There was a brief series on TV a couple of years ago with Richard Dawkins looking at evolution.

If I remember the details correctly, he went into schools (obviously with permission) to talk to pupils, but found a substantial reluctance among pupils to 'believe' evolution over ideas of divine creation, even after he'd done things like take them on field trips to hunt for fossils.

Now I cannot recall whether the school in question was a faith school or not, or whether this was simply a case of a group of young people whose home unbringing had created that situation, but it raises the issue of just how easy or likely it is for children to simply 'throw off' such beliefs because they decide/want to.

And if, as we already know has been the case, the lines between science and religious studies are quite deliberately blurred, then do people really simply think that youngsters will be able to sort the one from the other?

I mentioned earlier, the case of the Orthodox Jewish girls' school in Hackney, where 50% of the pupils' time is spent on religious studies. How is the conducive to anything other than continued ghettoisation?

But it also comes down to the contentious issues of selection.

Faith schools can – and do – select. So it's not difficult to see that the state schools that cannot operate selection will end up, for want of a better description, with the less desirable pupils – those with learning difficulties, those who are more disruptive, those from homes where the parents don't give a toss etc.

Is the answer selection in all circumstances, then? I don't think so – on the basis that, having seen the education that my sister received in a state secondary school and later, in a CofE secondary, having not passed her 11 plus.

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is in treating those at one end of the educational pile as not worth investing in – so you get a generally substandard level of education. To start with, we need more vocational education and training – not less.

We need streaming at some level or other for those with a more academic bent – but not treating those who don't have such leanings as inferior.

Personally, I think that insisting that all youngsters stay at school until 18 is ridiculous and counter-productive in many cases. It's just as flawed an approach to demand that someone who wants to go on a course to learn plastering has two GCSEs in order to get on that course.

Continuing the themes I touched on above, rlthis raises some interesting pointsrl.

but the counter argument is that the acquisition of 2 GCSE's shows some form of personal investment/comittment on the behalf of the individual?

The whole education system is screwed, I know people with degrees and no common sense, and I know people without degrees that are way more intelligent than their peers.

The question is, what can be done to realign things?

Both my boys attend a RC primary school, my husband is Athiest & I'm CofE on paper. As I said earlier the boys attend the best available school in my area.

A few weeks ago my oldest Son, 6 asked, "Where did all the people come from?"
Bearing in mind his age and his school I told him how some people like Father Dominic believe that God created the Earth & everything in it, but other people like Scientists believe that we evolved from Monkeys. He thought about it for a while and asked which theory I believed, (Evolution, of course). Then declared that my belief was silly and how of course God made everyone & everything!
Given his age I'm not overly worried, but I do get your point.

Given his age, that's exactly the time to worry.
What was it the Jesuits said "Give me a boy until he's seven and he'll be mine for the rest of his life"
Something like that.

And that, in two sentences describes how f**ked up the English school system is.

To be honest I'm not surprised and I was going to make the point after I read Mintballs post but before I read yours - as a society conversing with pre-school children what is the most common story that we feed them ?

Its christmas and easter, two of the three biggest dates in a young childs calendar, and we tell them even in very brief terms about the birth and death of a person who we might not even believe in ourselves, we do it to "educate" them and probably partly because we don't want them starting school believing that christmas is just about santa and easter is about a bunny.

Its hardly surprising then that the idea of a god making a world and everything in it is a passable reason for being here when a six year old hears it, after all it ties in with what its parents told it about xmas and easter.

Your right.
I had a similar conversation with a Muslim friend of mine, just before Christmas. He asked why if I don't believe in God, do I celebrate Christmas? I didn't really have a reasonable answer other than, for the Children.
I ended up telling him I celebrate the winter solstice rather than the birth of Christ and some other rubbish, but it did make me think.

Actually this "quote" has appeared in several guises; usually the version used has been selected to support whatever point the user wishes to make. The generally accepted version is "Give me the boy until he is seven, and I will show you the man."

I guess any parent or dedicated teacher could say the same thing.

We could start by ditching the requirement for "collective worship of a broadly Christian nature" and legislating that any publicly-funded school does not require any form of religious adherence for entry and does not promote or encourage any form of religious following/assembly. It seems to have worked pretty well in France & the US.

Many schools have had little difficulty in ditching domestic science, sports etc, it shouldn't be too difficult to ditch religion, apart from all-embracing humanity lessons, if they felt there was a requirement.

Why didn't you tell the truth?

I'm not sure TBH, a bit embarrassed I suppose. Other than for the kids, I don't know why I, (as a none believer) celebrate Christmas. I celebrated it before I had children & I'll go on celebrating it when they've grown up. As for why? I just will!

Well if he's talking about Christmas as in the birth of Jesus then to celebrate it you'd have to do things like go to church.

If all you do to celebrate is enjoy to much food and wine with family and friends while a bigger version, designed by coca cola, of the tooth fairy drops a few presents off in return of children been well behaved (what a bribe!) at some random date then your hardly running to be the new pope.

Secularists do come across as a bunch of defensive nutjobs sometimes, as indeed they do in the Guardian article you cited.

Christian faith schools (I can't speak for Jewish or Muslim or indeed any other faith schools) generally have an extremely good reputation academically, both at primary and secondary level. That should be reason enough to allow them more freedom to operate. Surely the aim is to raise standards? The schools which offer best practice should therefore be encouraged. I'm entirely in favour of the government's proposals on that point alone.

Secondly, some of the claims in this thread are slightly erroneous. For example, when a faith school is state funded (and there are Muslim and Jewish government funded faith schools as well as Christian) they are obliged to teach the National Curriculum OR a curriculum that is of the same breadth and standard as the National Curriculum as confirmed by OFSTED. Obviously this does not apply to private schools.

Incidentally, a lot of Anglican and Catholic schools are part funded by the respective churches and therefore they are entitled to have some say over which children get priority. ALL schools make such choices, whether that be by the rather daft lottery system invoked by the previous government or by some other means. No one school can educate everybody and of course the best schools, whether faith or secular, will attract the highest number of applicants. But not all those applicants can be accommodated and so some form of discrimination has to be applied.

Thirdly, a school is a place of employment in the same way as an office or factory is and is subject to the same employment laws as any other place of employment. The furthest a school will push so far as the faith background of a teacher is concerned is in asking for references from their local clergyman and requesting specific disclosure about their personal faith. However, I have yet to meet a teacher who wants to teach in such a specific faith environment when they have no background in that faith. Most (Christian) faith schools simply ask an applicant whether they have sympathy for the ethos of the school and in that the faith schools are no different from non-faith schools. To teach effectively in any school a teacher must have sympathy with that school's ethos.

Finally, the academies that have come into being since the coalition came into power have diverse reasons for being and I think that is very refreshing. For example, there is one in London which only targets children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Presumably that sits happy in the mind of the OPer? But throw faith into the mix and suddenly the monsters are coming to get us! It's all a bit paranoid.