It is one of the most important religion stories for a decade or so. The Church of England seems to have changed its mind on church schools. A few days ago, the Bishop of Oxford, the Right Reverend John Pritchard, who is also chairman of the Church’s board of education, said he wanted just 10 percent of places reserved for church attenders. It’s a total turn-around. For a decade the Church has bullishly defended the system, and dismissed dissenters as traitors to the cause.
What happened? The C of E has realized that the popularity of its schools is bad for its image. How can this be? The popularity of church schools is due to their success, and why should success be a cause for shame?…
IMHO this is a piece of writing that lacks serious analysis. I comment with reluctance on the Church of England, but I think that it would be true to say that not defending church schools represents a terrible loss of self-confidence. I would also take issue with the writer’s use of the phrase ‘pushy parents’. If people go to church, support the life of the Christian community, give full backing to the church school, are they being pushy or are simply being Christian? For that matter, what is wrong with saying that faith brings benefits? For searing comment from a leading Anglican rector on the Bishop of Oxford’s proposal, read the words of the Revd Gillean Craig in this report from the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8468583/Bishop-under-fire-over-quota-plan-for-church-schools.html
I apologise for coming back for a second bite of the cherry, but I thought that North American readers might appreciate some context. Because we have no separation of church and state in the UK, the government pays most of the cost of church schools. It pays for 100% of the normal running costs, and 90% of the capital and repair costs. Of course the religious communities also raise funds for extras such as music instruments, sports facilities etc. Because of the state support the government can and does legislate heavily for the schools. The previous Labour government was very hostile to church schools and actually forbade us to give priority to parents who practised their faith. The Conservatives under David Cameron are much more sympathetic – hence my bafflement over the Church of England caving in now. The argument against the schools goes like this: middle class parents go to church to make sure that they get a place for their child in school. These schools also cream off the more intelligent pupils. Hence, the argument goes, they discriminate against poorer people etc. To which I say and here you can hear me start shouting RUBBISH! I am a parish priest in inner city London and I can tell you that the people who make most use of the schools to climb the social ladder are immigrants. And why not? They come from places like the Philippines, Colombia, Ghana, where people practice the faith much more than the native English and expect some benefit from it. And again, why not?
I’ve never fully comprehended the English school system, and I lived in England for a year. Being a typical American of the “local control of schools” and “separation of church and state” schools of thought, I was always baffled as to why there was such a “to do” over church schools, the regulation thereof, and the crying of, ‘foul!’ when said regulation becomes Politically correct claptrap. My point always was, “If you take Caesar’s coin, you have to dance to Caesar’s tune.”