I recently watched a documentary on More4, Richard Dawkins’ ‘Faith School Menace?’ (not too sure what the question mark is supposed to imply).
I was quite disappointed. I was obviously aware he would against faith schools, Dawkins never gets to the heart of the issues. He is so keen to argue his point, that the subtlety and nuance of the debate is sacrificed in favour of polemic. On top of this, we are treated with the same old images of cameras focusing on woman in niqaabs, and ominous music playing anytime faith is mentioned (contrasted with the upbeat and hopeful music played when he is reminiscing about his childhood conversion to atheism).
Ultimately, I didn’t think much of the documentary. And I always find myself disappointed at how little Richard Dawkins understands faith. Contrast his works on religion with the depth of works by Karen Armstrong, Tim Winters, even an article in the New Statesmen (an openly secular publication), and you soon see that he just doesn’t quite get it.
Regardless, I wanted to write a few words in defence of faith schools. I will try to be brief, as tempting as it is to dissect the documentary and every point that it made.
Faith schools do add value.
Richard Dawkins claims that Dr Steve Gibbon’s research on faith schools and exam results ‘authoritatively’ establishes that faith schools do not give children a better education.
Dr Gibbon’s work is anything but authoritative. It establishes only that children from similar economic backgrounds achieve similar exam results regardless of whether they go to a faith school or not.
The obvious flaw is that a school’s success is not simply based upon exam results. Ofsted and Estyn look at many varied aspects of a school’s provision. Faith schools consistently score higher. Not only on exam results, which is only a single indicator, but a pupil’s behaviour, their interaction and engagement in classes, the structure and nature of the education. And there are many other indicators that even Ofsted inspections do not account for – for example, the child’s mental well-being, social integration, self-esteem, confidence and so on.
Also, as a final point, in the context of Muslim faith schools, which more often than not deal with children from working class and more impoverished backgrounds, faith schools provide a drastic and visible difference in the grades and add to the social mobility of the children who attend.
Faith schools do add value, and many different levels, to a child’s education.
Faiths schools do not restrict choice.
Dawkins took a large objection to children being taught about faith. Perhaps, not surprisingly, faith schools teach faith from a reverential position.
Of course, without any concession, a child’s freedom of conscience must be recognised and respected, even in a faith school.
The following Quranic verse was revealed in response to Muslim parents who, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), were overzealous in getting their children to adopt Islam as their faith.
I was quite disappointed. I was obviously aware he would against faith schools, Dawkins never gets to the heart of the issues. He is so keen to argue his point, that the subtlety and nuance of the debate is sacrificed in favour of polemic. On top of this, we are treated with the same old images of cameras focusing on woman in niqaabs, and ominous music playing anytime faith is mentioned (contrasted with the upbeat and hopeful music played when he is reminiscing about his childhood conversion to atheism).
Ultimately, I didn’t think much of the documentary. And I always find myself disappointed at how little Richard Dawkins understands faith. Contrast his works on religion with the depth of works by Karen Armstrong, Tim Winters, even an article in the New Statesmen (an openly secular publication), and you soon see that he just doesn’t quite get it.
Regardless, I wanted to write a few words in defence of faith schools. I will try to be brief, as tempting as it is to dissect the documentary and every point that it made.
Faith schools do add value.
Richard Dawkins claims that Dr Steve Gibbon’s research on faith schools and exam results ‘authoritatively’ establishes that faith schools do not give children a better education.
Dr Gibbon’s work is anything but authoritative. It establishes only that children from similar economic backgrounds achieve similar exam results regardless of whether they go to a faith school or not.
The obvious flaw is that a school’s success is not simply based upon exam results. Ofsted and Estyn look at many varied aspects of a school’s provision. Faith schools consistently score higher. Not only on exam results, which is only a single indicator, but a pupil’s behaviour, their interaction and engagement in classes, the structure and nature of the education. And there are many other indicators that even Ofsted inspections do not account for – for example, the child’s mental well-being, social integration, self-esteem, confidence and so on.
Also, as a final point, in the context of Muslim faith schools, which more often than not deal with children from working class and more impoverished backgrounds, faith schools provide a drastic and visible difference in the grades and add to the social mobility of the children who attend.
Faith schools do add value, and many different levels, to a child’s education.
Faiths schools do not restrict choice.
Dawkins took a large objection to children being taught about faith. Perhaps, not surprisingly, faith schools teach faith from a reverential position.
Of course, without any concession, a child’s freedom of conscience must be recognised and respected, even in a faith school.
The following Quranic verse was revealed in response to Muslim parents who, at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), were overzealous in getting their children to adopt Islam as their faith.
“Let there be no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error…” 2:256
The Quran asserts the right of children, and all humans, to adopt they faith they choose, if any.
This does not run counter to instructing and nurturing a child in a specific faith tradition. Dawkins and others who argue that by rearing a child in a certain faith you are somehow restricting choice in fact betrays their own lack of confidence in the human ability to choose. Sending your daughter to a Christian faith school is by no means a sure-fire way of ensuring she is a Christian in later life. Humans have a fantastic ability to make up their own minds and hearts.
The unfortunate example of the Muslim faith school with a science teacher who didn’t quite understand evolution doesn’t swing the argument either. And although she claimed all her 60 students came to the same conclusion on evolution and faith, I very much doubt it. I teach at a complementary Muslim education school, and at times we engage in discussion about these very topics. In a small class, I am always certain to get a whole spectrum of views – young minds that are grappling with the issues to reach their own conclusions. A more successful example of teaching science and faith can be read in this Comment is Free article.
Faith schools are socially cohesive.
Dawkins’ trip into Ireland was shocking. A casual observer, with no introduction to the Northern Ireland issue, would have presumed that the division and conflict was solely due to Protestant and Catholic division. There was no mention of the word Nationalists or Unionists, or the British rule, or the several hundred year history which led to today’s situation.
As I mentioned, Dawkins, in his zeal to prove a point, never quite deals with the issue. If this is done intentionally, it is malicious, if it is done unintentionally, he’s just plain stupid.
Dawkins used an oft-repeated argument – get kids of different backgrounds together, and world will be okay. This isn’t the case. There are numerous examples of state schools with massive social and racial divisions. Work done on the issue states that if children are to meet others and form positive views about the culture or group they are from, many factors need to be in place. The children need to be of the same economic background, similar language skills and educational level, they must be on an equal footing in terms of power and dominance (especially culturally) - without these factors, such interaction can sometimes confound prejudice rather them remove it.
I would argue that faith schools are in fact essential to a cohesive society.
No matter how good, no state school lacking religion can teach morality.
Faith schools’ RE lessons are not shady places, as Dawkins insinuates, in which children are taught to hate the other.
Rather, the values of faiths are conveyed in these lessons.
Teachings such as the whole of the Torah being ‘that which is hateful to you, do not do to another’ (Talmud), or Jesus (peace be upon him) saying ‘do to others, as you would have done to yourself’ (Gospel of Luke) and Muhammad (peace be upon him) teaching ‘love for mankind what you love for yourself’ (Bukhari).
By nurturing these values within children, their relationship with the rest of the world (not just humanity) becomes one of respect, love, and altruism. More of this is needed, not less.
Parents do have a right to choose the education of their children
Dawkins seems to prefer that the state has a superior say in how children are raised.
What particularly incenses me about Dawkins is that not only is he hypocritical, he doesn’t seem to realise it.
Is there a difference between telling a child ‘the world has a purpose, seek it out’, and telling a child ‘the world has no purpose, things just are’? In both cases, you are predisposing your child to a certain direction of thought. Science doesn’t engage with metaphysical purpose, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Parents are the primary source of education for children. If a parent feels that a child will flourish and grow more successfully in a school environment that compliments the morality and teachings at home – then a parent has that right. They are the primary agents responsible for the well-being of their children - not the state.
In closing, even as person of faith, I do recognise that there are some important discussions that need to take place around faith schools in Britain today. But Dawkins engages with none of them.
By nurturing these values within children, their relationship with the rest of the world (not just humanity) becomes one of respect, love, and altruism. More of this is needed, not less.
Parents do have a right to choose the education of their children
Dawkins seems to prefer that the state has a superior say in how children are raised.
What particularly incenses me about Dawkins is that not only is he hypocritical, he doesn’t seem to realise it.
Is there a difference between telling a child ‘the world has a purpose, seek it out’, and telling a child ‘the world has no purpose, things just are’? In both cases, you are predisposing your child to a certain direction of thought. Science doesn’t engage with metaphysical purpose, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Parents are the primary source of education for children. If a parent feels that a child will flourish and grow more successfully in a school environment that compliments the morality and teachings at home – then a parent has that right. They are the primary agents responsible for the well-being of their children - not the state.
In closing, even as person of faith, I do recognise that there are some important discussions that need to take place around faith schools in Britain today. But Dawkins engages with none of them.
NB: Much of the above on faith schools is based on some academic work I did at university – so if anyone would like me to qualify the above with references and research, I am more than happy to do so.
