schools will, and do, get better results. But there's very little in it (1% of a difference at 11+, see below) Also you will find private schools generally have decent discipline and good reputations too, and they are also selective and also perform better, so its not the "faith" aspect that makes the difference, and never has been. To quote Ofsted : "Selection, even on religious grounds, is likely to attract well-behaved children from stable backgrounds".

For example, "[a]lmost two thirds of the 329 primaries with perfect results were Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Jewish schools", "despite the fact that only a third of primaries nationally are faith schools".

Of course they achieve those better results because they select pupils - but it's also part of the way the school is governed and the parent's own self-selection (if your parents are prepared to go through the effort of faking church membership to get you into a good school, then they are obviously more involved in your education. Parental involvement is a huge determinate of educational achievement). Obviously "controlling for other factors" like governance and selection removes these differences - however, the reason Faith Schools tend to perform well above average is because they have good governance and selection. But, as a parent, if you have school that you can get your kids into that performs better than the other schools in your area, you will probably try and get them into that school.

And the important thing is that the taxpayer should absolutely NOT fund schools that have a faith based approach, it only encourages an "us and them" attitude and increases divisions in society, which are already bad enough with cultural and racial differences.

That's important to you. Other people consider it critical that education provides a solid moral framework which they believe can only come from religion (you don't have to be religious to hold this particular belief). Other people believe it's their right to include religious beliefs as part of children's education - and attacking faith schools in any way creates an attitude of us and them as much as allowing them. Yet other people hold that these divisions you talk about are a product of us being too tolerant and we need more religious education to reduce them. I've got my opinions on this (which may or may not be obvious...) - but I realise that other people hold different views just as strongly.

...a "supposed-to-be" civilised country cannot justify this in any way that I can see.

Perhaps the problem is how you're seeing.

[Dreadful Scathe]

For example (your link)

That's your evidence that faith schools "perform well above the average"?!?

To quote the article...

Just two years ago, faith schools made up only four out of 10 schools with "perfect" results.
But critics say schools achieve better scores because they select pupils.
The National Secular Society said poor children living nearby were often over-looked

so we have a very recent increase in "perfect results", careful selection of pupils who, by their efforts, make the school look better and a lesser intake of poor children who may make the school look bad. Sounds like a policy designed to argue the case for faith schools with a fake increase in "success" statistics. Sheer fakery.

..oh and then, from the same article...

it emerged faith schools under-performed in an alternative league table taking account of deprivation, special needs and pupils speaking English as a second language.

so your "well above average" faith schools, are actually, er...worse than average. Did you read the article at all?

Of course they achieve those better results because they select pupils - but it's also part of the way the school is governed and the parent's own self-selection (if your parents are prepared to go through the effort of faking church membership to get you into a good school, then they are obviously more involved in your education. Parental involvement is a huge determinate of educational achievement).

Its self perpetuating - with fake figures massaged with selection, faith schools look better and better, and more parents, driven by such statistics, want their children to go there. State schools become worse on average and the children that could be brought on by association with the brighter children, and the better teachers who want to work with them, don't get the chance. Are you actually arguing FOR faith based schools? you're doing a terrible job of it. Bearing in mind the points stated, other than increasing bigotry, what is the point of faith schools?

Obviously "controlling for other factors" like governance and selection removes these differences - however, the reason Faith Schools tend to perform well above average is because they have good governance and selection. But, as a parent, if you have school that you can get your kids into that performs better than the other schools in your area, you will probably try and get them into that school.

There you go with the "well above average" nonsense again. Your evidence pointed to an article that said "Just two years ago, faith schools made up only four out of 10 schools with "perfect" results.". Good governance happens at other schools too and "selection" is a way to weed out the children you don't want in your school because of their religion or lack of it, their social status or their academic record. Lovely inclusive policy guaranteed to increase social understanding that Did you miss my quote that implied that the Bradford riots were partly due to faith based schools policy of religious selection?

That's important to you. Other people consider it critical that education provides a solid moral framework which they believe can only come from religion (you don't have to be religious to hold this particular belief).

You don't have to be religious to hold this belief? really? Do you know anyone who is not religious who believes that a moral framework can ONLY come from religion as you say? I have never heard of such a person, and I would suggest that that person is a complete idiot.

Other people believe it's their right to include religious beliefs as part of children's education

Now I am wondering if you even read my post. I think MORE religion should be taught, because religion is everywhere and important to people. What we cannot have is a bias or a particular viewpoint as if it is the only truth. School teaches children how to think for themselves but is also where they get the bulk of their social learning from. Personal beliefs of children can be shared in RE lessons, which should be socially inclusive lessons, not exclusive.

attacking faith schools in any way creates an attitude of us and them as much as allowing them.

Again, nonsense. Faith biased schools should simply not exist to practice their social selection at taxpayers expense (the vast majority of whom do not "practice" religion), there should be nothing to "attack", if "attack" was the right word - which it isn't. All schools should be inclusive and equal, if anything is being "attacked" it is socially dividing policies on schools, not particular faiths , school employees or faith schools themselves.

Yet other people hold that these divisions you talk about are a product of us being too tolerant and we need more religious education to reduce them.

Which is something that should happen in all schools, as I have said in this post and the last one.

Clearly lessons can be learnt from faith schools - but some state schools are as good if not better despite not being able to be as selective about their pupil intake - lessons can be learnt there too and the schools that bring down the average need to be brought up with an improvement in many areas. The first step to better schooling is to abolish the concept of faith schools altogether and make schools all over the country, including the ex-faith schools, have the same inclusion policy and same curriculum. Then, as a society, we can work together to better the education system for everyone, equally and fairly.

Perhaps the problem is how you're seeing.

I should accept government bigotry sponsoring? I never thought of that. Thanks.

[Lory]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything DS has said but I'm afraid I know it'd be a very hard choice for me, if the only schools I had to choose from in my area, were a religious school, with a good reputation and non selective state school, with a bad reputation.

In my area, there's lot's of schools to choose from or so you would think!

There's the private schools, both religious and non religious, which on average cost about 10k per child, per year.
The non religious, are also divided into two sections, selective on academic ability and non selective, for those who simply have the money!
I know most of the above offer a few scholarships.

Then there's the religious schools, we have Catholic, Christian and Jewish in the main.

then there's the selective schools, which select from different criteria's - academic, sport, music and dance

and lastly, we have the non selective state school.

Now, the sad fact is, 99% of parents would like their children to get into one of the top 3 sections, as the non selective state school, is quite frankly.. to quote a common saying around here.... Where all the dross go

Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter how much money the government threw at these 2 schools, they'll forever be at a disadvantage to the other schools.

As this is the only choice for all the children who come from 'problem' families to go.
For the children with minor learning disabilities, such as ADHD, dyslexia and certain personality disorders
For the refugees who've just come to the country, who don't speak English as there first language, in fact, lots of them don't speak English at all.

So, any child of normal ability, is immediately disadvantaged!

I was lucky, my 'first' child Holly, is extremely bright and got into all the selective schools she tried out for and in the end, I chose a school that had 'sibling's' as one of their entry criteria, as I knew my son would struggle during the selection process but he'd still get in.

If it have come down to only having a choice between, the state school and a religious school, I'm afraid, I'd have done anything to avoid the state one!

Just as an aside, on the performance statistics. Its a well known fact around here, that if a child at one of the 'top' private schools, isn't predicted to get an A-C grade, the school will not permit the child to take the exam by the same 'board', so that when the figures come back, they can claim that 'every child' they entered for that exam, passed with top grades. Maintaining their 100% rate!

[Dreadful Scathe]

As a parent, i can take the same personal view as Lory - you want the best schooling for your children regardless.

From a wider society point of view I think this quote from here somes it up rather well.

Satisfying the demands of some members of minority groups (who are clamoring for MORE faith schools) should not take precedence over working towards a cohesive and tolerant society.

[Lory]

Any selective schools will, and do, get better results.

Of course they achieve those better results because they select pupils -

but it's also part of the way the school is governed

Hmm, I'm not quite so convinced about that!

Once you've weeded out all the low achievers, any diverse learning needs (like language barriers, ADHD, Dyslexia and any handicaps) plus, any the children who come from socially depraved backgrounds, with little or no parental support/interest, most of your potential problems have been eradicated and its all pretty simple AFAIC.

(if your parents are prepared to go through the effort of faking church membership to get you into a good school, then they are obviously more involved in your education. Parental involvement is a huge determinate of educational achievement).

This, I completely agree with

If you've got families who actively take an interest in their children's education, you've got a clear head start!
And this is where I do believe children who come from families who actively practice religion, on a daily basis (it makes no difference what religion), already have in place some sorts formalised discipline practices, living structured lives, within their moral codes of conduct.

I know in many religious schools, the FEAR of GOD, is used as the main weapon to gain good behaviour.
So, therefore it makes these children 'easier' to teach!

But, It also stifles any 'free thinking' any freedom to learn about other religions and make one's own mind up.
Any freedom to 'explore', 'question', and 'express one's individuality'!

I'm afraid I have a very cynical view on some of the more extreme religious schools, where I believe they seek to segregate, indoctrinate and to breed distrust and fear of other religions.

How can young people be expected to come out into the diverse world, aged 18 and mix happily and harmoniously at work and during leisure, if they haven't had the opportunity mix and be friends with all these different people, during their formative years?

[geoff332]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything DS has said but I'm afraid I know it'd be a very hard choice for me, if the only schools I had to choose from in my area, were a religious school, with a good reputation and non selective state school, with a bad reputation.

That is precisely the issue. I'm not saying that faith schools are better because they're religious (this is the error the proponents of faith schools make). But the simple fact - that DS wants to ignore - is that they achieve better results than the average. Which is why many parents agree with this:

If it have come down to only having a choice between, the state school and a religious school, I'm afraid, I'd have done anything to avoid the state one!

While active religious observance in the UK is relatively low (I think it's around 10%), the number of people who have some vague belief in god or some other form of spiritualism is probably much higher. And there are likely to be a huge group of people who actually don't care either way. The people who consider themselves atheists are around 15-20% of the population. So for most of the population, the idea of a faith-based school is neither abhorrent nor essential, but merely an option to chose from.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't matter how much money the government threw at these 2 schools, they'll forever be at a disadvantage to the other schools.

There is a completely separate argument around issues of selection. Obviously, if a teacher is spending more of their time managing the more problematic students, then they have less time to teach the rest of the class. On the other hand, the more able students can often lift the standard of the entire class.

I don't know if there is a solution for those 'unselected' students. Simply putting more money into it certainly isn't going to solve it. I still remember sitting in lessons bored senseless because I could do the work in my sleep, but the teacher was forced to teach to the lower levels in the class. I barely attended any classes in my final year and still got good results and that approach stayed with me through the first two years of university. If I'd been at a school that selected the students, I'd have been in a more challenging class and would have had to accept bad results or put some work in to actually reach my potential. I would never put my children in the position I was in.

Just as an aside, on the performance statistics. Its a well known fact around here, that if a child at one of the 'top' private schools, isn't predicted to get an A-C grade, the school will not permit the child to take the exam by the same 'board', so that when the figures come back, they can claim that 'every child' they entered for that exam, passed with top grades. Maintaining their 100% rate!

There are a lot of issues around how to measure performance in schools. The drive towards improving baseline pass rates often happens at the cost of teaching the better students and therefore higher level performance. But the benefits of a good education occur over a lifetime - so to base them on how well they do on a test is flawed. However, it is the basis on which many people think about education.

[Lory]

The people who consider themselves atheists are around 15-20% of the population. So for most of the population, the idea of a faith-based school is neither abhorrent nor essential, but merely an option to chose from.

I wonder if the government would fund an 'Atheist' school?

I still remember sitting in lessons bored senseless because I could do the work in my sleep, but the teacher was forced to teach to the lower levels in the class. I barely attended any classes in my final year and still got good results and that approach stayed with me through the first two years of university.

I had a similar experience. I hardy went to school for the whole of my last year but went on the be top achiever for 2 years running at college.

Looking back, I now believe I was 'too clever' for my teachers. I asked too many questions and demanded intelligent and logical answers, which often led to debates. The teachers did not have to knowledge or skill to serve my needs and so I was labelled as uncooperative and argumentative!

I make no apologies for way I was. IMO the school blatantly failed me!

I still think I'd have been exactly the same if I went back today!!!!!

If I'd been at a school that selected the students, I'd have been in a more challenging class and would have had to accept bad results or put some work in to actually reach my potential. I would never put my children in the position I was in.

[robd]

AFAIC

????

[Lory]

????

OK, maybe I mean, AFAICS - As Far As I Can See

[Lory]

I just watched it and IMO, Richard Dawkins is a genius

[Dreadful Scathe]

But the simple fact - that DS wants to ignore - is that they achieve better results than the average.

...because they are selective. Ultimately there is no point to faith schools, misunderstood statistics only make them look like a good option. Did you actually read any of my posts?

While active religious observance in the UK is relatively low (I think it's around 10%), the number of people who have some vague belief in god or some other form of spiritualism is probably much higher.

irrelevant, as most people in the UK think religion is divisive and do not agree with the government funding faith schools.

And there are likely to be a huge group of people who actually don't care either way. The people who consider themselves atheists are around 15-20% of the population.

irrelevant to the argument of faith schools

So for most of the population, the idea of a faith-based school is neither abhorrent nor essential, but merely an option to chose from.

provably wrong - they may be neither "abhorrent or essential", two extremes, but the majority of people DO NOT WANT TO SUPPORT FAITH SCHOOLS so they are hardly "merely an option".

I wonder if the government would fund an 'Atheist' school?

How can you have an atheist school? You can't teach atheism, it is the lack of belief or even denial of god(s). You could teach the denial part i suppose but what you would really be teaching is "anti-religion", and not atheism, atheism does not consist of anything you could teach. Without theism, atheism would not exist. People often get confused with this and suggest that without religion we would all live in an atheist society - no we wouldn't, there would be no theism to be a-theistic about. We live in a society distinctly lacking in purple goblins, yet we don't say we live in an a-purplegobliny society, or worry about it.

[Dreadful Scathe]

I just watched it and IMO, Richard Dawkins is a genius

not watched it yet - v+ box was already recording its 2 programmes and i was busy so couldnt watch it live...perhaps tomorrow

[Lory]

How can you have an atheist school?

You can't, it was merely a flippant remark

But to take it to the extreme, you could have schools that actively promote a logical, scientific approach to countering some of the claims of religion.

Schools with a specific aim to proving that certain beliefs, rituals and historic traditions, have no purpose in today's society

Schools that welcome free thinking based purely on the facts we can prove.

Re the programme - I admired the Muslim school for allowing RD to question the pupils about their beliefs of theory of evolution but sadly my preconceptions about what the pupils might say they believed, were totally correct.
Even though the children were supposedly taught the theory, that man has evolved from apes, not one of them actually said they 'believed' this and the teacher seemed proud, that all of 'her' 66 pupils thought this way!

Some of the points made in this programme have quite frankly, left me aghast!

[Rocky]

..Richard Dawkins has never talked about "banning religion" so I would be surprised if he would start now..

You're having a laugh aren't you?! Dawkins is one of the World's most published and aggressive militant atheists. His view is that anyone who believes in God is stupid and/or evil and not only does he not believe in God but fully supports the view that no-one else should be believe in God either. Of course he would ban religion if he had half a chance!

His books and programs have been criticized for often presenting an extreme militant atheist view without providing any balance at all – I didn’t see the program in question, but I can’t imagine his method of grossly mis-representing the truth to support is argument has changed..

His views are so myopic, misguided and self serving that he manages to generate the completely opposite effect in people like me who don't believe in organized religion at all but will defend religious belief against his sort of vitriolic militant atheism every day of the week (except Sundays) - and believe me, that it quite an achievement..