Atheists who send their children to faith school

[Why Syzygy]

Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford's new professor for the public understanding of science, is an avowed atheist, yet he sends his two daughters to a faith school. What is more, the school in question is Jewish - and Du Sautoy is not.

The mathematician, who last month took over the Oxford post from evolutionary biologist (and Britain's most famous atheist) Richard Dawkins, is married to Shani, an Israeli, and the decision to send their twins to Simon Marks Jewish primary was primarily hers: the Hackney school reminds Shani of home.

Not that it has proved such a compromise, says Du Sautoy. "Although I am an atheist and believe that education and religious beliefs should be kept separate, the emphasis of the school is on celebrating the cultural side of Judaism, rather than anything strongly religious. Our girls learn Hebrew, which means they can talk to their great-grandmother in Israel, and they do a Hanukah play rather than a Christmas play. But otherwise the school is much like the primary school I went to as a kid."

My own daughter, Leah, is also a pupil at Simon Marks. To many, my decision to choose a faith school for her will seem bizarre - hypocritical even - for I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist. But being Jewish is a great source of pride and pleasure to me and I want my kids to feel the same. Giving them a Jewish education is an almost foolproof way of ensuring that happens; throughout history, where Jewish schools have flourished, so has meaningful Jewish life.


Claire Dolin has some sympathy with that view. She sends her two daughters to St Michael's Church of England primary school in Highgate, north London, and although an atheist, says she likes it when the headteacher sends home missives berating pupils' "lack of Christian attitude" following the occasional playground altercation. "It gives the kids a framework that makes them feel they are part of a moral community," she says.

St Michael's is an oversubscribed primary and operates a points system. Everyone I spoke to stressed they had not been forced to lie about their beliefs, but to get maximum points parents need to worship regularly at the parish church. Inevitably, to get their children a place, some godless liberals profess a faith they don't have. According to Dolin (who requested a pseudonym for this article), at least half are non-believers. "It comes out in the pub, if not the playground," she says.

Rob Sanders, a commercials director whose daughter attends St Michael's, says: "I have never pretended to be a believing Christian, and at the time I was upset that I had to go to church. We have a weekend country retreat, and it meant we couldn't go there for six months. But it's an absolutely brilliant local school and from the moment I first saw it, I decided that I would do whatever it took to get my daughter a place there."

Nobody at St Michael's was available for comment for this article.

"You are not put in a position where you have to lie about your lack of faith," insists Bernd Pulverer, who edits a science journal. He thinks his decision to send his children to St Michael's is rational. "I am not a Christian, but the Anglican church is an intrinsic part of this country's cultural framework and since my kids aren't learning about it at home, I think it's a good idea for them to get it at school, even if it is with a slight religious bias," he says. (...)

Cop-out

Richard Kurti (not his real name), whose son Hugo, nine, attends a fee-paying Church of England primary in Southend-on-Sea, in Essex, has also found a Christian outlook helpful. "My mother died when Hugo was five and my father when he was seven, and when he was wrestling with the awfulness of their deaths, I was glad that the school had given him heaven to hold on to. It may have been a cop-out, but it gave him real comfort."

All of these parents are open about their atheism or agnosticism. Some, though, find themselves propelled into attending church in order to get their children into the school they want.

(...)
But many would say these parents are being naive. Nour Darwish, headteacher of the Muslim Taibah school in Cardiff, has had just one pupil whose family was secular; the overwhelming majority of parents who send their children to Islamic schools say they are practising Muslims. "He joined in year 5 and by the time he left both he and his mother had become observant Muslims," she says.

At St John's Highbury Vale, a parent who was a non-believer when her child started at the north London primary is now set to be ordained as a priest.

Atheists are sometimes accused of arrogance, and I plead guilty: I just cannot imagine that kind of Damascene conversion happening in my secular home. So, while I, for the moment, try to tread softly on my daughter's heavenly dreams by pretending I am agnostic, I know it won't be long before she wakes up from her reverent reveries. But, equally important, I am also sure that sending her to a Jewish school will make Leah a proud member of her tribe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/06/faith-schools-jewish-education-atheism

http://atheism.about.com/od/godlessamericaamericans/p/GodlessSchools.htm

[Why Syzygy]

1. The irony is ..

After all these years of having any shred of faith removed from public schools, they now find them not "safe" for their children, and choose to send them to faith schools.

How fracking ironic is that.

[charlie]

3. Was there an English campaign to remove "any shred of faith" from public schools?

I'm not up to speed on church/state relations in English schools. What prohibitions did it entail?

[Why Syzygy]

6. It is not Britain specific.

Pretending so is selective contrary ignorance.

I'm not planning to spend a lot of time gathering documentation that the same phenomena may be observed in the United States. We have recent examples and many testimonies of similar 'mismatch' between religious belief and school attendance.

If one is incapable of making associations between historic reality and current status, that one is welcome to disregard the discussion. Or, of course, they may choose to make disparaging remarks, adding nothing to the body of thought, per their usual posting habit.

CAPE member organizations, which collectively represent 80 percent of the nation’s private school enrollment, have also seen some sharp increases in student counts. The Association of Christian Schools International, which serves evangelical Christian schools, had a K-12 enrollment gain of 70 percent between 1989 and 1999. During that period, ACSI moved from the third largest to the second largest association of private schools in the country. Other CAPE organizations with substantial 10-year enrollment hikes were the Oral Roberts Educational Fellowship (53.4 percent), the American Montessori Society (53.2 percent), the National Association of Episcopal Schools (20.7 percent), the Solomon Schechter Day School Association (also 20.7 percent), the Friends Council on Education (18.1 percent), and the Lutheran Church ­ Missouri Synod (15.6 percent)
http://www.heartstrong.org/HeartStrong/EnrollmentNews.html

[charlie]

11. Not Britain specific?

I still don't see how what's going on in England has to do with your charges of hypocrisy, unless there was a popular effort to remove every "shred of faith" from schools. So, I ask you again, was there? And why make your case with examples from across the pond, if they're so readily available over here?

If one is incapable of making associations between historic reality and current status, that one is welcome to disregard the discussion. Or, of course, they may choose to make disparaging remarks, adding nothing to the body of thought, per their usual posting habit.

Oh look, the royal tone. You don't have to refer to me obliquely as "one" or "they" when you disinvite me for being incapable, habitually boorish, and adding nothing to the "body of thought." Call me charlie, it's only polite.

It's not a surprise that religious school enrollment is markedly up, what with increasing use of vouchers and the rise of religous fundamentalism, and the beating public schools have taken from Republicans and their lickspittle media pundits. So, how much of that increase is the atheist component?

[Why Syzygy]

12. Royal tone?

So, using an accepted writing style is considered "British" too? Charlie. My gawd, man.
My relatives' names are still common in the Kingdom. Am I fit to call myself a citizen of the USA?
I'll be using "one" as needed.

[charlie]

14. If there was an award for the most WTF moments on DU

you'd be in the running for the gold. So many of your posts are head-scratchers, like this one.

[Why Syzygy]

15. I'm from Texas.

:rofl:

[varkam]

4. Not very, seeing as how separation of church and state wasn't a big issue in England.

In fact, many have hypothesized that since church and state weren't separate in England that it is one of the reasons for the distinctly areligious atmosphere across the pond (at least compared to the United States) because people transfered their negative feelings towards the government onto religion since they became so intertwined. What is so "fracking ironic" is the fact that fundies over here bemoan the idea of separation of church and state when it is, in all probability, one of the things that has kept church membership up all this time.

You're really on a roll, aren't you? I thought you were one of the reasonable ones.

[Why Syzygy]

8. I doubt that was your thinking.

(...) It would be nearly impossible to discuss non-belief in the United States without mentioning the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. The Age of Enlightenment, spanning from the late 1600's to the late 1700's, changed the way people thought about religion, and its relationship with the world. For example, Thomas Hobbes criticized religion for its propagation of wars in Europe (Schultz et al, 89). Enlightenment thinkers also promoted the idea that the universe could be wholly understood through scientific observation, and that hanging on to old religious ideas would severely hamper the progress of humanity (Lippy and Williams, 731). This idea was perhaps most clearly embodied in the 1791 book by Thomas Paine titled The Age of Reason, which had a significant impact on the role of religion in the United States (733 and www.historyteacher.net and http://www.ibka.org/en/articles/ag02/kirkhart.html).

Reliance on science and technology, to the exclusion of religion, is central to the tradition of non-belief to which, I believe, my family adheres. During and after the Age of Enlightenment, the people who subscribed to the idea that observation and science could explain the universe without reference to the supernatural became known as Freethinkers, and that school of belief has been coined Freethought (Schultz et al, 109). Freethought was a very influential force during the founding and forming of the U.S.. Through the writings of Thomas Paine and John Locke, Freethought found its way into the American constitution (89). Founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, although likely Deists themselves, promoted the separation of church and state, based on the ideas of the Enlightenment (89). This separation would be critical to the future of the country and to many of the reasons why my family abandoned their religious traditions. (...)

http://are.as.wvu.edu/murphy.htm

[varkam]

10. And what does any of that have to do with anything that I said?

Oh, that's right - nothing. What does the Age of Enlightenment have to do with the traditional lack of separation of Church and State in England and the presence of it in the United States? Moreover, what does your posting about such issues in England (a completely different culture when it comes to that sort of thing) have to do with your strained attacks on the tradition of secularism in the United States government?

Those questions are more rhetorical than anything, seeing as how I don't expect you to actually address them. In fact, I'm anticipating either another non-sequitur or an ad hominem attack. I'll be waiting with bated breath to see which.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. There is a law that all state schools in England must have a public act of worship every day

I think it's ironic that you think a British article can be applied to to the situation in the USA. Maybe you should find out some facts before posting, in future.

The most recent legal statement of the requirements for collective worship (as distinct from assembly) are contained in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. These build on similar requirements in Section 346 of the Education Act 1996, the Education Reform Act 1988, and Section 25 of the 1944 Education Act, where the law on compulsory collective worship began. Section 70 of the 1998 Act states that, subject to the parental right of excusal or other special arrangements, "…each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship."

Schedule 20 to the 1998 Act gives more detailed information on the worship requirements. It notes the different practical arrangements that are allowed: "a single act of worship for all pupils or separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups." A "school group" is defined as "any group in which pupils are taught or take part in other school activities".
...
A letter from a DfEE official in the Curriculum and Assessment Division to BHA (dated 16.9.98) re-states that, "no single act (of collective worship) need contain only Christian material", and that "secular assemblies may be held as well" (as well as broadly Christian acts of collective worship, acts broadly following other religions, or acts based around several religious traditions, on other days) – so long as the majority is broadly Christian.

Technically, this means that only 51% of school days each term need have an act of worship of a broadly Christian character.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/education/parents/worship-your-rights

And the schools talked about in the article, such as Simon Marks, are of course state schools. A 'faith school' in the UK is a school run with state funds like others, but with significant input from a religion - they may put in extra money. They will certainly have some seats on the board of governors, and will have some say in the running of the school.

About a third of state schools in England are faith schools. In some villages, a religious-based school (typically a Church of England one) may be the only one within miles. The law about collective worship still applies to state schools than aren't linked to a particular religion. As the link above says, parents can then ask for their children not to attend these 'acts', but that does produce a rather divisive and excluding atmosphere. It's very difficult for a child to opt out unless their parents make the request.

[northofdenali]

2. And what makes it a good thing?

...is married to Shani, an Israeli, and the decision to send their twins to Simon Marks Jewish primary was primarily hers: the Hackney school reminds Shani of home.

What makes ANY religion "right" or "wrong"? Why can't all schools teach the way these "faith" schools teach, instead of having teachers who specialize in social engineering instead of the subjects taught?

"Religion" and "school" are synonymous, to me, with extremism.

[Loudmxr]

5. I think the parents should find the best school and send them to it. Or do the job themselves.

I know I had a great education in religious school. It also was emotionally crippling. I learned that the pledge of allegiance was sort of a message from the Holy God that this was a land of liberty and justice for all.

And when I found out it wasn't. I decided to try and make it that way. I'm fighting neo-nazis next week. Ohh boy!! Well making sure that a hate incident isn't NZ inspired. But I'm meeting with the new principal of the middle school should be fun.

I found out the clergy lied. I see it in the children of the religious schools I interview now. They don't trust adults and lie first before telling the truth.

Thats why I believe in One God. One religion. Ancient and everlasting. They just had a small piece of it. It is a lot bigger than they realize.

[Why Syzygy]

9. I like your conclusion.

Thats why I believe in One God. One religion. Ancient and everlasting. They just had a small piece of it. It is a lot bigger than they realize.

[Epiphany4z]

13. I did it

I am an atheist and I sent my daughter to a catholic school for her first couple of years. I loved the school they where great they where very tuned in to each kids strength and weakness. We lived in Cleveland at the time and even the charter type schools where not so great...I sent her older brother to one that was geared to computers as he was gifted in math and it fit him...it was ok and fit how he learns..but....it was in a bad part of town and most the work got done at home because they had so many behavior problems at the school..... Also the bus ride was insane.

So for her first couple of years we went to the local catholic school... ..she is 19 now not at all religious ...and loved her days at that school.

[Why Syzygy]

16. Personally, I have no objections whatsover.

I am simply positing that the decline in public school's effectiveness and safety in our country has a correlation with the efforts of the Atheists to change that system over the past 40+ years.

I think it's a reasonable assumption. I am open to alternate views, based on the subject at hand.
ie, not a critique of my writing.

[Epiphany4z]

17. i think the poverty in the city

has more to do with the decline..That and years no child left behind BS... than anything an atheist has set to change. After we moved out of Cleveland my children went to public schools...and they have done wonderful ...2 graduated from public school so far and 2 in college...one set to graduate from Miami U in a little over a month the other just about done with her freshman year.

[Why Syzygy]

18. Definitely

Inept politicians can't be disregarded in the equation.

[Silent3]

21. I think it's atmospheric carbon dioxide

After all, the decline in public education coincides with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, doesn't it? As long as we're playing the game of "cite a correlation and act as if it's perfectly reasonable to infer causation with no more evidence or analysis", why not?

[rrneck]

25. The way I understand it, the

efforts of atheists to change the system centered primarily on removing prayer from public schools. That and the removal of the teaching of Creationism.

If someone has dedicated their life to a particular way of thinking, no matter what it is, it will be very difficult for them to just switch it off at will. Non bias is a stretch for anyone who is wholly dedicated to something. Once in undergraduate school I was at a lecture listening to a perfectly rational and calm professor speak on the subject of his expertise. I began to notice he was getting pretty excited about it. His voice got louder and higher and he began to talk faster and with much greater excitement and agitation. He was lecturing on photosynthesis. Apparently he was a dedicated biologist; which is good since it was biology class. If it had been algebra, I would have gotten nervous.

The idea of a faith school in and of itself is not that terrible. Lots of people have gotten a good education at such institutions, and no doubt will continue to do so. But there are liabilities there that make a lot of people nervous, myself included. I have discovered, when in a location where there are a lot of "born again fundamentalist evangelicals", for lack of a better term, that I can be having a conversation with a perfectly rational, intelligent person until I mention certain key words or phrases. Words like "soul", or "eternity" or "heaven" - you get the picture. When that happens, BAM!, the lights go out. It's as if I have been recognized as a potential member of a secret club - or should I say cult. That, to my mind, is not teacher material.

Young minds in the care of a person of faith is just fine - depending on the faith. In this country, one's beliefs are sacrosanct. People can believe anything they want according to the first amendment. Since we have a tradition of not questioning people's faith, we have no way to control the impact of that faith in a setting that does not strictly compartmentalize indoctrination and education. That tilts the cultural playing field in favor of any faith organization that cares to present its faith along with general science and grammar. If that faith is based on the indoctrination of more believers, the dangers of any system that allows that go continue unchecked should be obvious. And worse, there are any number of religious organizations that are little more than corporations operating on a franchise model whose objective is simply power and profit. Those organizations do not need to run schools. Period.

If we rightfully cannot question someone's (or some organization's) faith then we cannot successfully vet which organizations get to run schools or what they teach in those schools. The only solution that I can see is to mandate secular public education for everybody, and allow religious education to continue at the discretion of the faithful on their own time.

Both of these guys founded universities:



They have no doubt seen to it that millions of parents are training their children to attend them. Bad idea.

Of course to say that faith schools should be allowed to teach whatever they want and let parents decide where to send their children (and pay for it) sounds good on its face, but that's also a bad idea. To argue that is to argue the logic of the marketplace. That marketplace has shown itself to be hopelessly tilted in favor of the wealthy and even wealthier corporate power for the last thirty years. Public schools cannot hope to compete with organizations that promise to tell people exactly what they want to hear. And hearing exactly want you want to hear hardly qualifies as education in my book.

damn typos

[Silent3]

20. My parents decided to send me to a Catholic school...

...for the first half of my freshmen year of high school, but I ended up back in my local public high school because in this particular case it turned out that our local public high school provided a better education and had better-behaved students than the Catholic school.

The main reason I was put into the Catholic school in the first place was that my father was a teacher in the local high school and we were attempting to avoid the awkward situation of having me attend a school where my own father was on the faculty. It turned out to be better to deal with that, however, than to pay extra money and drive extra distance for a lesser education.

I considered my self Catholic back then, so I wasn't in conflict about the religious aspect of the school at the time.

[Smarmie Doofus]

19. We live in a predominantly judeo-christian culture.

Our kids live there also. It's a classic dilemma. Do we NOT want them to understand the society in which they live? The literary references? The art? The music? The history?

Stripping US public schools of ALL traces of "religion" is a profound mistake. Teaching ABOUT religion is distinct from "religious instruction". But it is not perceived that way by "the law" and by educational administrators.

On average, superior education seems to be had in private schools in the US; many, but not all of which are "religious".

That said, I'm glad the following is not my dilemma, as I wouldn't be able to reconcile the conflict:

>>>>"You are not put in a position where you have to lie about your lack of faith," insists Bernd Pulverer, who edits a science journal. He thinks his decision to send his children to St Michael's is rational. "I am not a Christian, but the Anglican church is an intrinsic part of this country's cultural framework and since my kids aren't learning about it at home, I think it's a good idea for them to get it at school, even if it is with a slight religious bias," he says. (...)>>>>>

[PassingFair]

22. Hmmmm. none of the examples you cite have children being..

the subject of an expulsion letter writing scheme
that ends with children being ostracized.

Funny.

I love and support public schools.
My children go to public schools.
I went to public schools.

My brother lives in an area of
GREAT poverty and crime. He knows
and gets along with his neighbors,
most there seek private schooling,
taking what they can afford, rather
then subject the children to the
shenanigans that occur near the
local school sites.

[Meshuga]

23. Don't you think religion should stay out of public schools?

The atheist parents who put their children in these religious school obviously feel comfortable about their children going to these religious schools otherwise they would not enroll their kids. Plus, we haven't seen their POV on "keeping religion out of public schools" to determine whether they are hypocrites let alone charge atheists in general of hypocrisy like you seem to be doing.

I don't know much about the Church of England to comment but it is not hypocritical for an atheist Jews to send their kids to a Jewish school since, in Judaism, identity is a major component which is much more important than certain faith. In these schools, Jewish identity is the focus, not faith since the survival of Judaism is dependent on the next generation accepting their heritage rather than supernatural truth of how we came about.

So people feeling that religion should stay out of public schools and wanting their children to go to a religious school is not ironic at all. And I don't think it is ironic to any religious group including to most DU Christians I met here.

In case you don't think religion should stay out of pubic schools, removing religion from public schools protects the rights of minority religions and non-believers, and most importantly, it provides an academic education (i.e., not teaching religion as science). There is a concept known as "putting yourself in other people's shoes" and I see that being part of a majority group makes this concept really hard to grasp. However most Christians in DU (at least in my perception) get that and it is sad that you seem not to.

[moggie]

24. In the UK, it's mainly about backdoor selection

Regular state schools aren't allowed to select students, but state-funded "faith schools" are allowed to select based on religious background. A large number of them (or at least the Christian ones, which form the vast majority) break the rules and cherry-pick students to avoid those less likely to succeed academically, such as those with special needs, or from single-parent homes. As a result, these schools tend to get better results, which leads to parents scheming to send their kids there. You end up with a school which is not serving its whole community, but disproportionately the better-off and more educationally-motivated part:

Research from the London School of Economics tells the story. In the capital, where admissions are most fraught, faith school pupils are "significantly more affluent" than average for their area. Only 17% of faith pupils are eligible for free school meals, compared with 25% in non-religious schools. Faith schools take fewer than a fifth of lowest ability children, compared with a third across London - and they take many more high achievers. Only 1% of Pakistani or Bangladeshi children are in faith schools, though they often need most help. In Muslim schools, the numbers go into equally damaging social reverse: 34% are on free school meals.

Yesterday the schools adjudicator, Philip Hunter, handed in his report on admissions: soon we shall see if faith schools breach the admissions code. A furore followed Ed Balls' revelation that in three sample areas, faith schools illegally interviewed parents, demanded extra fees and asked questions about social background. Just a little screening can make a big difference to a school's "ethos" if it deposits difficult families in next-door schools. This matters because the OECD finds the countries with schools that segregate least according to class and ability do best overall: Britain lags behind partly because of its many forms of segregation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/02/education.labour

It's not only atheists who oppose this segregation. The Accord Coalition stands for the following aims:

In a pluralist, multi-cultural society, the state should promote tolerance and recognition of different values and beliefs. Given the dangers of segregation and the importance of community cohesion we need schools that welcome all and are committed to non-discrimination. Schools should promote a culture of questioning, of knowledge, of respect and of exploration of values, where students develop their own identities and sense of place in the world. We believe all state-funded schools should:

1. Operate admissions policies that take no account of pupils' – or their parents' – religion or beliefs.

2. Operate recruitment and employment policies that do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief.

3. Follow an objective, fair and balanced syllabus for education about religious and non-religious beliefs – whether determined by their local authority or by any future national syllabus or curriculum for RE.

4. Be made accountable under a single inspection regime for RE, Personal, Social & Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship.

5. Provide their pupils with inclusive, inspiring and stimulating assemblies in place of compulsory acts of worship.

And we commit to work with each other locally and nationally to turn public support for inclusive education into a campaign for reform that the government cannot ignore.

Among its members are Ekklesia, the Christian think-tank, and Hindu Academy, an organisation dedicated to promoting Hinduism in the UK. Accord's chair is Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, who says "I want my children to go to a school when they can sit next to a Christian, play football in the break with a Muslim, do homework with a Hindu and walk back with an atheist - interacting with them and them getting to know what a Jewish child is like. Schools should build bridges, not erect barriers."

Don't forget that the UK has experience of how divisive school segregation can be: in Northern Ireland, it used to be the case that more than 90% of kids were educated in single-denomination schools, and look how well that turned out! Perhaps this is one reason why polls have shown a majority of British people are against religious segregation in education.