Should Faith-Based Schools Be Banned or Not - Essay Example

Faith-based Schools: Should they be banned or not? Introduction The presence of faith-based schools has been in Britain for a long period of timewhere the first school was established in the seventeenth century. It is believed however, that the debate around this type of schools rose in accordance with the new wave of faith schools as a result of huge immigrations to the UK during the last century. The impetus was rationalized in order to maintain the identity and transmit the values, culture and religious behaviour among the new migrant minorities (Parker-Jenkins, et al, 2005). This debate however, took a significant dimension especially after the events of September 11th 2001 in New York. The term faith schools is aimed at the relationship between education and faith (Grander, et al, 2005). They are one of a variety of schools including speciality schools, grammar schools, comprehensive schools and others. They can be defined as "schools, both primary and secondary, which are provided under the aegis of recognized religious faith" (Wallace, 2008). Thus, they provide students a general education with a framework of specific religious belief including formal and informal activities. The discussion about faith schools is not easy because it involves a number of complications at both policy and practice levels. A strong debate rises among politicians, educators, media and the public conducted with a level of bias about whether this type of schools should be banned or not. This essay will investigate this issue presenting the various sides of debate. It will critically demonstrate the different assumptions, principles and verifications that each perspective gives and reveals the significance of such debate on the educational process in the UK. Doing so, it will focus on three main aspects that form the base of such debate. These include: the matching with educational aims, the educational achievement and the implications on community integration. The aim of education is to develop capacities and capabilities among people to lead a good life (Pring, 2005). Such abilities include problem solving and critical and analytical thinking that encourages personal development and build the foundation for a truly rational individual (King cited Pring, 2010). Some people stand against faith schools as they believe they mismatch many of the essential aims of education. They argue that these schools work under specific agendas that focus on nurturing particular set of religious beliefs and attitudes over the presence of attaining the basic common educational purposes. Accordingly, they state that such schools are to teach "by reason of that faith" which is unfavourable with the state undermining some of the basic principles and laws (Pring, 2005). They consider objectives as nurturing religious beliefs, morality and spiritual value not reasonable and therefore, should not be stated as a task. Rather, there should be a focus on arising other sorts of capabilities and knowledge such as thinking rational, intellectual reasoning and autonomy (King cited Pring, 2010). Moreover, they argue that faith education contradict the aim of education in the sense that it promotes a certain form of life over the plurality of views in a way that indoctrinate students instead of supporting them and giving them the tools for thinking and the ability to understand, analyze and choose freely (Pring, 2005). Such trend they suppose will close up the way towards an open minded way of thinking. In overall, they build their critique on the two features of faith schools that they feel do not work in harmony with general educational schemes. The first is having distinctive non-common educational aim while the second is involving restricted non-common educational environments. They claim therefore, that religion should be left to religious bodies and take place outside school in the means of weekend or evening classes for example to maintain a common secular education for all (Walford, 1995). This means according to them that all children will have the ability to receive their secular education together, away from being segregated and that parents can be sure that the religious teaching their children gain is in line with their own beliefs. Many people do not agree with this kind of justification, and believe that faith-based schools not only work in harmony with the aims of education, but are good ways in applying and achieving these aims in terms of process and outcomes. Oakeshott (1972) cited in King (2010, p.491), argues that the formation of knowledge is done through the understanding of different concepts and ideas. This can only evolve through engagement with philosophy, history, science and religious ideologies which can mainly be found in faith schools. Arguments that assume religious education and nurturing faith are not tasks of education and should not be considered part of the curriculum fail to recognize that societies have based their social and moral codes as well as their values and roles on religious ideologies. Thus, it is an actual part of their life. Besides, to consider what is regarded as worthwhile learning is something related to many factors one of which is the social structure. Therefore, in multi-cultural communities the interest in religion is not the same among different members and such secular tendency do not always accomplish the needs of all society members (Pring, 2005). According to King (2010) “religious education offers students an opportunity to acquaint themselves with different ways of understanding traditional and practice, explore cultural differences, appreciate religious arguments and the limitations of those arguments and examine the different cultural claims to truth". So, they are more a means of providing opportunities for students to think and know rather than enforcing them. This kind of critical analysis of different beliefs is the best in providing autonomy which is a major educational aim (King, 2010). Considering the educational achievement, there is a quite strong reflection that faith schools are doing very well. They are considered now as significant features of academic achievement in the educational landscape to the extent that even non-religious parents started becoming keen to find places for their children in these schools in order to obtain better sort of education (Parker-Jenkins et al, 2005 ; Schagen, et. al, 2002). These schools are said to provide higher academic standards and quality education with excessive literacy attainment (King, 2010; Parker-Jenkins et al, 2005). They appear to deliver competitive examination results and perform better against the normal performance criteria of effective schooling for both the primary and secondary levels as well as doing very well in the league tables even with the absence of state funding in some cases (Pring, 2005). For example, a research conducted by Schagen, et. al, (2002) found that faith schools obtained significantly higher GCSE results than community schools. Another study by Bryk, Lee & Holland (1993) showed that besides the higher students’ performance, faith-based schools achieve also higher level of social capital resulting in greater social mobility among students. Another studies undertaken by Warren and Wood prove a link between the social capital achieved within faith schools and the development of distinctive democratic political cultures (Schagen, et. al, 2002). In addition, to all that, faith schools have the advantage fostering religious ethos and moral values facing the overarching value system taking place in the community. However, there are voices that stand against the tendency of referring the higher academic achievement to the faith background of these schools. They argue that there are no differences between schools and challenges the true educational success of faith schools on the base of several issues. They disclose that the level of academic attainment is not always that much higher for faith schools over other common schools to consider it a significant indicator for their success (Gibbons & Silva, 2006). Even when there are such considerable variations there are no robust verifications or reasoning to adhere those results to the faith base of these schools (King, 2010).They assume that this might be related to the "hidden selective process" of these schools that maintains a high standard of student entering the schools not on the distinctive ethos that these schools say to have (Schagen & Schagen, 2001). The National Foundation of Education Research presents such argument and shows according to number of studies weaknesses of the evidence regarding the relationship between the cultures of these schools and their educational achievements (Schagen & Schagen, 2001). Furthermore, people holding this sort of belief presume that the high achievement results gained by these schools are not always true as they seem to look. It happens that in some cases there could be an emphasis on some aspects to hide weakness in others, resulting in assessment or evaluation criteria that celebrate the advantages and cover the faults. Another point is that the performance of faith schools students in comparison with pupils from secular schools is negatively affected when admissions are not under their control (Gibbons & Silva, 2006). Such justifications they believe weaken the idea of the prominent academic achievement of these schools and open the way for such more queries about the level of educational success in these schools. The impact of faith schools on the intensity and cohesion of society is one of the most debatable issues regarding this type of schools. On the one hand, this system is encountered as being a tool towards promoting ethnicity and elevating division, while on the other hand it is not (Parker-Jenkines, et al, 2005). People against faith schools argue that they provide distinctive education designed for certain subgroups of society. They use the curriculum in a way to transmit cultural heritage and religious identity negatively influencing the sense of citizenship and counteracting the goal of promoting national values and means of dignity and equality. It is argued that the expansion of this kind of school will contribute towards deepening the cultural, religious and social division imposing discrimination and racism (Chitty 2001; Parker-Jenkines, et. al, 2005). This appears to contradict the government rhetoric on nurturing multiculturalism and results in damaging social integration leading to a stiff between members of different beliefs which in turns affect the social and political stability of society (Halstead & McLaughlim, 2005). It is argued that in multi-ethnic and pluralist communities such as that in Britain, there is a need for children to get mixed with those of other ethnic, cultural and faith backgrounds in order to establish a thoughtful understanding, acceptance and pleasure with each others’ differences (Walford, 1995). This cannot be reached within the framework of faith based schools. It is recommended therefore, that "the identity of schools needs to be reformulate in order to value and accommodate religious diversity" (Keast, 2007). In that sense, faith schools are criticized for being selective creating "education ghettos" where a location is only made for students from same faith or ethic group who follow or who are supportive to their principles. Even if their policies are open to others, this appears to be rarely utilized throughout the selection criteria or because of as several excuses such as staff shortages and budgets limitations (Grace, 2002). They are seen accordingly as being elitist in a sense, and developed situations where diversity is perceived unhealthy. People defending the role of faith schools raise an opposing mean of discourse. They claim it is a part of the rights the nations established for all groups of community to be equal and different and to have the opportunity to participate in the surrounding world not at the expense of their own collected cultural and religious affiliations (Parker-Jenkines, et. al, 2005). This is also referred to in the human Rights Act (1998) stating that it is the right of parental to ensure for their children an education and teaching that conform their own religious and philosophical convictions (Pring,2005). Moreover, defenders believe the nations that faith schools encourage divisiveness and segregation are weak and unjustifiable and that evidence had shown in many cases a positive role for these schools towards social integrity (King, 2010; Malstead & McLaugh, 2005). Although there are examples where faith schools are considered to be divisive in a sense, they reveal that these are specific cases that should not be generalized and that such instances can be also true for common schools. The majority of faith schools including Muslim, Jewish, Hindo and others are all so much aware of the wider sense of community and contribute in several ways in reducing the barriers and development of citizens. They provide services for other deprived communities and children in need in that sense they consider themselves to be part of their local communities and engage themselves actively with different social issues and concerns through their teaching (Parker-Jenkines, et. al, 2005; Halstead & McLaugh, 2005). Besides, many of faith based schools are keen in maintaining a kind of diversity in their teaching staff. For example, one of the Islamic primary schools have over 23 different nationalities represented in the staff including non-Muslims ones. In addition to all that, it is believed that these schools emphasize good attitudes and norms such as tolerance, respect and confidence. This helps building the sense of community cohesion and responsible citizenship within a pluralistic and democratic society (Jackson, 2003; Bryk et al, 1993). It also works in parallel with the premise the government relies on, regarding its policy to increase faith schools in order to emphasis the role of religion in generating a democratic culture and genuine appreciation of recognising diversity (Keast, 2007). Accordingly, there is no such point to claim that faith schools stand behind racial hatred and community isolation. Such assumption need to be revisited in a broader sense to take into account other material, social and political conditions that produce discrimination, isolation and racism (Parker-Jenkines et al, 2005). The influence of modern communication technologies, for example, on the isolation of individuals within the same localities, is far higher than the influences of any other factor. Another rational is that there are other sorts of schools that divide children by ability, language or sex, so why is it that faith faces the biggest encounter and is said to be the cause of any segregation or racist fashion? What is more is that the secular humanism is itself a faith based philosophy and therefore, enforcing it is a mean of dominating one ideology over others which is in turns opposes the soul idea of democracy and freedom. (Parker-Jenkines, et. al, 2005; Halstead & McLaugh, 2005). Issues of culture, norms and religion are highly significant and remain prominent marks for the sense of identity. Thus, unless they are respected and engaged with the overall common culture and mores of the nation there could appear a kind of conflict as various minority cultures compete for recognition and domination (Wilson 2000, cited in Parker-Jenkines, et. al, 2005, p.171). Some suggest that there could be other forms such as weekend or part time schools that have less influence and do not contradict with common schools. However, such alternatives might not be always effectual for two reasons. They will not be able to fulfil the sum of knowledge parents would like their children to achieve, and they could be abused according to some thoughts in promoting some banned ideas in the absence of official observation (Burke et al 2002). Working within a national curriculum framework might be a good solution. Such curriculum will provide faith schools with a base that enables them to cover any additional curriculum areas under general supervision and in cooperation with other schools (Walford, 1995; Parker-Jenkines et al, 2005). From a particular point of view, many people believe that faith-based schools provide a climate free from racism more than common schools and consider them to provide healthy environments for education (Parker- Jenkines et al, 2005). In fact, there is a thought or fear that faith schools are becoming a form of a scapegoat to mask many of the underlying problems facing communities (Barker & Anderson, 2005). This kind of reflection is dangerous as it conceals peoples attentions towards others significant factors that might be more influential to the overall life quality of people. Conclusion The impact of faith schools is still a matter of debate. Whether adding positively or influencing negatively depends on the angle from which one is examining the issue. However, the continuity of expansion plans for this category of schools, despite the opposition of faith-based schools and the strict restrictions to opening more of them, is an indication of the former assumption in the sense that these schools provide what other common schools fails to attend (Parker-Jenkines, et. al, 2005). In general, the topic of faith schools cannot be easily handled. Although issues of educational aims and achievement as well as segregation are among the most debatable matters, there are still some other significant aspects that could be addressed such as the subject of state funding. There are some wide concerns about the financial support for this kind of institutions and the impact of such aid upon the curriculum development and the whole education process and whether such thing will result in positive or negative outcomes for students. This is to be added to other issues that form the base of the wide debate about faith based schools. In all cases, it can be said that reaching a point of agreement is all a matter of compromise where faith schools have to achieve a sort of balance reconciling religious education with means of citizenship, without losing their unique character. Although it might be a daunting mission, it is supposed to be the mostly accepted. References List Bryk, A, Lee, V, & Holland, P 1993. Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993. Chitty, C 2001. “The 2001 White paper and the new education Bill.” Forum, Vol. 44, No.1, pp.13-14. Gardner, R, Cairns, J, & Lawton, D 2005. Faith schools: consensus or conflict? London: Routledge. Gibbons, S & Silva, O 2006. Faith primary schools: better schools or better pupils? Centre for the Economic of Education: London School of Economics. Grace, G 2002. Catholic Schools: Mission, Markets, and Morality. London: Routledge/flamer. Jackson, R 2003. “Should the state fund faith-based schools? A review of the arguments.” British journal of religious education. 25(2): 89-102. Keast, J 2007. Religion diversity and intercultural Education: a reference Book. Strasbourg: council of Europe. King, C 2010. Faith schools in pluralistic Britain: Debate, Discussion, and Considerations. Journal of Contemporary Religion. Available on line on http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713429468 Parker-Jenkins, M, Hartas, D & Irving, BA 2005. In good faith: schools, religion, and public funding. Aldershot: Ashgate. Schagen, S, Davies, D, Rudd, P & Schagen, I 2002. The impact of specialist and faith schools on performance. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. Schagen, S & Schagen, I 2001. “Faith schools and specialist schools." Education Journal, 62. Walford, G 1995. Educational politics: pressure groups and faith-based schools. Aldershot: Avebury. Wallace, S 2008. Dictionary of Education: Oxford University. Read More