This House would ban faith schools.

Since education is something that the state is obligated to provide, any organisation that provides education is a representative of the state, even in private education. If religious groups are allowed to run schools then this means they are acting on behalf of the state, which undermines the separation of religion and the state, which the proposition believes is inherently harmful and undermining to the concept of democracy.[1]  Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes having greater separation of church and state would be beneficial arguing "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness.”[2] This separation has to include the education of children.

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

[2] Butt, Riazat, ‘Church and state could separate in UK, says Archbishop of Canterbury’, The Guardian, 17 December 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/17/religion-constitution

Running a school is not equivalent to running the country. The opposition does not accept that faith schools undermine the separation of religion and state. The religious groups running the school do not, as a result of running the school, have an opportunity to decide on the national curriculum or, for that matter, any other aspect of running the country. The idea that faith schools undermine democracy is ridiculous and unfounded.

The state should not allow the education of a child to be polluted by what is tantamount to brainwashing. Amartya Sen argues “Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention.”[1] Instead they have to learn about all religions to encourage tolerance.

It is totally acceptable for children to have religious education outside of school and to brought to places of worship but school is a place of education and they should be given an education that is not tainted by trying to ensure that they grow up with a certain attitude towards their religion.[2]

[1] Jeffries, Stuart, “To abolish only non-Christian faith schools would be taken as an affront. The answer is that they all have to go”, The Guardian, 28 July 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/28/comment.schools

[2] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.

Parents have a right to act on behalf of their children. It is the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. It is not the role of the state to intervene in the raising of a child except in exceptional circumstances and the opposition do not accept that raising a child religiously constitutes exceptional circumstances. It is not the role of the state, therefore, to intervene by banning faith schools simply to ensure that children are not educated too religiously.

At the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship[1]  which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]

[1] Directgov, “Applying for a school place: admissions criteria”, direct.gov.uk, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ChoosingASchool/DG_4016369

[2] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006. http://www.cesew.org.uk/standard.asp?id=4464

Faith schools create a sense of community. This entire argument is based upon the fact that faith schools create a close sense of community within the school themselves. The opposition does not accept that this is harm and firmly believes that anything that creates a close sense of community is a force for good as it creates more accountability for actions within the community and a better support system in the case of anything going wrong.[1]

[1] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006. http://www.cesew.org.uk/standard.asp?id=4464

When the government allows religion to act on its behalf, it confuses the role of the state and the role of religious groups. As it stands, religious groups do not appear to be truly answerable to the state and, therefore, it is unclear whether they or the government are the higher authority.[1] For example in the UK faith schools set their own admission standards and increasingly have control over their curriculum, which in other state funded schools is set by the government, as well as they are being converted to academies.[2]  This legislation would make it completely clear that the state is the ultimate authority.

[1] Dawkins, Richard. “Faith School Menace.” Channel 4. 2010.

[2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Faith schools 'get more freedom over curriculum and admissions'’, The Telegraph, 7 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8498333/Faith-schools-get-more-freedom-over-curriculum-and-admissions.html

Insulting to religion. This legislation is not simply a message to organised religion telling them that they are not a higher authority than the state; it is a message saying that the state does not believe they are capable of running schools. This serves only to worsen the state’s already fractured relationship with organised religion and cause severe problems in dealing with large religious groups, who undeniably have a lot of power and influence.

Faith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion.[1]  As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools.[2]

It would be easy to convert faith schools to normal schools.

The majority of faith schools are already tied closely to the state education system making it easy to convert them into normal schools which are not faith based. Much of the curriculum is the same or very similar so the change would not be difficult for teachers. In England for example there 6783 faith schools that are also state schools and 47 that are academies.[1] These schools would simply change to having the same systems as any other school and admission would become open to all.

[1] Department of Education, “Maintained faith schools”, 12 January 2011, http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/foi/disclosuresaboutschools/a0065446/maintained-faith-schools

[1] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.

[2] ICM, ‘Guardian Opinion Poll Fieldwork August 12^th-14^th 2005’, ICM/The Guardian, 2005, pp21 http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2005_august_guardian_august_poll.pdf

To be encouraged not banned. The idea of closing down schools because they are performing better than other schools seems ridiculous. Rather than banning faith schools so all schools are on an even, but lower, playing field, a logical course of action would be to try and determine exactly what it was about faith schools that made them perform so well and attempt to emulate that in ordinary schools to improve their performance.

It may be possible to convert the schools but they would loose their ethos. Without these schools religious ethos their standards would slip and the students would be worse off.

Since education is something that the state is obligated to provide, any organisation that provides education is a representative of the state, even in private education. If religious groups are allowed to run schools then this means they are acting on behalf of the state, which undermines the separation of religion and the state, which the proposition believes is inherently harmful and undermining to the concept of democracy.[1]  Even the Archbishop of Canterbury believes having greater separation of church and state would be beneficial arguing "I think that the notion of the monarch as supreme governor has outlived its usefulness.”[2] This separation has to include the education of children.

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

[2] Butt, Riazat, ‘Church and state could separate in UK, says Archbishop of Canterbury’, The Guardian, 17 December 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/17/religion-constitution

Running a school is not equivalent to running the country. The opposition does not accept that faith schools undermine the separation of religion and state. The religious groups running the school do not, as a result of running the school, have an opportunity to decide on the national curriculum or, for that matter, any other aspect of running the country. The idea that faith schools undermine democracy is ridiculous and unfounded.

The state should not allow the education of a child to be polluted by what is tantamount to brainwashing. Amartya Sen argues “Under this system, young children are placed in the domain of singular affiliations well before they have the ability to reason about different systems of identification that may compete for their attention.”[1] Instead they have to learn about all religions to encourage tolerance.

It is totally acceptable for children to have religious education outside of school and to brought to places of worship but school is a place of education and they should be given an education that is not tainted by trying to ensure that they grow up with a certain attitude towards their religion.[2]

[1] Jeffries, Stuart, “To abolish only non-Christian faith schools would be taken as an affront. The answer is that they all have to go”, The Guardian, 28 July 2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/28/comment.schools

[2] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.

Parents have a right to act on behalf of their children. It is the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children. It is not the role of the state to intervene in the raising of a child except in exceptional circumstances and the opposition do not accept that raising a child religiously constitutes exceptional circumstances. It is not the role of the state, therefore, to intervene by banning faith schools simply to ensure that children are not educated too religiously.

At the age at which children are sent to faith schools, they are too young to have decided their religion for themselves, and so, their parents must have decided it for them. The proposition accepts that parents have a right to decide a child’s religion on its behalf but this means that faith schools end up segregating children based on the faith that they inherit. School should be about bringing children together not segregating them. In the UK the government allows faith schools to ask for confirmation of attendance at a relevant place of worship[1]  which is inherently discriminatory and divisive. Proposition believes that separating children based on what families they are born into creates communities which find it difficult to associate with people from outside their community and therefore cause massive divisions in society based on what religion people were born into. [2]

[1] Directgov, “Applying for a school place: admissions criteria”, direct.gov.uk, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ChoosingASchool/DG_4016369

[2] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006. http://www.cesew.org.uk/standard.asp?id=4464

Faith schools create a sense of community. This entire argument is based upon the fact that faith schools create a close sense of community within the school themselves. The opposition does not accept that this is harm and firmly believes that anything that creates a close sense of community is a force for good as it creates more accountability for actions within the community and a better support system in the case of anything going wrong.[1]

[1] “The Churches and Collective Worship in Schools.” The Catholic Education Service. 2006. http://www.cesew.org.uk/standard.asp?id=4464

When the government allows religion to act on its behalf, it confuses the role of the state and the role of religious groups. As it stands, religious groups do not appear to be truly answerable to the state and, therefore, it is unclear whether they or the government are the higher authority.[1] For example in the UK faith schools set their own admission standards and increasingly have control over their curriculum, which in other state funded schools is set by the government, as well as they are being converted to academies.[2]  This legislation would make it completely clear that the state is the ultimate authority.

[1] Dawkins, Richard. “Faith School Menace.” Channel 4. 2010.

[2] Paton, Graeme, ‘Faith schools 'get more freedom over curriculum and admissions'’, The Telegraph, 7 May 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8498333/Faith-schools-get-more-freedom-over-curriculum-and-admissions.html

Insulting to religion. This legislation is not simply a message to organised religion telling them that they are not a higher authority than the state; it is a message saying that the state does not believe they are capable of running schools. This serves only to worsen the state’s already fractured relationship with organised religion and cause severe problems in dealing with large religious groups, who undeniably have a lot of power and influence.

Faith schools continuously perform better than normal schools. This creates a feeling amongst parents and children of wanting to be included in these faith schools. They are, however, excluded on the basis of their religion. This will create feelings of unfair exclusion, which will lead to animosity towards the religion running the school and, by extension, people of that religion.[1]  As a result of this 64% of people in the UK believe that there should be no state funding for faith schools.[2]

It would be easy to convert faith schools to normal schools.

The majority of faith schools are already tied closely to the state education system making it easy to convert them into normal schools which are not faith based. Much of the curriculum is the same or very similar so the change would not be difficult for teachers. In England for example there 6783 faith schools that are also state schools and 47 that are academies.[1] These schools would simply change to having the same systems as any other school and admission would become open to all.

[1] Department of Education, “Maintained faith schools”, 12 January 2011, http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/foi/disclosuresaboutschools/a0065446/maintained-faith-schools

[1] MacMullen, Ian. “Faith in Schools?: Autonomy, Citizenship and Religious Education in the Liberal State.” Princeton University Press. 2007.

[2] ICM, ‘Guardian Opinion Poll Fieldwork August 12^th-14^th 2005’, ICM/The Guardian, 2005, pp21 http://www.icmresearch.com/pdfs/2005_august_guardian_august_poll.pdf

To be encouraged not banned. The idea of closing down schools because they are performing better than other schools seems ridiculous. Rather than banning faith schools so all schools are on an even, but lower, playing field, a logical course of action would be to try and determine exactly what it was about faith schools that made them perform so well and attempt to emulate that in ordinary schools to improve their performance.

It may be possible to convert the schools but they would loose their ethos. Without these schools religious ethos their standards would slip and the students would be worse off.

Parents send their children to school so that they can be properly educated. For many parents, this education includes proper moral codes and values. Sending their child to a faith school that they know will adhere to the moral codes and values of that particular faith is one of the only ways that they can guarantee their child will be brought up with the values they consider important.[1] It is this that in part makes the schools popular as Ed Balls, then UK education secretary recognises "One thing we've learnt as a government is that having a distinct ethos, strong leadership, a commitment to promoting opportunity for all, those are the kind of schools where parents want to send their children.”[2]

[1] Mott-Thornton, Kevin. “Common Faith: Education, Spirituality and the State.” Ashgate Pub. Ltd. 1998.

[2] BBC News, “Faith schools set for expansion”, 10 September 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6986398.stm

This is not the government’s responsibility. The government does not have a responsibility to educate a child within the exact parameters that their parents dictate. If this were true, then each individual set of parents would be allowed to pick and choose what parts of the national curriculum they wished their child to learn.

Passing this legislation with be sending a signal to the religious groups that are running faith schools that we do not think they are capable of running schools. The state’s relationship with organised religion is already a fractured one. This legislation would cause a lot of tension between the government and religious communities within the country, as well as between the state and states which hold religion more highly.[1]

[1] Gay, Kathlyn. “Church and State.” Millbrook Press. 1992.

 Shows submission to organised religion. The proposition believes that by maintaining faith schools the government is allowing organised religion to act on its behalf. This not only undermines the separation of religion and the state but also indicates that organised religion has as much authority as the state. The proposition believes this is inherently harmful and that indicating that organised religion has less authority than the state would be a positive move.

This legislation would send a message of no confidence in religion and would be tantamount to the government condemning religion. It is wrong for government to suggest that faith schools are divisive as “the average grade awarded by Ofsted to secondary-level faith schools for promoting community cohesion was "substantially and significantly" better than the average grade awarded to community schools.”[1] This will lead to religious people feeling undermined and insulted by their government who would be attacking their faith with no justification based upon the performance of the schools.

[1] Pritchard, John, “Church of England schools must serve the whole community”, guardian.co.uk, 5^th May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/05/church-of-england-schools-admission

Shows submission to religion. As explained above, the proposition believes that allowing organised religion to act on behalf of the state indicates that organised religions have as much authority as the state. It is important that religious people recognise that they are answerable to the state before they are answerable to religion. Showing that religion is below the state, therefore, is actually a positive step.

Faith schools consistently perform better than ordinary schools. According to Ofsted, the UK schools inspectors, 73% of Catholic secondary Faith schools are good or outstanding, compared with 60% of English schools nationally. At primary level, 74% of Catholic schools are rated outstanding or good, compared with 66% nationally.[1] This shows that the religious aspect of their education must have some positive impact on the children who are educated there. Banning faith schools, therefore, would be condemning many children to a poorer standard of education than necessary. The opposition believes that it is the government’s role to provide the best it can for its citizens and banning faith schools would, therefore, be the opposite of this.[2]

[1] Butt, Riazat, “Gove defends faith schools”, The Guardian, 17 February 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/feb/17/gove-faith-schools

[2] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.

Creates animosity towards religious groups. The fact that faith schools perform better than ordinary schools is an advantage only for the children who are lucky enough to attend. This causes feelings of resentment on the part of parents and children who were not of the correct faith and were, therefore, forced to go to a more poorly performing school. This resentment grows into a general feeling of animosity towards the religious group running the school and to religion in general. The proposition believes this is far more harmful in the long run than a minor reduction in quality of education for a small number of children.

Sometimes faith schools are necessary for children to get a full picture of the religion that they have been born into, particularly religions, like Islam, that are based mainly in societies unlike our own and far away from our countries. In these cases, banning faith schools is tantamount to preventing parents from bringing their children up in the faith they want them brought up in. The opposition believes that this legislation is, therefore, equivalent to depriving people of religion.[1]

[1] Glenn, Charles L. “The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies.” Princeton University Press. 2002.

This is not the government’s responsibility. The government has a responsibility to educate and to allow its people to practise whatever religion they wish to. The government does not have a responsibility to facilitate the practise of a religion where it would cause harms to its people in other ways. Since it is outlined in the main proposition case that it would cause harms in other ways, this is over and above the responsibility of the government.