Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 

Donate to our new server appeal.


       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
jamesieboy

Segregation in Scottish schools - do we need it?

With public finances being squeezed more than ever, the old hoary chestnut of separate state-funded schools will no doubt come up again.

Proponents of the system will point to the special ethos that attracts parents to send their pupils to a denominational school. They state that their schools are better than the non-denominational ones. And they teach moral values more.

They also say it is their right to have a separate system which reflects Catholic/Christian values.

On the flip side there is no other faith which receives state funding and where the clerics have such an over-riding influence (not in this country, anyway). In Glasgow you could justify at least 2 islamic schools.

There are also on-going concerns amongst the teaching profession that there is a 'glass ceiling' when it comes to promotion. In other words, anyone who is not a 'practising Catholic who has the approval of the archdiocese' has no chance of getting promoted to a whole number of jobs.

There are also those who say it is divisive to separate children and this causes division in communities. Socialists would adhere to this view, as would most secularists.

What do you think?
Dave Coull

No.

There should never have been segregated state schools in the first place, and they should be abolished now.
Dave Coull

Re: Segregation in Scottish schools - do we need it?

jamesieboy wrote:
there is no other faith which receives state funding and where the clerics have such an over-riding influence (not in this country, anyway). In Glasgow you could justify at least 2 islamic schools.
There should never have been any state finding for Catholic schools in the first place, and allowing the Roman Catholic Church this privileged position is sure to encourage other groups, such as Muslim organisations, to also seek state funding for their sectarian purposes. If you support Catholic schools, then you can't possibly object when other religious groupings, Muslim, Mormon, Scientology, or whatever, want state funding for their own purposes. The ONLY consistent position is to say that we should never have had state funding for sectarian schools in the first place, and now, instead of extending this, we are going to abolish it altogether.
Rinty

I agree, we should have secular education.

But, it is not a simple matter of state-funded RC schools.

We dont have any non-religious schooling in Scotland.  The main schools that are thought of in such a way are 'non-denominational' not 'non-religous'.

ND schools also have the Christian ethos that Jamesie attaches to RC schools, with the 'denomination' that underlines that ethos having to be Christian, and, because of their separate arrangement, non-Catholic.

We have to free the whole system from religious education.  If we dont do that we give Catholic parents the argument that they are being shoe-horned into what, legally, are Protestant schools (unless anyone can think of a better term that describes any chiristian denomination except catholic)

The legitmacy of the Catholic argument is bolstered by this ND problem.

I would have totally secular education, but allow pupils the freedom of religious observance within that schools system.

In short - it is the existence of RC schools that divides the pupils at school age, BUT it is the insistence on having ND rather than secular schools that allows their continued existence.
mairead

I've always believed that it is the business of churches of whatever religious beliefs, to teach religion, and the business of schools is to educate and equip youngsters in a much wider range of subjects. Religion of any kind should not be taught in schools.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
We have to free the whole system from religious education.  If we dont do that we give Catholic parents the argument that they are being shoe-horned into what, legally, are Protestant schools (unless anyone can think of a better term that describes any chiristian denomination except catholic)
The present system of state education in Scotland was set up by the Education (Scotland) Act of 1918. Rinty, you say that, "LEGALLY", non-denominational schools are "protestant" schools. But athough that is the popular perception of them, you are wrong to say that is the legal position. The legal position is that way back in 1918 the Catholic church refused to take part along with other religious organisations in establishing the non-denominational state schools. They were not excluded, they excluded themselves. They ARE not excluded, they continue to exclude themselves.
Rinty wrote:
We have to free the whole system from religious education.
In a way I agree with you, but let's face it, this is easier said than done. Way back in 1918, schools run by the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland became "state" schools. Elections were held for boards of governors for these "state" schools. Surprise, surprise! It turned out that most of the members of these boards of governors for these state schools were local ministers of the Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland! Not  ALL  of them, of course. Some of the members of the boards of governors were just Elders of the Kirk, not ministers. That domination of the non-denominational state schools by ministers and elders has diminished with the passage of time, but there is still an element of this to this day. Well then, you might think, that proves they were "protestant" schools. But only because the Catholic church excluded itself. If the catholic church had taken part in the process, then there would probably have been at least one representative of the Catholic church on the board of governors of every non-denominational school, and the boards of some "non-denominational" state schools would have looked like a local parish meeting of the RC church with the local priest chairing. But the RC church chose not to go down that route, and THAT is why "non-denominational" schools look like "protestant" schools.

Historically speaking, in this country, we have had "established" religion. Because Scotland took a different path from England at the Reformation, the "established" religion in Scotland was presbyterian, not episcopalian. But historically speaking there was always an "official" religion. If we contrast this with a country which has NEVER had an official religion, the United States of America, what do we find? In the USA, the percentage of folk who attend church is FAR higher than it is here. In the USA, state schools are all "non-denominational". But do you think you could keep the local Baptist minister off the board of governors of your local school? Good luck trying. Even with a completely free and fair voting system, the local Baptist congregation are organised and will turn out in force. That's local democracy for you. The only countries which have ever succeeded (for a time) in completely excluding religion from education were highly centralised and officially atheist systems like the USSR under Joseph Stalin.
Rinty wrote:
I would have totally secular education, but allow pupils the freedom of religious observance within that schools system
In attempting to achieve totally secular education, you WILL be reminded of the Stalin precedent. You are going to have to realise that, without a totalitarian system, it simply isn't possible to totally exclude the influence of religious organisations.
Rinty wrote:
it is the existence of RC schools that divides the pupils at school age, BUT it is the insistence on having ND rather than secular schools that allows their continued existence.
That is an over-simplification. In reality, a totally secular system is an aspiration, rather than a starting point. The only countries which have anything like a truly secular system (France is one) achieved this through violent revolution.  In terms of what is realistically achievable by legislation through the Scottish parliament, for instance, development of the non-denominational schools in such a way that official sectarianism can be removed and the Catholic schools integrated is a more practical step.
jamesieboy

There is, arguably, a legal conundrum with the job adverts, in the national press such as The Herald, where applicants must meet a certain type of criteria - ie approval by the Catholic Church.

This was challenged about three years ago by a physics teacher who took on GCC...and won. Everything was hushed up but a precedent had then been set. The only thing for him to remember now was - say bye bye to any ambitions you may have in your teaching career, at least in the west of Scotland.

Another point made by the likes of Michael McGrath, a spokesperson for the Catholic Church on Education and former Head Teacher of Our Lady's High School in Cumbernauld, was that many pupils from non-Catholic backgrounds send their kids to Catholic schools because of their 'specialness'.

What he fails to allude to is that just as many Catholic parents send their kids to Non-Denominational schools, for a whole veriety of reasons of only one of which is geography.
Dave Coull

My wife is American, and she was amazed to learn that her daughter was actually learning a subject called "religious education" at school in Scotland. This difference arises out of the fact that the USA was founded, from the start, on a constitution which separates Church and State, whereas our own history is one in which the very first General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in 1561, on the recommendation of John Knox, took the decision that there should be "a school in every parish and a teacher in every school", and that both boys and girls should be educated   -   so they would be able to read the Bible. It took a long time to realise that aim of universal education, but the point is, Scotland was the only country in the entire world which even had this as an aim. So far as all other countries were concerned (and so far as plenty of powerful folk in Scotland were concerned too) educating the masses was a dangerous thing to do. That's the background, and, of course, for a long time, "religious education" meant learning the Shorter Scottish Catechism as specified by the General Assembly. Nowadays, however, it is very different. In many schools, they have difficulty getting teachers who will teach religious education. And even when they do find somebody who will teach it, in practice, it's not religious INSTRUCTION, it's not a case of dogma, but rather an excuse to spend a period having a wide-ranging discussion about the moral and ethical implications of current affairs etc. When you do get a specifically religious contribution to the discussion, this is just as likely to come from one of the pupils as from the teacher.
jamesieboy

The problem is in scottish society is that there is no-one brave enough to start asking questions on this issue.

What about the unions - the EIS for example. Are they cowards?

There is a big legal question about equal rights and equal oportunities and no-one is tackling this issue.
Rinty

Quote:
The legal position is that way back in 1918 the Catholic church refused to take part along with other religious organisations in establishing the non-denominational state schools. They were not excluded, they excluded themselves. They ARE not excluded, they continue to exclude themselves.


Yes, that is my interpretation of the history of it too Dave, I dont sdipute it.  But, when I talked about the legal position, I was referring to where we are now and how we getout of it.  If we expect Catholic parents to send their kids to ND schools with those schools current religious requirements, there would be challenges.  Challenges that would be negated if we dropped ND schools in favour of secular schools.

Quote:
That is an over-simplification. In reality, a totally secular system is an aspiration, rather than a starting point. The only countries which have anything like a truly secular system (France is one) achieved this through violent revolution.  In terms of what is realistically achievable by legislation through the Scottish parliament, for instance, development of the non-denominational schools in such a way that official sectarianism can be removed and the Catholic schools integrated is a more practical step.


I disagree.  Politicians are scared of this subject.  If a Scottish Government introduced a bill to end RC and ND schools, to be replaced by secular education, they might be surprised how popular it would be with the public.

Schools, like all institutions, reflect society - so it is true that we couldn't see a total secular environment.  Buit we CAN separate the state provision of education and management of schools buildings from the division.

The debate in this country is all about RC schools, even though they exist everywhere else without the same problems.

McGrath is correct to an extent, but often it is the low pupil-teacher ratio that attracts non-catholics to RC schools.  In areas with high catholic populations in parts of Glasgow and Lanarkshire this is less often the case.

But he is wrong about some sort of 'special' ethos.  The fact is that the Catholic church is in serious decline, there are very few priests, very little lay organisation and the schools have become gradually separated from their local parishes that previously were involved in the education.

My son went through Catholic Education as an atheist without much exposure to anything religious.  In fact, his cousins at the ND school saw more clergy than my son did.

Without the involvement of the church in the school the difference between my sons education and his cousin across the burn in the ND school amounted to one period per week.  He had 2 RE classes and 1 PE.  His cousin Had 2 PE and 1 RE.  The single RE class was identical in both schools, the second RE class was the Catholic one.  Children (if requested by parents) in the RC school could opt-out of the second class if they wished.

Jamesie is correct re the geographical motivation as well.  

When my son finished 4th year his local; Rc school merged with the one in Kilmarnock.  He continued his education at the local ND school rather than travel 30 miles per day.

The RC secondary that I attended was in a neighbouring town.  For that reason some of my Primary schoolmaes would go to Loudon Academy rather than travel to Kilmarnock.

It is at that level that I noticed the difference.

When at Primary, I didnt see any division.  Both the ND and RC primary schools were in the same village, we went to school at the same time and came back at the same time.  My mates were people from my street mainly.

When I reached Secondary school, I had to set out earlier, return later and, gradually, your circle of frineds changes to mainly Catholic as you spend so much time together.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
 If we expect Catholic parents to send their kids to ND schools with those schools current religious requirements, there would be challenges.  Challenges that would be negated if we dropped ND schools in favour of secular schools.


I agree that dropping religious instruction of any sort would be a positive move. But in the meantime, as ND schools tend to have a selection of visiting ministers from whatever churches are in the locality, why not just add the local padre to the list, and stop wasting taxpayers money promoting a sectarian school system?
Rinty

That would be an option, but that would still leave out the non-christians.  Of course, there are no priests and they wouldnt show up Smile
jamesieboy

Interesting to note what socialists think on this one.

At an SSP conference a number of years ago, before the split with what is now Solidarnosc, my mate put a motion forward on this topic. It was basically calling for the phasing out of denominational schools in Scotland.

It came up against a lot of resistance in the Hall, whci I think was in the Candleriggs. He was frequently interrupted and even booed, by a certain element some of whom even called him a bigot.

I think Tommy Sheridan was one of the ones who was, shall we say, cool on the subject. I wonder what George Galloway would say? (although he's not a member of SSP or Solidarity, but holds similar views)
Rinty

Quote:
At an SSP conference a number of years ago, before the split with what is now Solidarnosc, my mate put a motion forward on this topic. It was basically calling for the phasing out of denominational schools in Scotland.

It came up against a lot of resistance in the Hall, whci I think was in the Candleriggs. He was frequently interrupted and even booed, by a certain element some of whom even called him a bigot.

I think Tommy Sheridan was one of the ones who was, shall we say, cool on the subject. I wonder what George Galloway would say? (although he's not a member of SSP or Solidarity, but holds similar views)


If you do have interest in what socialists say then you can easily take the views of socialists in this forum.  If you have heard of other views from socialists you should now notice a wide range of views on the subject across the political spectrum.

I think your mate is misaken, I dont remember such a debate at an SSP conference, are you sure it was in Candleriggs?

The debates on this issue within political parties are usually a lot more complicated than your report, and are not usually accompanied by booing, not that I can remember.

They usually consist of a well meaning motion that contains some sentence or other that makes the christians and other religious followers in the hall uncomfortable, and fall on that issue.

It's an emotive subject in this country as it is in others.  The most lively debate on the issue that I witnessed was among parents of a local Catholic Secondary that was closing.  I am sure a similar debate in most situations can get heated.

George Galloway is a christian and a very religious person, he lives in England where they have all sorts of schools, RC, CoE, choir schools, sports academies etc and it is less of an issue.  Tommy Sheidan is an atheist who lives in Glasgow.

I would guess that their views come from their own background and environment like everyone else and this is more likely to be a factor in their views on religious education than you classing them as 'socialist'.

I dont think here is a uniform view on the left, or on the right, or in the centre on this issue.
jamesieboy

That was a very reasonable posting, Rinty.

Your point about their views being influenced by their own background is one which i find when discussing this subject.
Aventinian

Re: Segregation in Scottish schools - do we need it?

jamesieboy wrote:
On the flip side there is no other faith which receives state funding


Inaccurate. There are state funded Catholic, Anglican and Jewish schools in Scotland.

Quote:
In Glasgow you could justify at least 2 islamic schools.


Probably so, which is why one is to be built - with the full endorsement of the first minister: http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Salmond-backs-first--.4229180.jp

If people want it, then by all means accommodate it. I don't really believe its costing anyone any great sum.

Quote:
There are also those who say it is divisive to separate children and this causes division in communities. Socialists would adhere to this view, as would most secularists.


C'est la vie. It's not for socialists or secularists to tell people how to 'integrate' their children.
Lord Pitsligo

Re: Segregation in Scottish schools - do we need it?

Aventinian wrote:

C'est la vie. It's not for socialists or secularists to tell people how to 'integrate' their children.


So who should?
Rinty

"Your point about their views being influenced by their own background is one which i find when discussing this subject."

Of course it is.  It is easy to identify that atheists tend to want all religious education out of schools.  So people from a background that ends up with them being atheist would be less likely to support religious schools.

Its more the life experience that leads people to their views than their original background.  Look at Peter Mullan's Magdalene Sisters, his Catholic upbringing didnt prevent him telling it like it is.

When it comes to issues of faith and religion Tommy and George Galloway are a million miles apart.  I weould expect their views to differ just as I would expect a Catholic in the tory party to have different views on religion to an atheist in the tory party.
Aventinian

Re: Segregation in Scottish schools - do we need it?

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So who should?


Their parents, if anybody.
jamesieboy

Aventian - could you name where these jewish/anglican etc state-funded schools are?

For the life of me, I can't think of any. At least not in glasgow and the west of Scotland.

Parents? What do they know?
Lord Pitsligo

Re: Segregation in Scottish schools - do we need it?

Aventinian wrote:
Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So who should?


Their parents, if anybody.


So do you think the segregation of children into schools based on the religion of their parents is a good things?
Rinty

You're a teacher and you are learning about the education system from aventinian?  The anglican schools would have been in the North East, dont know if they are still there or still identified as episcopalian.

the Jewish school is in Glasgow isnt it?
agentmancuso

There is one Jewish primary in East Renfrewshire, and one Episcopalian primary in Dunblane (?).

All other sectarian schools are Roman Catholic.
Rinty

There certainly used to be episcopalean schools in Aberdeen.
Holebender

I don't think so. There are a handful of RC primaries, and the only RC secondary closed over 20 years ago (the first time I ever voted my polling station was in that RC secondary school). I don't recall any Episcopal schools in or around Aberdeen.
Rinty

There definitely was episcopal schools in the NE, I am informed there are still three episcopal schools in Scotland, 1 in Dunblane, 1 in Perth and one other.

We should remember that none of the state funded denominational schools are exclusive to pupils, parents or staff of that religion.  So words like 'segregation' and 'sectarian' are not really appropriate to the issue.  No-one is forced to choose those schools.
Dave Coull

Rinty wrote:
There certainly used to be episcopalean schools in Aberdeen.
Holebender wrote:
I don't recall any Episcopal schools in or around Aberdeen.
I've never heard of any episcopalian schools anywhere in the north east of Scotland. I did a google.for "episcopalian schools in Scotland". It came up with two   -   Saint Mary's Episcopal Primary school in Dunblane, and Saint Ninian's Episcopal Primary School in Perth.
Aventinian

jamesieboy wrote:
Aventian - could you name where these jewish/anglican etc state-funded schools are?


The Jewish one is, as someone pointed out before, in East Renfrewshire. Calderwood Lodge Primary School.

As far as Episcopal state schools, the only one other than the two Dave Coull mentioned that I am aware of existing until relatively recently was the small Holy Trinity Primary School in Stirling (closed in 2004 or 2005, I believe). I'm afraid I don't know how many, if any, still exist in the North East.

Lord Pitsligo wrote:
So do you think the segregation of children into schools based on the religion of their parents is a good things?


I don't think the segregation aspect of it is a particularly good thing or a particularly bad thing, but I do believe in the other principles behind faith schools.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
We should remember that none of the state funded denominational schools are exclusive to pupils, parents or staff of that religion.  So words like 'segregation' and 'sectarian' are not really appropriate to the issue.  


On the contrary, applicants for job vacancies in Roman Catholic schools are routinely refused on religious grounds. If that does not constitute sectarianism, then the word is meaningless.
agentmancuso

Aventinian wrote:
I don't think the segregation aspect of it is a particularly good thing or a particularly bad thing, but I do believe in the other principles behind faith schools.


I have no objection to faith schools either, but only to paying for faith schools through general taxation.
Dave Coull

agentmancuso wrote:
applicants for job vacancies in Roman Catholic schools are routinely refused on religious grounds. If that does not constitute sectarianism, then the word is meaningless.
I know a (retired) teacher who is a devout Catholic and who spent most of her working life teaching in Catholic schools. She once pointed out to me, as one of the benefits of being trained as a catholic teacher, that this meant a far wider spread of job opportunities, since virtually all schools were potential employers. The Catholic schools, obviously, but also the non-denominational schools, since most of them were genuinely non-denominational and had no problem over employing Catholic teachers.
Rinty

"applicants for job vacancies in Roman Catholic schools are routinely refused on religious grounds"

I think that 'routinely' is another poor choice of wording.  The rewuirement for a teacher to be catholic only kicks in for certain roles that involve pastoral care or implementation of the schools religious stuff, doesnt it?

I have a recently retired mate who is a protestant and was a teacher and dept head teacher in catholic schools for most of his career.  I think the jobs that he would have been excluded from all involved catholic faith and he wouldnt have wanted them anyway.

That sort of restriction re jobs isnt necessarily sectarian.  There are many jobs where specific requirements of gender, language, faith etc are allowed, catholic schools are not the only state funded jobs where restrictions would be in place.

It isnt sexist to restrict womens aid jobs to women, for instance.

I object to christianity being delared by schools as somehow a good moral ethos over a non-religious ethos.  So therefore I object to my tax 'dollars' being used for faith shools, as well as the default ND schools.  Of course, the tax only pays for the building and the national curriculum delivery which is the same whether it is an ND or RC school.  The extra tax only comes in when a RC school is kept artificially afloat with small numbers.

If we have a place where there enough pupils for three schools and a third of the parents want a catholic school, then the cost to the taxpayer is the same, it's still just three schools.

As far as episcopal and jewish schools go, then the difference between them and catholic schools is surely just demand and numbers.

Catholic schools are in decline and numbers are falling.  At one time there were lots of episcopal schools but they have fallen away.

In my area there were, when I was a kid,  6 RC Primaries and 1 RC secondary school.  Now, just 30 years later, there are 2 primaries and no secondary.  So the cost of catholic schools to the taxpayer keeps falling.

I think the issue of religion in schools in general is far more important than the individual brand of christianity in each school.  The churches still have far too much influence in education and that, to me, is a bad thing.
jamesieboy

Biology is a reserved subject, as is Guidance/Pastoral Care.

Subjects like PE/Art/Music - they'll take anybody.

There is a particular type of teacher that they don't like and that is the lapsed catholic, or the non-conformist catholic, or one who has jumped the dyke, or the worst of all - one who has children and lives outside wedlock.

They are absolutely frowned upon in Catholic schools, much more so than protestant rangers supporting ones who are just looked upon as harmless eccentrics.

Which they probably are.
Rinty

Biology is not reserved.  The only jobs that are resrved in catholic secondaries are head teachers and deputy head teachers.

I doubt whether  unmarried people or lapsed catholics are frowned uppon.  The church has little involvement in the actual schools and I have never heard of this happening.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
"applicants for job vacancies in Roman Catholic schools are routinely refused on religious grounds"

I think that 'routinely' is another poor choice of wording.  The rewuirement for a teacher to be catholic only kicks in for certain roles that involve pastoral care or implementation of the schools religious stuff, doesnt it?


No. 'Routinely' is a precise and accurate choice of wording. The choice whether or not to implement a sectarian recruitment policy lies in the hands of the headteacher. In some schools, the headteacher has the sense to ignore religious belief when appointing staff. In other schools, a deliberately sectarian recruitment policy is applied to each and every post, where feasible.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
The only jobs that are resrved in catholic secondaries are head teachers and deputy head teachers.


Then why have I been asked to obtain approval from the local bishop when applying for jobs teaching Modern Languages?

Quote:
 The church has little involvement in the actual schools

The church has a de jure veto on all applicants for a position in a Roman Catholic school.
Rinty

In theory they do, but there is very little inflence for the church as parishes have collapsed and priests look after sebveral parishes across many schools and have little say.  

I have never heard of the bishops approval being sought for a languages teacher.  My nephew recenly got a job as a maths teacher in a catholic school and was told he wouldnt need approval from the local parish (not bishop) as he wasnt a catholic.
iainmhor

The segregation of Scottish children based on parental incomes should be abolished. End private education.
azzuri

iainmhor wrote:
The segregation of Scottish children based on parental incomes should be abolished. End private education.


Why?! The people who pay for their kids to go to another school are doing the government a favour. They are effectively paying TWICE for their childrens' education, since presumably they will have paid their taxes and thus are funding someone else's kids' education.
Rinty

And using tax exemption to fund the best facilities and best teachers.

Segregation is the wrong word to use in this debate, catholic kids and wealthy kids are not segregated, the parents make choices.
The Lithgae Jambo

jamesieboy wrote:
Aventian - could you name where these jewish/anglican etc state-funded schools are?

For the life of me, I can't think of any. At least not in glasgow and the west of Scotland.

Parents? What do they know?



St Mary's Episcopal Primary in Dunblane is a  state-funded school  as is Calderwood Lodge Jewish Prim School in Giffnock.
azzuri

Rinty wrote:
And using tax exemption to fund the best facilities and best teachers.

Segregation is the wrong word to use in this debate, catholic kids and wealthy kids are not segregated, the parents make choices.


People are hardly going to pay for their kids to receive the same or a worse standard of education than the state provides, of course the teachers are going to earn more in the private sector. I would disagree that these are 'better' teachers however, having come in contact with a few outstanding teachers that I had at school in Kilmarnock, and knowing a few teachers from a particular grammar school in the Southside of Glasgow who tell me horror stories about some of the more 'mature' teachers.
Rinty

Yes, exactly, the pay for a better standard leaving those who can pay with a worse standard.

The aim should be for all children to have a level of education that means parents do not look at private schools, or move house to get a place at a 'better' state school.

The division of children in education, based on their parents wealth, perpetuates that same division throughout life.

We shouldnt want parents to aspire to having enough money to take their kids out of state education, the focus should be on the opposite.
azzuri

Rinty wrote:
Yes, exactly, the pay for a better standard leaving those who can pay with a worse standard.

The aim should be for all children to have a level of education that means parents do not look at private schools, or move house to get a place at a 'better' state school.

The division of children in education, based on their parents wealth, perpetuates that same division throughout life.

We shouldnt want parents to aspire to having enough money to take their kids out of state education, the focus should be on the opposite.


Or alternatively, semi-privatise the education system, whereby parents choose which school their child attends and can change the school at any time upon their choosing, 'paying' for the education via a voucher provided by the state. It is only this sort of mini-management of individual schools and teachers that can work, the one size fits all system we have at the moment which is over-centralised suits no one and very few teachers/schools are held accountable.
Aventinian

Rinty wrote:
Yes, exactly, the pay for a better standard leaving those who can pay with a worse standard.


As far as I'm concerned, private education is to mutual benefit at the moment: the state sector benefits from receiving the same taxation yet not having the need to spend it on educating children in the private sector.

Quote:
The aim should be for all children to have a level of education that means parents do not look at private schools, or move house to get a place at a 'better' state school.


That is, of course, impossible: better-off parents will always be able to pay more towards their children's education than the state can.

Quote:
The division of children in education, based on their parents wealth, perpetuates that same division throughout life.


True. However everything in a child's environment will influence their future. Personally I take a 'c'est la vie' attitude to such inequalities: there are always going to be children born with certain advantages and disadvantages from the food they are given to how often their parents read to them to any genetic defects they made have.

We should not be aiming at inequality, but rather simply improving standards.
agentmancuso

Aventinian wrote:
We should not be aiming at (ending?)inequality, but rather simply improving standards.


Agreed.
Rinty

Agreed aventinain, standards are the most important thing.  We need universal education where all children can expect, and get, quality education.  Doing that by how much money you can pay, where you live, what religion your parents are etc doesnt work.
agentmancuso

Standards cannot be raised by enforcing conformity with some bureaucratic norm. Standards are always driven downwards by centralisation. Initiative and originality are the key factors in driving innovation in education (as elsewhere). The current system crushes these, and offers nothing but a 'lowest common denominator' factory model spouting meaningless sociological pieties.
Rinty

yes but the question is not about centralisation or blocking innovation, that isnt a given in a situation where high standards for all are desired.

You can aim for high standards for all while still allowing innovation and originality.

As azzurri said, there are some great teachers even within the current failing system.
agentmancuso

Rinty wrote:
there are some great teachers even within the current failing system.


There are many. Like me, for example.  Cool
Morph

azzuri wrote:


Or alternatively, semi-privatise the education system, whereby parents choose which school their child attends and can change the school at any time upon their choosing, 'paying' for the education via a voucher provided by the state. It is only this sort of mini-management of individual schools and teachers that can work, the one size fits all system we have at the moment which is over-centralised suits no one and very few teachers/schools are held accountable.


This is closer to the English system and doesn't work. You end up with failing schools being left with no pupils, therefore no budget and the cycle gets worse, the kids that cant move schools are left. This system leads to two tier education.

I can assure you that teachers are held accountable more than ever, along with schools. The current system has flaws i agree however the proposed system of free movement would not improve this.
calum

NO, all faith education should be scrapped. Children should be taught about other beliefs and taught to think and debate. Reaon over indoctrination.

Funnily enough though, if this story is true...!

http://tocasaid.blogspot.com/2009/07/face-of-lord-found-in-dram.html
mairead

It's the business of schools to educate, and the business of churches to teach religion.
Education in schools should not include teaching religious doctrines of any denomination.
However, having said that, debate about different religions is educational.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish News, Life and Society
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter Scottish Top Site - Topsites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites View Site Stats Scottish Politics