There do not but rather have a more

There
is an immense divide between faith schools and non-faith schools; whereas
non-faith schools accept everyone, to apply for a faith school some certain
criteria must be met. Faith schools defined to have students from a ‘particular religious faith’ (1) hence almost isolating
the students from different religious faiths Social cohesion is when ‘members of a society to cooperate with each other in
order to survive and prosper’ (2) thus creating a community of trust and
belonging. By faith schools separating their pupils from others, therefore only
allowing social cohesion to take place within the other selective students with
the same faith/beliefs, does this have a negative social impact when facing
others with different faiths and morals in life? In my essay I will make
address two arguments for this question; one side stating that faith school
indeed have a negative social impact on students, whereas the other side will
argue that actually faith schools do not but rather have a more positive social
impact than most non-faith schools.

Faith schools are
characterised to ‘socially or academically selective education’ (3) by only
accepting ‘deprived’ (3) children and those children with ‘ambitious wealthier
parents’ (3). By this faith schools are neglecting a large quantity of students
they theoretically isolate and cut off their attending students from the rest
of the world. It is further indicated by the same article that faith schools don’t
‘respect the autonomy of children’ when they chose to follow a different faith
from the school. Also are said to ‘discriminate against everyone’ however not
their own. This decimating nature is then imprinted onto the children attending
faith school which could result to creating an immense racial divide. I gathered this evidence from an article posted by the ‘Humanists UK’
where they clearly state on their opening paragraph ‘we summarise the main
arguments against faith schools’ (3).
This shows that they are an exceedingly bias source which only focuses on the
negative impact of faith schools which instantly makes them an unreliable and
untrustworthy source as they only present one side of the argument.
Furthermore, this website also signifies that they base their research from an
article ‘BHA Briefing 2006/4: Faith Schools’ (4); this article written in 2006
is outdate further making this source highly undependable for the reason that the
facts presented about faith schools may now be untrue as of current affairs.
This also gives evidence that the source ‘Humanists UK’ is solely based as a
response to the article ‘BHA Briefing 2006/4’ with the attention to provide a
more open response to the negative points addressed by ‘BHA Briefing’. However,
this source ‘Humanists UK’ presents a significant amount of stats and dates
showing evidencing of their claims written in this article. The overall tone
displayed throughout the article seems to be a very unbiased and professional
attitude. In addition to this, the article does not include any personal
opinions or bestow any exaggerating claims without displaying research proving
their point. Nevertheless, the humanists are a group of people not experts that
believe in ‘brining non-religious people together’ the term ‘non-religious’
proves that they aren’t supportive of religious people which would explain why
they focused more on the negative influences of faith schools rather than the
positive impressions of faith schools.

Moreover, it was commented by the guardian that ‘children of different beliefs, would
happily develop mutual understanding and respect and live for ever in peaceful
harmony’ (5). This agrees with the fact that it’s not the religion imbedded
into the education environment that may cause negative social cohesion; it’s
how the children are socialised to different races
and backgrounds that affect this factor. Therefore this would hint that
non-faith schools would have a much more positive social cohesion since they
tend to have a much larger variation of races and background. Because of this
larger variation different races and backgrounds, children attending non-faith
school tend to be more socialised and promote social cohesion. The Guardian,
a British newspaper, is seen as a ‘reliable news source’ (6) which focuses on
giving the world ‘factually accurate’ (6) news reports and because of this they
are now known internationally; because of its large audience around the globe
depending on The Guardian to produce factual information and keep them up to
date on the news, we trust that this source is highly reliable and unbiased.
However, Wikipedia and many other sources inform us that The Guardian is ‘a
platform for liberal and left-wing’ (7). Because of The Guardians political
tendencies in their news makes the source slightly unreliable; considering they
broadcast news around the world and they ‘not always’ (7) include any political
views in their articles, The Guardian is still seen as a objectively reliable
source. Nevertheless, in the same article the guardian makes some strong claims
that ‘faith schools turn communities against each other’ (5) with no evidence to
back up any of this as they further criticise faith schools. This lack of
supporting evidence makes these claims outrages and the article dishonest and
undependable. The article was written by Francis Beckett, a journalist broadcaster
and contemporary historian, because she’s a writer of a reckonable source would
make her article genuine and authentic. Likewise, because she is a contemporary
historian infers that she could use this skill to state facts on faith school’s
history and compare them to the present standard of faith schools. Yet the
general tone of the article is written harsh and damaging, reading the article
it is visible the author is one sided and bias. This can be seen though her
first paragraph as she opens with a faith schools seeing a killing to be
‘honour killing’ (5). This massive claim with evidence of the event without
displaying a fair argument for both sides, the author influences her audience
to be against faith schools. The author then continues to expand on this
incident and link it to other incidents that have a destructive impact on faith
schools; she only emphasises on the negatives aspects of faith schools but
includes a wide range of evidence, facts, past events and statistics that
backup her choice to criticize faith schools. 

Additionally, it would make sense that
faith schools do as much as they can to tackle this problematic stereotype ‘faith
schools cause negative social cohesion’ and try to have a positive impact on
social cohesion. It is titled by the BBC that ‘Secondary schools run by faith
groups are better than non-religious schools at building community relations’
(8). This headline underlines that drastic changes have been made by faith
schools, presenting the urge of faith schools to socialise and have a positive
impact on their students. The BBC is a well trusted and have a high standard of
accuracy since it has one of the biggest audiences; displaying worldwide news
in Britain, being called ‘the most reliable source in the world’ (9) and being
rated as the ‘UK’s top news source’ by the guardian (10). The BBC has a well
respectful standard of producing factual information. However, the BBC has been
accused of being politically bias but very little to no research and evidence
is presented to confirm this accusation. However, the BBC only targets to
produce information based in Britain, though they produce worldwide news, their
articles such as the article written about faith schools is based in Britain
not globally.  In this same article written by the BBC, it is
stated that faith schools were rated higher ‘by Ofsted inspectors on what is called “community cohesion” (8).
This article shows that faith schools are tremendously battling negative social
cohesion and educating their students about different faiths and look for a
‘common ground while respecting difference’ (8). In this article by the BBC,
research is presented by Professor David Jesson of York University. Professor Jesson
analysis the Ofsted reports on 400 secondary schools and 700 primary schools,
as he examines these reports he focuses on the inspectors rating on the new
legal duty to ‘promote community cohesion’. Since Professor Jesson takes in account a large
variation of reports and because of his title of being a professor we trust
that he will be unbiased and give factual, truthful information in his
research. Nevertheless, the reports the Professor uses for his research may not
be accurate as the BBC also reported ‘Ofsted has not done enough to ensure
school inspections are reliable’ (11). Because of the unreliability of the
reports made by Ofsted, Professor Jessons research instantly becomes unreliable
too. Professor Jesson’s
research concluded that faith schools were generally rated higher, out of the
74 faith schools charted ’24 (32%) were rated “outstanding” at community
relations’ (8). This compared to the 337 non-faith schools charted, ’55 (16%)
were given the same grade’ (8) shows that faith schools were rated
significantly higher. This overall proves that faith schools indeed have a
greater encouraging social influence amongst their communities; contributing
larger than non-faith schools this disproves claims that faith schools cause a
social divide in communities.

It is well known that faith schools have received a lot of negative
attention and comments about them creating a divide in communities and overall
having a negative social impact on students’ lives. The Catholic Herald
interviewed Bishop Alan and headlines this interview ‘The next big challenge is
going to be defending our catholic schools’ (12). This opening title makes I
clear that running a successful faith school is challenging, in addition this
outlines that there are many improvements that can be made to faith schools
that still need to take place and happen according to Bishop Alan. Moreover,
Bishop Alan states in the interview ‘if one of the schools in this diocese
becomes 80 per cent non-Catholic, I would be very unhappy to put too much of
our funds into it’ (12) this shows one of the reasons why faith schools, in
this case catholic schools, have a certain criteria that their students must
follow their faith; since if the mass majority doesn’t follow the faith, the
school would overall be funded less. This may be the reason why faith schools
go under mass negative attention for dividing students and not allowing entry
for some for the reason that they want to continue getting funded to educate
their students. The Bishop further goes on to say ‘We need to think about how
we can educate that 20 per cent’ (12) this proves he has no interest into
funding the non-Catholic children which is understandable as he would initially
only want to fund children of his faith. This would pressurise massively upon
the faith school; since consequently, faith schools will be under threat of
losing their school fund. Bishop Alan also mentions he is fully aware that
faith schools are being confronted to ‘conform with so many values that reflect
secular and humanist doctrine’ (12) however he does not comment much on what sections exactly need to improve and how he is
going to validate the faith schools change for the better. Bishop Alan’s response
to the values that must be met by faith schools as ‘the next big challenge’ (12)
he leaves us with hardly any direction but allows us to interpret his view
point, that faith schools need to change. This source that interviewed the
bishop, Catholic Herald, reports solitary on news linked to religion which
already suggests the fact that they will be very one sided when reporting news
evidencing that it’s an untrustworthy source; as the magazine from observing
the website only reports on the positive feedback and neglects any negative
news about Christianity. Moreover, it is now labelled by Wikipedia as a
‘magazine’ (13) and in their history, they were a newspaper source which
converted to a magazine, this illustrates that it isn’t their profession to
report on factual information and be unbiased. As a catholic magazine, they interviewed
Bishop Alan regarding various topics but because of their background they are
likely to remove any question or any response by Bishop Alan that may cause a
negative backfire. Because the source itself is a catholic source, it is
expected for them to have a handful of censorship and neglect any attention
that may have a negative impact on their religion. On top of that, this article
was written in 2014 and has no follow ups of the many topics Bishop Alan
addresses to confirm that the issues mentioned during the interview have been
solved or process has been made. Though the interview posted is reliable and is
a primary source to them.

Comments are closed.