Schools 'are Under Attack From Religious Groups', Head Of Ofsted Warns

[naomi24]

One of the biggest threats to education in Britain is schools coming under attack from religious groups wanting to change how they operate, the head of Ofsted has warned.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman said ministers and local authorities must do more to support schools that come under “undue influence” from religious and community groups.

Throwing her weight behind those that stand up to pressure groups, Ms Spielman said it is often young girls who end up having their rights curtailed. In a letter to MPs, she included “community pressure” on a list of what she believes are the “major risks” to quality of education and school effectiveness.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/education/schools-are-under-attack-from-religious-groups-head-of-ofsted-warns-a3978971.html

Time to say a decisive ‘No’?

[AuntLydia]

Naomi I would love to read these other stories and it may change my opinions to a certain degree, but I can only comment on facts that were presented in the article.

[naomi24]

AL, one fact that was presented in the article is that the Commons public accounts committee is aware of a number of high-profile examples. Why don't you believe it?

[New Judge]

"To put it in perspective there are children every day going to school without nutrition and having a red bull for lunch with a bag of chips."

But at least they had lunch. People observing the ridiculous practice of fasting for Ramadan next year (which ends on 4th June) face over 16 hours daily without food and - much more importantly - without drink. Any religious lunatics forcing this on anybody, let alone children and young adults, should be ostracised. The idea that any of them should have any influence - however small - over the nation's schools is horrifying.

[AuntLydia]

Naomi I do believe it - but can't comment on theses 'high profile cases' as they are no links or references to them.

In the particular case reported, about the head teacher trying to ban the hijab and fasting from her school, I gave my opinion that she was wrong to do this. This does not mean I would have the same opinion given a different circumstance.

[AuntLydia]

Newjudge At ramadan followers eat huge amounts of food and drink just before dawn. Muslim children are expected to begin fasting once they have reached puberty, usually by the age of 14. Yes , as non Muslims we find this its stupid and wrong , but its their beliefs and I'm sure if a child was ill at school through lack of hydration they would be given water.

[naomi24]

AL, //the head teacher trying to ban the hijab and fasting from her school, I gave my opinion that she was wrong to do this. //

I know you did but can't for the life of me rationalise your thinking. Why would anyone who doesn't cleave to an antiquated philosophy deem it acceptable to impose either on any child?

[New Judge]

"...but its their beliefs and I'm sure if a child was ill at school through lack of hydration they would be given water."

Very kind of them.

You get dehydrated long before you show any visible signs of distress, AL. And if lack of fluid makes a child ill you can be fairly sure that some damage has already occurred. To deliberately expose children (or adults for that matter) to something that can cause illness is irresponsible. Because it is "their belief" does not mean it is not open to challenge. If parents normally deprived their children of liquid for two thirds of the day they would be - quite rightly - investigated. Because Muslims have an "excuse" in the form of some religious twaddle does not make it acceptable.

[youngmafbog]

Nothing will be done, apologists (as seen on here) will prevent it until it is too late.

[AuntLydia]

Naomi. I don't believe in God, Christian or Muslim. I don't condemn or condole any beliefs anyone may have, as its not my place to . If people want to drag themselves to Lourdes on their knees in the vain attempt their God will cure them of Cancer its of no interest to me. If people want to dress themselves and their children up in Middle-aged garb its of no interest to me. What upsets me is my children being 'made' to go to religious Assemblies, and what would upset me would be if Muslim parents 'made' my child pray to Allah every four hours or wear the hijab . I cannot waste my time hand-wringing over how hundreds of thousands of people practice their beliefs. They will not change. As long as they don't try and change me or mine they can get on with it.

[Spicerack]

AuntLydia // Only if those parents then came to the school demanding meat and pork be taken off the school menu in order not to offend their children -then that wold be unacceptable of course.//

That bird has already flown,(successfully, I might add) AL.

[Spicerack]

Poor old Muslims. All they want to do is change British society and what do they get, people disagreeing with them.
Thank goodness we have enlightened, progressive people who defend and encourage them in every new demand.

[AuntLydia]

spicewreck I hope you are not referring to me as someone defending and condoning 'them'. If you are then I apologise for not being a bit clearer in my 5 or 6 posts that are to the contrary.

[SparklyKid]

What upsets me is my children being 'made' to go to religious Assemblies.


Hi AL, I thought you were happy with your child being forced to attend church ?

[hereIam]

As this is still a Christian country (just!), I have no problem with Christianity being taught in our schools. I was taught it and I had no problems with it whatsoever. I regard myself as a Christian, but don't particularly follow religion anymore and I suspect that is what happens with loads of people. It is the islamification of schools that is being perpetrated in this country and which is often reported about which worries me and needs to be stopped NOW! Definitely a decisive 'No' from me.

[jim360]

What does one mean by "Islamification"? Presumably, that would specifically describe schools where *all* children, not just Muslim children, were expected to adhere to Ramadan practices, or *all* girls would be expected to wear a Niqab (or equivalent). This is not what is being talked about in the article, which seemed to refer to the literal opposite direction, ie all children were expected to eat during Ramadan, and all children were expected to *not* wear various traditional headscarves.

Any imposition of religious practices on those that don't want to adhere to those practices should, as a matter of course, be rejected. But, equally, and attempt to quash freedom to practise religion, should one so choose, should and must be rejected in kind. In that case, when "Earlier this year the headteacher of St Stephen’s primary in Newham ... tried to ban girls under the age of eight from wearing the hijab, and attempted to curb young children fasting at school" falls into the second category, ie a suppression of religious freedoms.

Preserving those freedoms is not "an attack" of schools. I have no doubt that there are, after all, far too many examples of parents or teachers trying to impose their religious will on children. Unfortunately, the article (and, by extension, the Ofsted head) has chosen very poor examples to illustrate this.

[naomi24]

//tried to ban girls under the age of eight from wearing the hijab, and attempted to curb young children fasting at school" falls into the second category, ie a suppression of religious freedoms. //

Religious freedoms? Where are the child's freedoms? No one in this country should be condoning that and no one in their right mind would defend it.

[jim360]

Fasting during daylight hours, if properly monitored, is not necessarily harmful. I don't agree with the practice and I'm not sitting here trying to encourage it either, but as long as the child is conscious of the reasons for the fasting, as long as proper precautions are taken, and as long as there is at least some element of choice, then ... does the state have a right to run roughshod over the rights of the family?

There are a lot of rights in play here and inevitably they will come into conflict, but it nevertheless seems clear that there's a difference between children of all faiths being obliged to observe Ramadan (clearly unacceptable, but also as far as I'm aware something that never happens), and children of all faiths being required to ignore it (equally unacceptable).

Where the line is drawn is tricky, but please don't mistake granting freedom of religious of expression from defending the practice in question. At my primary school there was, I think, only one Muslim child (in my class, at least). if memory serves, that gave her an opportunity to discuss her family's faith and practises, and gave the rest of us an opportunity to learn about it. But no-one was being forced to do anything -- no more so than any other child who is forced to attend church with their parents.

Speaking of, isn't that another right that you might often defend, namely, the freedom of parents to raise their own children?

[AuntLydia]

Sparklykid, I'm not 'alright' with him going to school religious assembly. I prefer that no school would be able to do this but sometimes you just have to suck these things up like a grown up. State schools should be made non denominational by Law.

[naomi24]

Jim. You can’t have it both ways. The fact is that if any other section of society was denying its children sustenance - some girls as young as 9 - from dawn ‘til dark, those people would find themselves before the courts and their children likely removed from their care, and rightly so, but because it’s Islam it’s somehow acceptable. Well, not in my book.

[AuntLydia]

// he fact is that if any other section of society was denying its children sustenance - some girls as young as 9 - from dawn ‘til dark, those people would find themselves before the courts//

Not if it was a Christian practice.

9 is a bit young for puberty in males and females.