Skip to main content

The Accord Coalition: changing the terms of the debate on faith schools

Sometimes it's worth saying when something is brilliant. The Accord Coalition is brilliant and I really want to celebrate it.

For many years I've wanted a group like this to be campaigning for reform of state-funded faith schools in this country. It's simply unfair, unjust and unchristian for schools funded by all to be only available to some. Everyone's taxes go to support these schools and yet these schools, to a greater or lesser extent, discrimate against people not of their own faith. How Christian is it for Christians to keep the best schools (and they do argue they are better schools) to themselves? I understand Christianity to be about putting others first, service, making the last first. Yet we have people in this country defending their right for Christian-only (or majority) schools. This ain't right.

And now there's the Accord coalition, a multi-faith coalition of groups arguing from a faith and ethical base against the systematic injustice of this system. I'm hoping the terms of the argument are changing and the defenders of faith schools can no longer claim that the only people against this system are "hardline secularists."

There's been a few letters in the Times about this, here's how the debate's been going.

Multifaith plea: State-sanctioned discrimination must not continue

Faith schools and contraditions

Faith and confusion

Comments

Paul Oakley said…
Thanks for this post. Here in the USA we're often insulated from the goings on in most of the world until they reach crisis.

Of course, each country has its own unique church/state and discrimination issues. Some really big ones in the US. But I can't help thinking about the disgraceful century of the Republic of Ireland funding Roman Catholic institutions which, the world now knows, were abusive in the extreme.

I just can't understand how anyone who is not simply mean-spirited can't grasp that tax money should never be used for the benefit of a subset of the nation rather than for the benefit of the whole and that public support should always be joined with public control and public access.

But I can't see that any country really gets that. Certainly the US doesn't. At least not consistently.
Anonymous said…
Speaking as someone who has actually worked in Christian faith schools in Britain's inner cities, your assumption that so many exclude people 'not of faith' is inaccurate and unjust.

There are many longstanding Roman Catholic and Church of England schools who simply act as the local school of choice for thousands of families in inner cities - regardless of their faith or lack of faith. It is no surprise that many Asian families in particular elect to send their children to a Roman Catholic school because of the faith element match with a generally inclusive, tolerant approach.

The problem at present lies more with new faith schools run by Evangelical Christian and Islamic groups - which are far more explicit in their indoctrinaton and far more rigid on admissions.

And to finish, I speak as a secularist who would actually like to see our state become more like the French and American models - but I'm also a pragmatist and see the good work most faith schools are doing to nurture the academic AND ethical mind of students. Many state schools are devoid of the ethical / spiritual dimension and are more like production lines than communities.
Anonynous, this is exactly the point that Accord is making, some faith schools do let in people of other faiths - I attended a C of E school with a majority Muslim population in the West Midlands. What the Accord coalition is saying is that ALL schools should be obliged to do this by law. I know that a faith school in Bolton definitely does not let in people of other faiths (except in some exceptional circumstances).
Anonymous said…
But the way you frame the debate is as thought it is a 'Christians vs Atheist' issue when it is broader than that.

It is also noted that you fail to mention the problems highlighted by inspections of new Islamic schools. Why is that?
a said…
The problem with faith schools, as with too many other issues, is that it eventually becomes tied up in the position of the Established church.

That, and middle class parents who want hurdles that they can jump over but most others won't. I can believe that in some areas, forcing faith schools to accept those that live nearest to the school could actually lead to a more homogeneous student population - it probably would do at my old C of E school.
Anonymous, to answer your question:

Because the majority of faith schools in this country are Church of England; because my own personal experience has involved C of E schools; because I am Christian and so feel able to argue this point with fellow Christians from a Christian persepective; and because I know almost nothing about Islamic state-funded schools.

I disagree with Islamic discrimination as much as Christian discrimination in faith schools admission and employment policies. But I don't know much about it. I'm happy to hear about those issues if you know about them.

Popular posts from this blog

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th...

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th...