“Faith schools” – the cracks are showing
Religious schools have had a bad press this week, denting their own propaganda that they are the answer to all our educational prayers.
Perhaps the most interesting development was a case before the new Supreme Court relating to the Jews’ Free School (JFS) which has got itself into a theological tangle over who is a Jew and who isn’t. As Rabbi Jonathan Romain explained in the Guardian:
The parents of child “M” (his identity is hidden as he is underage) applied for him to attend JFS. The father was Jewish and the mother had converted via a Masorti synagogue. JFS refused to give the child a place on the grounds that Masorti conversions were not recognised by the chief rabbi and so the child was not considered Jewish and did not qualify for entry. The parents were incensed at what they perceived to be a gross injustice. Repeated attempts to gain entry were rebuffed and they eventually took JFS to court. The school won the first round, but then lost when it went to the court of appeal.
The significance of the case shook the Jewish community and worried other faith schools – for the judges declared that M's mother was leading a Jewish life and so JFS were rejecting her son not on religious grounds (which state-funded schools are allowed to do by law) but on ethnic grounds (which is illegal under the Race Relation Act).
Of course, we would prefer that the Supreme Court had not been forced to rule on a theological matter like this, but we certainly aren’t averse to some kind of ruling about the injustice of faith schools admission systems. But so significant could the outcome of this case be that the Supreme Court has assembled a panel of nine judges to consider it.
Now we discover that Ed Balls, the Education Secretary, has issued a statement to the Supreme Court advising them of the “wide ramifications” if they rule against the school. He even suggests that religious entry requirements will have to be removed from all “faith schools”. This is presented as some kind of tragic consequence but, in fact, it would be a real triumph for justice and fair play (not to mention community relations).
Then we are told that a charity associated with an extremist political group was given more than £113,000 of taxpayers’ money to run a nursery and two primary schools.
The Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation, an educational charity which runs a nursery school and two primary schools in south east England, received a grant worth £113,411 from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DSCF). The Foundation is closely linked to the political party Hizb ut-Tahrir, an international Islamist political group, with three-quarters of its trustees Hizb ut-Tahrir activists or members.
Hizb ut-Tahrir has long been threatened with classification as a terrorist organisation by the UK Government but has so far maintained its legal status here. However, a report due out later this week by the Centre for Social Cohesion says that while the organisation has claimed non-violence in the UK it has not been open about its true motives in the West.
Hannah Stuart, one of the authors of the report, titled Hizb ut-Tahrir: Ideology and Strategy, told Charity News Alert that the Centre had obtained the party’s central internal leadership strategy document which showed the organisation was purposefully “hiding its ideology and downplaying intolerance”. Stuart said researchers were “shocked” to discover that despite reports a number of years ago that the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation was set up by Hizb ut-Tahrir members, the DCSF still approved funding.
The report claims it is part of the party’s strategy to gain more credibility in the west by associating itself with charities.
NSS Honorary Associate and Lib-Dem MP, Paul Holmes, a member of the Commons Children, Schools and Families Committee, said: “It seems illogical that the Government would give money to a school associated with this type of group. The Government has said Ofsted inspects all schools. However, I have not been convinced that the Government inspections have been robust enough to prevent schools teaching things which society could be concerned about.”
At least three of the four trustees of the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation are Hizb ut-Tahrir members or activists. A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman sought to shift blame onto the local authority, saying it was they who were responsible for ensuring “providers were appropriate”.
More reassuringly, the Times Educational Supplement informed us last week that the money being provided to “minority faith schools” to prepare them for integration into the state system, had dried up.
The Targeted Capital Fund was supposed to distribute £327 million to improve school buildings but it has been closed early (it was supposed to run until 2011). The TES says: “The move means that projects for private faith schools to join the state sector have had to be shelved”.
Dr Mohamed Mukadam, chair of the Association of Muslim Schools cried foul, saying the decision was “hugely disappointing.” But the NSS is not disappointed. Find out why
But before we put the flags out, we should realise that as one door closes for the indoctrinators, another one opens.
Madrassas — euphemistically renamed “supplementary schools” — in some Yorkshire towns are to be given £550,000 of public money to “improve the life chances of young Muslim children in the area”.
We are told that those participating in the project will receive English and maths tutoring along with supplementary GCSE courses, careers advice and jobs fairs. This all sounds very worthwhile and we would support any scheme that seeks to bring disadvantaged children out of the ghetto of poverty and disadvantage.
But is the madrassa and madaari (religious schools) network the best place to do this? These institutions are devoted almost entirely to pumping Islam relentlessly into the heads of their pupils. We need to know who will keep tabs on these indoctrination centres to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly spent? Although there is no suggestion that the Yorkshire scheme is suspect, if this kind of idea rolls out who knows what will happen?
If we really want kids from a Muslim background to find their way into mainstream society and to function fully as British citizens, then we have to provide the opportunities away from those who would keep them locked in the past and into the traditions of another country. As the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation affair has shown – things are not always as they at first appear and those with a sinister political agenda have become clever at concealing their true purposes.
And finally, another story in the TES, this time about academies and their religious sponsors. The largest single sponsor of academies is the United Learning Trust, a Christian Charity with close connections to the Anglican Church. It already runs 17 academies and was preparing to take on another one in Portland, Dorset, when the Government suddenly pulled the plug and told the local authority to find a different sponsor.
The reason? Deep concerns about the performance of ULT in other areas of the country. Two of its academies in Sheffield have been described as “inadequate” and, indeed, in September one of them became only the third academy ever to be placed in special measures.
The ULT has done well with one of its academies in Manchester, but otherwise it is struggling.
Now the Government is considering the introduction of some kind of “kite mark” scheme that would only give accreditation to sponsors it was confident could provide excellent results. On its present performance, ULT would be unlikely to gain such accreditation. More than half of its headteachers have been sacked within two years of schools opening.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: “Let us hope that this kite mark scheme will not only check the educational bona fides of sponsors, but will also look at their ideological standpoint. Creationists and evangelisers should be automatically disqualified from sponsoring academies.”
See also:
Holy texts are no way to assemble state schools
Supreme Court: tangled up in faith