Integration or segregation?
What's happening to schools in multicultural Britain today?
Thursday 18 October 2001 at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA), London

Toby Marshall

When New Labour first announced that it was planning to expand the number of government-funded religious schools, their initiative was received without much controversy. Faith-based schools are popular with both parents and pupils, and get better academic results, so why not increase their number and variety?

After Bradford, Oldham, Belfast, Manhattan and Washington, however, many are now talking about the dangers of religious schooling. So the RSA's recent debate on the government's proposals, which were restated in their recent White Paper, could not have been better timed.

William Atkinson, the commanding head of Hammersmith's once failing Phoenix School, opened the debate. Atkinson was at pains to point out that he did not want to 'undermine the very good work that is going on in our faith-based schools' but felt compelled to highlight 'the dangers of going down the road that is indicated and flagged up in the White Paper'.

One danger, Atkinson pointed out, is that pupils' entry into faith-based schools is often dependent on references, which 'creates the opportunity of selection'. This back-door form of selection, Atkinson explained, accounts for the superior performance of these schools, whilst discriminating against pupils from both ethnic and working-class backgrounds.

But for Atkinson the dangers of the promotion of selective religious education are more than academic. Faith-based schools, he argued, 'could promote further social and ethnic segregation' which could in turn 'provide a fertile breeding ground for extremists of every sort'.

Jacqueline Goldberg, Director of Research at the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, took a contrary view. Segregation, she argued, was not particular to faith-based schooling, and was, in fact, a basic human right.

Primary schools, for example, discriminate in favour of those who live within a defined post-code, which, she pointed out, favours those who have the resources to move into areas in which good schools are located. And many secondary schools, she added, select on the basis of ability.

In contrast to these forms of segregation, Goldberg argued, religious schools can play a positive integrative role, as 'faiths such a Judaism and Islam', she maintained, 'are multi-racial, they are multi-cultural, they are multilingual and also represent a breadth of social-economic status'.

But too much significance is being accorded to social effects of faith-based schooling, Goldberg added, as social divisions are neither due to, or can be solved by, schooling. The riots in Oldham and Bradford, she argued, illustrate this point. Here it was 'formal and informal segregated housing policies', as well as the activity of the British National Party, that had caused these disturbances.

For Goldberg, segregation on the basis of religion should be viewed as a fundamental human right. 'We live in a consumerist, choice-based society', Goldberg reminded us, and so 'we should have the choice as to how we educate our children'.

At the same time, government, Goldberg argued, has a responsibility to ensure that the 'organic segregation' of communities does not lead to social fragmentation. And to avoid this, Goldberg concluded, it is imperative that faith-based schools are kept within the maintained sector, as 'it is easier for government to regulate the system from within than from without' and by doing this it can ensure that faith-based schools promote respect for all cultures.

Marilyn Mason, Education Officer, the British Humanist Association, took issue with Goldberg's presentation. Religion, Mason argued, is a private matter and it is up to parents, not the state, to communicate religious beliefs. Unfortunately, faith-based schools, she argued, have many powerful supporters, not least the 'Christian Socialists' amongst the Labour Party.

Recent opinion polls, however, indicate that the public does not support the idea of faith-based schooling and that many are coming round to the view that modern society is 'ill-served by an increasingly fragmented and segregated education service'. Indeed, some religious and community leaders, Mason added, fail to 'see a promising future in educational ghettoes'.

By definition, Mason concluded, religious schools promote social divisions. 'Those who make our education policy', she maintained, 'have a duty to promote inter-communal understanding, social cohesion, and good citizenship, by vigorously supporting integrated schools', as well as 'the shared values and the multi-belief religious education that is common in good community schools '

Canon John Hall, General Secretary of the Church of England Board of Education, then offered his thoughts. The discussion of faith-based schooling, he argued, was predicated on a 'distorted impression of the nature of Church of England schools'. Of the 5000 Anglican schools in England, he pointed out, half were voluntarily controlled - which means that they have their admissions policies set by a Local Education Authority (LEA) - and only a small proportion of those outside of LEA control give explicit preference to those who practice the Christian faith.

At the same time, Canon Hall understood 'precisely the accusations that interviews where they occur indicate social selection' but added that this 'something that we want to avoid'. But increasing the number and range of faith-based schools, he suggested, would insure that Britain develop a more inclusive education system.

Canon Hall also welcomed 'the governments intention to increase the provision of other faith schools' as 'it gives a strong indication to the communities that we are talking about that they are genuinely part of British society.' But if New Labour were to renege on its commitment, he added, the consequences could be profoundly destabilising: 'the message to the Muslim community now, if the government were to turn back from its commitment to more faith-based school would surely be a most destructive one' as 'nothing in my view would do more to turn them away from moderation and harmony.'

Discussion from the floor covered a wide range of issues. On participant from the Philosopher's Magazine doubted Canon Hall's suggestion that Religious Education in faith-based schools is being delivered in a broad and balanced manner, as how could the churches profit from this?

Canon Hall responded by saying that whilst Anglican schools do promote the Christian faith, they do not 'proselytise or indoctrinate', but instead 'present the possibility of faith'.

Another raft of contributors asked why, given the decline in formal religious activities, interest in faith-based schools was on the increase. For the Canon Hall this was testimony to fact whilst parents may be practicing religion differently, they retain a belief in the value education set in a religious context.

Jacqueline Goldberg suggested that the increased popularity of Jewish schools expressed the fact that many parents of this faith felt uncertain about how to communicate this canon. Whilst the government's interest in this sector, William Atkinson explained, was less a product of spiritual conviction than a desire to regulate religious schooling.

Email Toby Marshall