Accord Coalition and EDM 530

[Alan H]

I emailed my MP, Barry Gardiner, asking to sign the EDM 530 on the Accord Coalition:

ACCORD COALITION
21.01.2009

Kumar, Ashok

That this House supports Accord, the national coalition that unites religious and non-religious individuals and organisations campaigning for inclusive schools; believes that all state schools should be open to children and teachers of all backgrounds and beliefs; is concerned that current legislation permits schools with a religious character to discriminate against staff and students on the basis of their religion or belief and to teach a partial religious education curriculum; calls for religious education to be objective, balanced and fair; welcomes the positive approach taken by Accord and the breadth of its membership; and urges the Government to remove exemptions from equalities legislation for state-funded religious schools.

I didn't realise he was Mandleson's PPS, so protocol prevents him from signing it. He did say he would pass on my request to the Department for Children, Schools and Families asking for their comments.

Got the reply yesterday from Jim Knight (Minister of State for Schools and Learners):

Rt Hon Jim Knight MP
Minister of State for Schools and Learners
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
Westminster
London
SW1 P 3BT
tel: 0870 0012345 [email protected]

Barry Gardiner MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA
February 2009

Dear Barry

Thank you for your letter of 3 February to Ed Balls MP enclosing correspondence from your constituent regarding the Accord campaign and Early Day Motion 530. I am replying as the Minister responsible for faith schools.

The Government welcomes the contribution that schools with a religious character make to the school system — both as a result of their historical role and now as key players in contributing to the more diverse school system with greater opportunities for parental choice. The Department believes that parents should be able to choose the type of education and ethos they want for their children and it is down to locally accountable councils and communities themselves, to decide what sort of schools they should have.

It is important to note that, regardless of category, all maintained faith schools must meet the same criteria as other maintained schools — for example, they must: comply with the statutory School Admissions Code, follow the National Curriculum tests and assessments, be inspected by Ofsted; have fully qualified teaching staff and promote community cohesion.

We do acknowledge that some people have concerns about the contribution of faith schools to community cohesion. However Ministers are clear that all schools, whether they are faith schools or not, play a key role in providing a safe and harmonious environment for all in our society, thereby fostering understanding, integration and cohesion. That is why Section 38 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 places the governing bodies of all maintained schools under a duty to promote community cohesion that is specifically inspected by Ofsted.

In relation to admissions, all maintained schools, including faith schools, must comply with admissions legislation and the school admissions code. Together, these help to ensure that admission arrangements are fair and outlaw selection and unfair admissions practices, which can increase social segregation.

In terms of segregation, in its report ‘Our Shared Future’, the Commission on Integration and Cohesion recognised that there are faith schools which have pupils from many different backgrounds and faiths and that there are largely single background schools which are not faith schools.

As regards staffing, in all maintained schools, including those that have a religious character, the governing body is responsible for deciding the staffing structure and arrangements that will meet the school’s needs and for deciding which candidate to appoint to posts when vacancies arise. Specific statutory provisions exist to enable the governing bodies of schools with a religious character to secure the faith character of the school. Voluntary Aided schools are able to have regard to a person’s faith when making a teaching appointment and considering a teacher’s remuneration or promotion.

Additionally, since September 2008, voluntary aided schools have been able to have regard to a person’s faith when making a support staff appointment. Support staff perform a wide variety of roles in schools, with very different levels of pupil contact and influence. Faith will only be a relevant factor where there is a genuine occupational requirement in accordance with anti-discrimination legislation.

Whilst there is scope for schools with a religious character to apply limited discrimination to some posts, all schools, including those with a religious character, are bound by provisions of employment law and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. These Regulations prevent employers from discriminating on the basis of religion or belief unless there is a genuine occupational requirement (GOR) for a person to be of the faith in order to carry out that particular job. The Department has issued guidance that reminds schools of their obligations under these Regulations and provides specific guidance (including from ACAS) as to when a GOR would apply.

In terms of religious education (RE), all maintained schools, including faith schools, are required to teach RE as part of the basic curriculum for all pupils and must ensure that it is broad and balanced. The content of RE must reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions. The content of a maintained school’s RE syllabus is determined locally or in the case of a VA faith school, the RE curriculum will be in accordance with the tenets of the school. RE syllabuses for maintained schools without a religious character and in foundation and voluntary controlled schools with a religious character are drawn up by a locally constituted Agreed Syllabus Conference, with advice from the Standing Advisory Council for RE.

For Voluntary Aided Schools the RE syllabus is drawn up by the governing body according to the trust deed of the school. Parents of pupils attending a Foundation or Voluntary Controlled school with a religious designation can request that RE is taught in accordance with the trust deed of the school. Parents do have the right to withdraw their children from all or any part of RE and this right applies to all schools, including faith schools. A school must comply with any such request from a parent to withdraw their child and is responsible for the supervision of the child who has been withdrawn from the subject during the time when teaching would have taken place.

It is worth noting that in December 2008 the Department met with Accord to address their concerns and the Department is maintaining an ongoing dialogue on any issues they may raise. However Ministers remain committed to supporting the establishment of new maintained schools by a range of providers — including faith organisations — where local consultation has shown that this is what parents and the community want, where schools are willing and able to meet all of the requirements of maintained status and where this greater diversity will help raise standards.

Jim Knight MP

It's what I expected: no coherent reasoning! He just doesn't understand the difference between diversity of schools and diversity in the classroom.

I didn't know about now being able to discriminate against support staff.

It has now been signed by:

Adrian Sanders
Alan Simpson
Andrew George
Ann Cryer
Ashok Kumar
Bob Laxton
Bob Russell
Colin Challen
Dari Taylor
David Chaytor
David Howarth
Diane Abbott
Elfyn Llwyd
Evan Harris
Frank Dobson
Frank Doran
Glenda Jackson
Gordon Banks
Hugh Bayley
Ian Stewart
Jeremy Corbyn
Jim Dowd
John Austin
John Cummings
John Heppell
John Leech
John McDonnell
Kelvin Hopkins
Lynne Featherstone
Lynne Jones
Martin Caton
Matthew Taylor
Mike Hancock
Paul Holmes
Peter Bottomley
Peter Kilfoyle
Richard Taylor
Richard Younger-Ross
Rudi Vis
Sandra Gidley
Sarah Teather
Tim Yeo
Tom Levitt

[Alan C.]

What a load of whitewash

However Ministers remain committed to supporting the establishment of new maintained schools by a range of providers — including faith organisations — where local consultation has shown that this is what parents and the community want,

I'd like to see some proof/evidence for that statement.

[tubataxidriver]

Parents and the community support the establishment and maintenance of faith schools because they know that they are secretly selective, they think they can weave their way in by playing the system, and they have confidence that the school will be able to weed out the "undesirables". If this selection was eliminated then support for faith schools might wither.

[Nick]

I'm afraid my blood reached evaporation at this point:

Minister of State for Schools and Learners

While I'm cooling down on the naughty step before commenting further on the original replay from Jim Knight MP, just an thought about TTD's post.

[My bold]

Parents and the community support the establishment and maintenance of faith schools because they know that they are secretly selective, they think they can weave their way in by playing the system, and they have confidence that the school will be able to weed out the "undesirables". If this selection was eliminated then support for faith schools might wither.

Hmmm. I'm not quite comfortable with that wording. OTOH, it may just be the way you are expressing your view, so we may not be too far apart. Let me elaborate.

Parents and the community support the establishment and maintenance of faith schools because they believe that the "ethos" of the school (ghastly phrase) will produce dividends.

Therefore those parents most concerned about their kids' education will tend to gravitate towards such a school, lying about their religious affinity where necessary. It therefore becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, as "undesirables" tend to be the offspring of those who are less concerned about education , being generally less educated themselves. Thus, those parents who are concerned about education, and are therefore likely to express a preference, will "support" faith schools. Not because of the "faith", but because of the evident results of the school, even though the school's success has nothing to do with the intervention of god's holy spirit (or any such cobblers'), or even such teachings, but results from the collective educational ambitions and actions of the parents who manage to get their kids in.

So yes, the by-product is indeed that undesirables are weeded out, but I think it is unhelpful to our argument to accuse the schools of being "secretly selective". They may be selective as a by-product, but it is not their objective to be selective as such. We should not accuse them of being educationally crooked. It is up to us to demonstrate that a non-faith school can be equally as good. It's up to inspirational heads and teaching staff to achieve this. If such a school existed , parents would flock to send their children there, and sod the non-religious "ethos". They just wouldn't care. Unfortunately, a religious "ethos" is taken as an indication of a certain mind-set, and therefore becomes, in many cases, a self-fulfilling prophesy. There is no secret conspiratorial "selection" being actively carried out. We must accept that. It just means we have work to do. A great deal of work.



Once my blood returns to near normal I might comment on the reply from Jim Knight.

[Alan H]

In Tuesday's MediaScan:

********************************************************************************
Faith schools accused of 'backdoor selection' - Times Online
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 835156.ece
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Faith schools accused of 'backdoor selection'

Faith schools and academies should be stripped of their power to choose pupils, according to research that suggests that some secondary schools are flouting new rules designed to prevent middle-class pupils dominating the best comprehensives.

Researchers at the London School of Economics, who studied more than 3,000 secondary school admission forms for 2008, said that faith schools and other establishments that control admissions, including academies, should hand over the job of allocating places to an independent body to ensure greater fairness. Anne West, director of the education research group at the LSE and lead author of the study, said that this could be the local authority, which already controls admissions for community schools, or a religious body such as the diocesan authority.

The researchers found that some schools were operating a form of backdoor selection by asking for personal information about parents’ marital status, occupation and educational background and even children’s hobbies. It also found that a significant minority of nonselective schools – 5 per cent – were selecting pupils on the basis of aptitude for a particular subject.

More than half a million 11-year-olds in England will discover this week whether they have got a place at their preferred secondary. Early indications suggest that nationally up to a sixth of children, more than 90,000 pupils, could be disappointed.

An overall decline in the number of applications means that the proportion of those failing to get their first choice is likely to fall slightly.

The Times has conducted a survey of 65 local authorities. The proportion of pupils not getting their first choice in the West London borough of Kensington and Chelsea was 40 per cent. Further west in Hillingdon the proportion was 29.5 per cent. In Hertfordshire the figure was 33 per cent, in Bournemouth 29 per cent and in Bristol 19 per cent.

In the grammar school areas of Kent and Buckinghamshire, the proportions were 21.5 and 46.05 per cent respectively.

Professor West said that despite the introduction of an admissions code in 2007 to outlaw backdoor selection several schools had breached the rules in letter and in spirit.

The study, which was funded by the education charity RISE and the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, found that some schools were using supplementary information forms to ask parents open-ended questions, which would indicate a great deal about the parents’ own educational and social background.

Several schools asked about children’s hobbies and one even asked children to complete a 100-word statement. Another invited parents to meet the headteacher or deputy “to discuss the application for admission”, despite a ban on interviews.

A small number of grammar schools (15 per cent) asked about parents’ marital status through indirect questions, which is also against the rules.

The sheer complexity of admissions procedures discriminated against certain groups of parents, the report suggests. More than a fifth of voluntary aided schools have at least four admissions criteria relating to religion and some have as many as 11.

Closely tied to this, Professor West said, was the wide degree of discretion open to schools that controlled their own admissions. “Schools that are their own admission authority are in theory in a position to ‘cream skim’. This means that they are able, if they so wish, to select pupils who will maximise their examination league table results,” she said. “We do not know what is going on behind closed doors. We do not know what happens in voluntary aided schools and how it is decided whether or not a particular applicant is offered a place.”

The study found that the proportion of secondary schools selecting pupils by aptitude had risen from 3 per cent to 5 per cent between 2001 and 2008.

Nonselective schools that special-ise in specific subject areas may select up to 10 per cent of their intake by aptitude. The LSE study found that some schools used prior attainment, for example in music examinations, as an indicator of aptitude. This, Professor West suggested, was tantamount to selecting by ability.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry, the Schools Minister, said that the LSE report supported the Government’s own tough approach to the admissions code. “Admissions authorities must ensure their arrangements are not unnecessarily complex so as to disadvantage certain families,” she said.

Faith authorities were highly critical of the report. The Rev Janina Ains-worth, chief education officer for the Church of England, said that the study was based on out-of-date information and denied that the procedures for deciding a child’s religious affiliation were complex or that schools had too much discretionary power.

“Church attendance is the only measure our schools use when allocating places on the basis of faith, and you cannot get a much simpler way of assessing whether someone has a faith commitment or not,” she said.


Parents’ marital status is scrutinised

— The admissions code bans interviews, but one Roman Catholic school said: “Parents may be invited to the school by mutually convenient appointment to meet the headteacher or deputy head so that they can discuss the application for admission”

— A small number of faith schools asked direct questions about parents’ marital status (four) or financial status (two). Eight schools asked about parents’ occupations

— Less than a quarter of schools (23 per cent) asked indirect questions to determine parents’ marital status by asking for the address of both of the child’s parents or carers and whether the parent had access to the child

— The code states that schools should not use supplementary forms to ask about children’s hobbies but 15 schools with specialist status did just that. One faith school specialising in music, dance and drama asked about performances the child had been involved in

— Specialist schools may select 10 per cent of their intake on aptitude. One foundation school asked about pupil ability by requesting information on children’s attainment in specialist areas, such as music exams. It was among 17 to do so

Source: Secondary school admissions in England: policy and practice, LSE/RISE

[Retrieved: Thu Mar 05 2009 23:44:25 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################

And the BHA's response to this:

********************************************************************************
BHA calls for admissions changes in religious schools
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/235
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BHA calls for admissions changes in religious schools

The BHA has responded today to a report by researchers at LSE on the complexity of school admissions. The paper, which examined the admissions policies of secondary schools in England, found that the criteria used by voluntary aided religious schools can be complex and off-putting for parents.

Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, said, “This research has comprehensively analysed the admissions criteria of schools in Britain and found that those used by voluntary aided schools can be long and confusing. These largely religious schools also use ‘supplementary information forms’ to gather details of religious commitment. These forms were frequently found to use open ended questions that could be used to ‘select out’ less educated parents.

The paper suggests that improvements to the current system could be made by simplifying the admissions criteria used by schools and giving responsibility for admissions to an independent body, instead of the governors. Those would be positive steps, but we would still be left with a situation in which faith schools could discriminate against students as well as staff according to their private beliefs. A modern education system should be based on equality—surely this new evidence shows that now is the time for the Government to support genuinely inclusive schools.”

[Retrieved: Thu Mar 05 2009 23:47:25 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################

Some statistics for England:

CofE primary schools have 44% less children entitled to free school meals than community schools; 25% less in secondary schools. (DfES figures for 2005)

CofE schools have 18% less children with special educational needs. (DfES figures for 2005)

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Hmmm. Haven't I hard this sort of thing before? Oh, yes. It's in the thread I started last April, Breaking the Rules, after 96 out of a sample of 567 state schools were found to have breached admission rules? And most of the 96 were faith schools. And in six of them parents were asked to promise to make "voluntary" payments as a condition of entry. I thought Ed Balls was going to put a stop to such appalling behaviour. The Government was supposed to be drafting emergency legislation to crack down on breaches of the admissions code. Philip Hunter, the schools adjudicator, was going to be given new powers to investigate any breach of the code that came to his notice, without having to wait for an official complaint. And every local authority was going to have to make an annual report outlining whether the admissions procedures in schools in their area had been fair, which would be sent to the schools adjudicator. I wonder whether any or all of that happened. Doesn't look like it, does it?

I think it is unhelpful to our argument to accuse the schools of being "secretly selective". They may be selective as a by-product, but it is not their objective to be selective as such. We should not accuse them of being educationally crooked.

Unless there's evidence that they actually are educationally crooked. In which case we should.

Emma

[Alan H]

It was pointed out to me (by someone who knows what he's talking about!) that there was something that Jim Knight said that didn't ring true, so I've replied to him:

Dear Jim

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter about Early Day Motion 530 and the Accord Coalition that Barry Gardiner kindly forwarded to your department.

I am puzzled by something you said (third last paragraph):

In terms of religious education (RE), all maintained schools, including faith schools, are required to teach RE as part of the basic curriculum for all pupils and must ensure that it is broad and balanced.

I am unaware of where it is set down that religious schools have to teach RE that is 'broad and balanced'. I would be grateful if you could clarify this and let me know where this is prescribed?

I look forward to receiving your reply. If possible, to keep costs and for convenience, I would prefer a response by email, rather than letter.

Yours

Needless to say, I'll keep you all informed of any reply...

[Alan H]

Alex Kennedy at the Accord Coalition needs as much help as possible:

I am writing to you about a one-off opportunity that will occur shortly in Parliament and for which Accord needs your help.

In the coming weeks the government is bringing forward its Equality Bill, many of whose clauses directly affect the issue of inclusivity and exclusivity in education. Our aim is to make sure that it removes the exemptions that allow faith schools to discriminate in their admissions, curriculum and employment practices.

For the campaign to be effective we need as many supporters as we can get. As the bill progresses we will let you know about what action you can take to get the message across to MPs, but right now the priority is to expand our list of supporters so that we can contact as many of those who want inclusive schooling as possible.

If you have friends, family or colleagues who share the view that no state school should discriminate by religion then please let them know about Accord and the importance of the Equality Bill campaign. And ask them to tell their friends too!

As you know, signing up to support Accord is free, simple and only takes a couple of minutes. Signed up supporters receive occasional bulletins about the campaign, but never junk mail and we don’t pass on any details to third parties.

The easiest way for your friends and family to sign up is by following this link:

http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk/index ... n/sign-up/

I have also included below a sign up form that you can take to your student union, workplace, church, humanist group, or anywhere else where there might be potential supporters of the campaign. If you are interested in doing this then please let me know, and I can send you leaflets and other information if you need it. Completed forms should be sent to me at the address below.

Thank you for your help

Best wishes,

Alex

Alex Kennedy
Coalition Coordinator
Accord

0207 462 4990

[email protected]

1 Gower Street
London
WC1E 6HD

The form is attached in both Word 97 and pdf formats.

[Alan H]

********************************************************************************
Accord Coalition » Lead Story » Accord gains 220 supporters in a week
http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk/index ... in-a-week/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Accord gains 220 supporters in a week
By Alex Kennedy • Apr 1st, 2009 • Category: Lead Story

Thanks to our supporters telling their friends about the campaign, there are 220 more supporters of Accord this week than last. With the Equality Bill due to be published in the coming weeks, it is vital that we are in contact with as many supporters of inclusive schools as possible.

The response this week has been great, but we need to do more. If you have not signed up already then you can do for free by going to http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk/index ... n/sign-up/. If you have already signed up and know of others who might want to support the cause then please forward them the link and let them know what the campaign in all about.

The reason for the big push is that the Equality Bill will be a chance to challenge the legal exemptions that allow faith schools to discriminate. By signing up you will be able to receive updates on how we are trying to get the bill changed and what you can do to help.

[Retrieved: Wed Apr 01 2009 23:05:09 GMT+0100 (GMT Daylight Time)]

###################

[Alan H]

Accord press release:

********************************************************************************
Accord Coalition » Lead Story » Accord endorses NUT plan to end segregation
http://www.accordcoalition.org.uk/index ... gregation/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Accord endorses NUT plan to end segregation
By Alex Kennedy • Apr 7th, 2009 • Category: Lead Story

Accord has welcomed plans by the National Union of Teachers to promote community cohesion by campaigning for an end religious discrimination in school admissions. A proposed conference motion, due to be debated on Saturday, argues that “all groups within society should be treated equally within the education system”.

Responding to the news, Chair of Accord Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“It sends a powerful message about the importance of community cohesion that NUT is highlighting these issues at its conference this week. No one knows better than teachers the necessity of an education system based on equality and mutual respect, and we welcome the fact that this debate is taking place. As a coalition of religious and non-religious organisations that share NUT’s goal of inclusive schools and balanced religious education, we hope to work closely with them in the campaign”.

[Retrieved: Tue Apr 07 2009 11:44:19 GMT+0100 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################

[Nick]

I wondered if, for once, I was about to agree with the NUT, but no. Their motion is far too broad for my liking. It could be taken as an attack on the private sector too, as well as giving too much control of education to the state. Unless, of course, the motion contains much more than is quoted above. Maybe there is hope, as Accord have supported it... Perhaps I'd better seek further enlightenment.

[Alan H]

The BHA press release talks about state-funded schools:

********************************************************************************
BHA welcomes NUT motion to end religious segregation in schools
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/263
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BHA welcomes NUT motion to end religious segregation in schools

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has today welcomed plans by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) to debate the issue of discrimination by ‘faith schools’ in their admissions criteria and the need for schools to foster community cohesion, taking into account the needs of both religious groups and those of no religious affiliation.

Hanne Stinson, BHA Chief Executive, said, ‘It is very positive that the NUT conference will be voting on motions seeking to promote cohesion and against discrimination in our schools. Since last year, schools have had a legal duty to promote community cohesion, but it is doubtful whether this can be achieved while many have discriminatory admissions criteria which segregate children on the basis of religion.’

‘Ending selective admissions in state-funded faith schools is a crucial step towards a truly inclusive education system, but we also need to go further and tackle religious discrimination in employment of teachers and non-teaching staff, together with teaching a broad, balanced and objective curriculum and for inclusive assemblies to replace collective worship in all schools.’

[Retrieved: Tue Apr 07 2009 17:41:56 GMT+0100 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################

The NUT motion is:

Faith Schools

MOTION 27

HANK ROBERTS (Brent) to move,
LESLEY SUMMERLAND (City of Leicester) to second:

Conference notes the current use of the euphemism ‘faith schools’ to describe religiously controlled schools and the potential for these to further fragment Community Comprehensive Education.

Conference believes that the long term aim of the Union should be the establishment of a single, Community Comprehensive state education system because this is uniquely the best system to support anti-racism and deliver Equal Opportunities for all.

Conference further believes that, whilst religious studies and philosophy should be an integral part of the entitlement curriculum for all pupils, religious groups, of whatever faith, should have no place in the control and management of schools. Individuals of all religions whether holding a formal position or not are entitled to be school governors.

Conference believes that diversity is an asset and that all children should have the opportunity and right to meet and work with children from a variety of backgrounds and faiths within their day to day education.

Conference asserts that there is no research evidence supporting a rationale for education segregated on the basis of faith, and further that access to education segregated on the basis of faith, ethnicity or social class undermines community cohesion. Conference therefore favours diversity within schools rather than the promotion of diversity between schools.

Conference instructs the Executive to:

1. Publicise the Union’s stance on cultural diversity stressing our belief that all groups in society should be treated equally within the education system.
2. Campaign actively against the opening of any future schools that are controlled or sponsored by religious organisations.

(Source: http://www.nut.org.uk/resources/pdf/497 ... lete09.pdf)

There are two amendments tabled.

[Nick]

Thanks for the extra info, Alan.

I think the BHA need to be careful in their support. I like (most of ) the BHA's press release, but we/they must remain detached from the NUT to keep as broad an appeal as possible across the widest political spectrum.

IMO, the NUT proposal contains more than those aspects supported by the BHA, some of which have nothing to do with removing religious influence from education. And I'm always going to be a little prickly about this motion because of the "education-speak" used including that buzz-word "Community".

The NUT motion is:

Faith Schools

MOTION 27

HANK ROBERTS (Brent) to move,
LESLEY SUMMERLAND (City of Leicester) to second:

Conference notes the current use of the euphemism ‘faith schools’ to describe religiously controlled schools and the potential for these to further fragment Community Comprehensive Education.

IMO, there is vastly more to education than establishing a one-size-fits-all comprehensive system. In fact, I think it would be a disaster.

Conference believes that the long term aim of the Union should be the establishment of a single, Community Comprehensive state education system because this is uniquely the best system to support anti-racism and deliver Equal Opportunities for all.

I think a single system would be wrong. I also want to see positive openness and respect in society, not "anti" anything. To concentrate on anti-racism shows a hijacking of education by the PC Brigade. (Excuse the language- I don't read the Express or the Mail. Honestly!)

I am also vastly more exercised in trying to help the disadvantaged, whose fate is often sealed by the age of 7, by working with the parents to improve the raising of young children. To talk of "Equal Opportunities For All" is IMO tackling the problem from the wrong perspective.

Conference further believes that, whilst religious studies and philosophy should be an integral part of the entitlement curriculum for all pupils, religious groups, of whatever faith, should have no place in the control and management of schools. Individuals of all religions whether holding a formal position or not are entitled to be school governors.

OK, except it should say "Individuals of all religions or none..."

Conference believes that diversity is an asset

except, it seems in educational provision.

and that all children should have the opportunity and right to meet and work with children from a variety of backgrounds and faiths within their day to day education.

Why introduce "rights"? It strikes me as ridiculous to say that little Johnny has "the right" to be educated with kids of muslim parents! Plain daft!

Conference asserts that there is no research evidence supporting a rationale for education segregated on the basis of faith,

Then conference is wrong. The rationale to support, for the individual benefit of one's kids, segregation on the basis of faith, is that this tends to attract the parents who are more concerned for their children's welfare, and those who, by their actions as parents of young children, have already established their educational advantage. Not to mention the rationale of some parents (which I would not support) that segregated education will ensure the preservation of the parents faith. I suggest the research supports both those propositions. And frankly, I'd chose not to send a kid of mine to a school where, by virtue of the surrounding area, a large majority of the kids were from a muslim background, say.

and further that access to education segregated on the basis of faith, ethnicity or social class undermines community cohesion. Conference therefore favours diversity within schools rather than the promotion of diversity between schools.

I am troubled by the proposition that the state should control the upbringing of children. I can envisage situations where I, as a parent, would be furious with the state's interference in my children's upbringing. (Hmmm. I wonder how much of my fury would be rubbed off by the actual practice of raising a few brats...?)

Conference instructs the Executive to:

1. Publicise the Union’s stance on cultural diversity stressing our belief that all groups in society should be treated equally within the education system.

Er, no. I think the disadvantaged should be helped.

2. Campaign actively against the opening of any future schools that are controlled or sponsored by religious organisations.

Hooray, at last. But I don't think the NUT would consider me a supporter, would they?