Faith based schools are funded in two ways. The independent schools charge fees, although they may offer bursaries to pupils from less affluent homes. The state maintained schools are funded by government, usually with a small capital contribution from the faith sponsor. The debate focuses on the legitimacy of using taxpayers’ money to fund the latter.
The argument for faith based schooling rests on the premise that education is never neutral. The contention is that schools that claim to be neutral are, in fact, imposing a secularist agenda that is anti-Christian, or, most likely in a post-modern context, imposing a relativist agenda. The proposition is that, in a plural democracy, parents should have access to an education for their children that is in accordance with the beliefs and values of the family without having to pay twice. The state should not be in the business of shaping the religious beliefs and values of children through its schools.
The government is quietly supportive of faith based schooling and is opening up more opportunities for faith sponsors for maintained schools. The philosophy is that diversity leads to greater opportunities for all children to experience ‘personalisation and choice’ and that this will lead to higher standards overall than with a ‘one size fits all’ system. Government is supportive of a strong values base in schools and sees this as a particular strength of faith based schools.
The critics of faith based schooling are opposed for two reasons. Firstly, they regard such schools as fostering sectarian attitudes and cite the problems of Northern Ireland and Bradford as evidence. Secondly, they regard them as infringing the basic right of a pupil to autonomous decision-making in matters of religion. The British Humanist Association is a leading voice in this opposition. The alleged teaching of ‘creationism’ at Emmanuel College in Gateshead unleashed a storm of atheistic outrage in the media that served to foster this negativity.
There is no doubt that children from Christian families benefit greatly from nurture in Christian schools, both independent and maintained. The price for supporting such a system is that children from non-Christian homes are ‘protected’ from encountering the gospel in school since they will attend schools where they will be nurtured in their own faith.
An important question that must be addressed in the current education context is what concern should Christians demonstrate for the education of children from non-Christian families? Should Christian schools be open to all pupils as many church schools are now? Can they be run in ways that are not sectarian and do not infringe children’s responsibility to answer for themselves before God in relation to their commitment and values in life? Can they meet the needs of families from all religious backgrounds or none? Given the popularity of church schools with nominal believers and some unbelievers, clearly it is possible to meet such needs.
Christian advocates of the common school believe that a values base that is both distinctively Christian and acceptable to others can be negotiated with people of other commitments. Christian schools should not simply exist for the benefit of Christian families, but for the ‘common good’.
There are significant new opportunities to develop Christian schools within the maintained sector. However, there is still lack of clarity as to what it means for a school to be distinctively Christian, and particularly the appropriate balance between the deliberate nurture of Christian faith and the promotion of the common good. Evangelicals are recommended to support a variety of current and future initiatives, such as City Academies, including giving explicit encouragement to teachers working in common schools to work out what is distinctively Christian about their ministry and how to maintain rather than compromise such distinctives within a general environment governed by objectives centred on equality. There is still much work to be done and it needs support from government and other sources of funding.
In particular, it is important that the false assumption that the curriculum and management of the school can be shaped by the secular experts without damaging its Christian character is challenged. The idea that the Christian character of the school is confined to RE and assembly will create a sacred/secular divide that privatises and marginalises the Christian contribution. Christians need to recognise the urgent need to nurture evangelical educators who can successfully integrate an inspirational and distinctive Christian faith with the most recent insights in curriculum and school management.
