1. 1
St. Mary’s University College
Strawberry Hill
B.Sc. (Hons) Sociology
Project Title: To what extent do Faith schools promote cohesion or conflict in
multicultural contemporary Britain?
Author’s Name: Isabella Katherine Iles
Date: 17/04/2015

2. 2
Chapter 1: Abstract
Faith schools are controversial. Some claimthat they indoctrinate young people; segregate
communities; and, breed a threatening narrow minded fundamentalist tendency.
Furthermore, they foster intolerant attitudes and discrimination, undermining a British
commitment to a Liberal, plural and culturally diverse society. Others claimfaith schools are
a legitimate expression of a plural society. Their ethos lends itself to promoting and
advancing responsible citizens, secure in their religious identity and thus better able to live
harmoniously in a culturally diverse Britain. For some, faith schools safeguard tradition and
remain part of the very fabric of British society. Grassroots research considered the extent
to which faith schools secure social cohesion rather than promote conflict and therefore
social division. My findings did not conclusively establish the case for or against faith
schools. Rather, there emerged a sense that school communities are divided within
themselves, even though on the surface they seek to present a clear, coherent and unified
position.
Acknowledgements

3. 3
Table of contents
Page
Title Page……………………………………………………………………………………………………......1
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………………….2
Table of contents………………………………………………………………………………………………3
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
Literature review………………………………………………………………………………………………6
3.1 History of faith schooling………………………………………………………………..6
3.2 Islamophobia and Secularism………………………………………………………….6
3.3 Operation Trojan Horse.………………………………………………………………….8
3.4 The Prevent Strategy……………………………………………………………………….8
3.5 Runnymede Trust……………………………………………………………………………9
3.6 The God Delusion………………………………………………………………………….10
3.7 Faith School Menace?.......................................................................10
3.8 Guidance on promoting British values…………………………………………..12
3.9 Non-statutory National Framework……………………………………………….12
3.10 Pluralist Britain…………………………………………………………………………...13
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16
5.1 An introduction………………………………………………………………………………16
5.2 Answers in relation to the teachers position………………………………….17
5.3 Analysis of why candidates chose to work where they work…………17
5.4 The promotion of fundamental British values……………………………….18
5.5 The promotion of student knowledge of other religions………………19
5.6 Segregation between students………………………………………………………21

4. 4
5.7 The promotion of Tolerance…………………………………………………….21
5.8 Changes in various social trends……………………………………………….22
5.9 Literature review analysis…………………………………………………………23
5.10 The future of faith/ non-faith schooling………………………………….24
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………….26
Footnotes…………………………………………………………………………………………………..27
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………28
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

5. 5
Chapter 2: Introduction
Faith schooling is all I have ever known. Roman Catholicismhas been an integral and
influential part of my educational experience. For me, religious education meant learning
more about the beliefs and practices of Roman Catholics. Exploring alternative religious
outlooks, meeting pupils from different religious traditions, never occurred. Even then as
now, I questioned the value of such a narrow focus. Even then as now, I could see that I was
uneducated thus disadvantaged in relation to learning about other people in my society.
Religious affiliation has been an integral part of people’s identity. Contemporary Britain
takes pride in its liberal tolerance of religious diversity. Religion has been a catalyst for both
cohesion and division. Much contemporary war and conflict within society and between
societies arises fromreligious differences. Whether faith schools aggravate the problem or
advance a solution is contested and disputed.
I wanted to establish the extent to which faith schools promote cohesion rather than
division. My research sought to engage the thoughts and opinions of pupils and teachers in
secondary schooling, both faith and non-denominational. My selected research method was
to conduct a range of open-ended interviews on both teachers and students from faith and
non-denominational secondary schools, situated in Surrey and the inner London area.
Additionally I aimed to observe a Jewish primary school’s RE class. This research occurred
against a back drop extensive reading into the history and legal standing of faith schools.
There is a continuing and perhaps growing unease towards faith schools, in particular
towards Islamic faith schools. Recent alarm has been heightened by investigations into the
threats posed by some faith schools, e.g. Operation Trojan Horse. These have highlighted
anew the need to debate and re-evaluate the contribution faith schooling makes towards
further establishing a socially cohesive Britain. It is now absolutely necessary to explore and
unpack what faith schooling currently stands for, whilst unravelling the pros and cons
towards whether the future of faith schools is a desirable one. My hope is that my project
contributes to this debate.

6. 6
Chapter 3: Review of Literature
History of faith schooling
3:1 Faith schooling has always been part of the fabric of British education. The church
provided education until the state got more involved in the 1880s. Church influence is still
significant. Considering the 1944 and 1988 Education Acts is important for understanding
better faith schools. Broadening our understanding of British history will aid us to put
various literatures into appropriate contexts.
[‘Until about 1880 education in England was provided largely by the churches. In the early
years of the twentieth century the provision of education expanded rapidly, the cost
increased accordingly, and the churches looked to the state for financial support.’] (Parsons,
1994, p. .)
The Education Acts of 1902 (Balfour) and 1944 (Butler) redefined the relationship between
church and state dramatically.
[‘A measure of independence was exchanged for the comparative security of financial
support from the public service.’] (Parsons, 1994, p. )
During the wartime coalition, Churchill and his party passed the 1944 Education Act to
contribute to the recovery of England and Wales and the political hope for a new post-war
world. The Act included provision for religious education and religious activities in all
schools. The academic day was to begin with acts of collective worship and all students were
required to receive religious instruction, unless of course the school was ‘aided’ and if
parents wanted withdrawal of their child. The Act fundamentally encouraged children to
develop their personal viewpoint of Christian biblical teachings. Thus, the Act disclosed a
long sequence of religious unrest and various confrontations (Religious Education CPD
Handbook, 2011).
In 1988 Thatcher’s Conservative government reformed the 1944 Act. Thatcher sought to
reiterate the literal meaning of the clauses previously offered as she feared religious
education had ‘fallen under control of progressive teachers.’ However, the amendment
generated a ‘sharp and ongoing debate over the significance and implications of this
affirmation and would-be clarification of the requirements, terms and content of religious
education’ (Parsons, 1994, p. ).
Islamophobia and Secularism
3:2 Within Britain, faith schools must operate in a climate of growing secularism, cultural
diversity and intensifying Islamophobia. Therefore, it is vital to explore material on ‘Islamic
secularism’ and the ways ‘Islamophobia’ has had an impact on British views towards Islamic
faith schools, whilst considering the consequences of Muslim feeling towards these
prejudices.

7. 7
Britain is a secular society. According to ‘The National Secular Society’ living in such a society
entails ‘The strict separation of the state from religious institutions. People of different
religions and beliefs are equal before the law’ (National Secular Society, 2015). By
separating state and religion, religious people have the autonomy to practise their faith, as
long as they do not impinge their views on others. A secular society permits the non-
religious to live without the imposition of religion through law, education, health, etc.
Secularism defends the freedom of religious identity but not the freedom to impose that
identity on others. Debates have arisen within Britain over whether Islamic faith schools
have fully adapted and conformed to secularism. Some believe Christian faith schools have
successfully adapted, whereas Islamic schools are still trying creating conflict within
contemporary Britain.
Consider Dawkins’s documentary ‘Faith school menace?’ (2010). He interviews students
from an Islamic school’s science class. When Dawkins asks the children whether we are
evolved from apes, they answer no. The science teacher refused to teach the pupils about
evolution. Instead she taught them that humans where created by their God Allah. Dawkins
questions:
[‘All sixty of your year 10 students reject evolution?’]
The science teacher replies:
[‘Yes because they have their beliefs which is Islam.’]
Essentially, the term Islamophobia refers to an irrational fear of Islam. It leads to hostility,
stereotyping and prejudice towards Muslims. Mondal (2008) suggests two strands of
Islamophobia. ‘One is the uneducated, irrational fear, built by a lack of knowledge. The
other is more malevolent’ (Mondal, 2008, p.75). The wave of Islamophobia amplified after
9/11 and the 7/7 terrorist attacks evidences the second strand.
[‘Aisha in Slough noticed that the atmosphere around her changed after 9/11. I don’t
actually recall having been abused in any sense. It’s only after that I noticed that people
were giving me stares as I walked down the street and this one person actually came and
swore at me.’ (Mondal, 2008, p.76)]
Islamic hostility is also experienced during college.
[‘I did Government and Politics and the non-Muslims there were very anti-Islam, very anti-
Islamic faiths and Islamic law, I think that built up resistance.’ (Mondal, 2008, p.76)]
In contrast, some people do support Islamic faith schools, as they assist to shield young
Muslims from some of the threatening aspects of Western liberal values. The 'West' is
perceived as potentially undermining of Muslim identity, corrupting the young and
vulnerable with Western values, whilst ‘watering down' the faith. Islamic faith schools

8. 8
therefore help foster a more solid sense of Muslim identity. They perhaps help counter the
secularizing tendencies of modern, Western, liberal, democratic societies.
Operation Trojan Horse
3:3 Suspicion towards Islamic schooling could be blamed on the repercussions of
Islamophobia. Perhaps though, much suspicion has arisen from evidence of indoctrination
and radicalisation within those particular faith schools. Many people are suspicious of
Islamic faith schools within Britain as they consider them to be a breeding ground for
fundamentalism, intolerant attitudes and radicalisation. In March 2014, ‘Operation Trojan
Horse’ in Birmingham unveiled that 25 schools were being radicalised, with the aim of
converting individuals to fight and represent the terrorist organisation ‘Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria’ (Isis). An organised group of Islamic fundamentalists partook in overthrowing the
school’s governors in an attempt to radicalise students into becoming new Islamic
extremists. According to ‘Ofsted’ and the ‘Education Funding Authority’ (2015), evidence
was revealed that head teachers were being ‘marginalised or forced out of their jobs’ and
replaced with fundamentalists. The overall aim was to extend the ‘Jihad operation’ by
installing extremist governors into county schools across the UK including in Bradford and
Manchester, i.e. cities with a growing Muslim population.
Prevent Strategy
3:4The Conservative government’s ‘Prevent Strategy’ (2011), is a counter-terrorism strategy
designed to advise, guide and respond to the increase of terror threats from both foreign
nationals and those born and bred in Britain. Some claimthat British faith schools
contribute to potential terrorism and extremist ideologies as a result of their indoctrination.
Adopting a counter-terrorism strategy is vital to maintaining cohesion within British society.
The Prevent Strategy asserts ‘Statistically, it is clear that in the country and overseas, most
terrorist offences are committed by people under the age of 30. We therefore regard it as
vital that Prevent engages fully with schools and places of higher and further education.
Allegations exist that a minority of independent faith schools have been actively promoting
views that are contrary to British values, such as intolerance of other cultures and gender
inequalities.’ (Prevent Strategy, 2011, p.64)
During 2008 the Department of Education (DfE) issued a toolkit to aid schools counter
‘violent extremism’ by providing direction so as to develop an inclusive ethos that promoted
both democratic values and human rights within the classroom. The DfE provided £4.7m to
local authorities and police to implement this guidance. During 2009, the Association of
Chief Police Officers produced guidance termed ‘Prevent, Police and Schools’ and ‘Act Now’
to enable police officers to work more effectively with teachers to prevent extremism and
conflict. Finally, the DfE has recently funded two projects; the ‘Islamand Citizenship
Education Project’ and the ‘Young Muslims Advisory Group’ to help young Muslims to

9. 9
engage with fundamental British values and support young Muslims in finding a solution to
the challenge of extremism.
The Runnymede Trust
3:5 The Runnymede Trust is an independent research organisation which seeks to establish
equality and justice through the promotion of a successful multi-ethnic society. In 2008, the
Trust produced a research report titled ‘The right to divide? Faith schools and community
cohesion’. The report seeks to find ‘a sustainable balance between diversity, equality and
cohesion to result in a common aimof a successful multi-ethnic society’ (Runnymede Trust,
2008, p.2). It sheds light on the debate around whether faith schools should still exist in
British society and if so, under what conditions. The research helped me not only to
formulate opinions from a neutral stance as the study comes from a balanced perspective,
but also aided me to conduct my own research.
The report proposes research recommendations and policy actions clarifying the purpose
and role of faith schools in our contemporary society. The first recommendation ends
‘selection on the basis of faith’ as such a selection criterion creates forms of elitismleading
to issues such as, exclusion and discrimination. Governors of faith schools are very much
convinced that faith schools are still relevant within our society and that they are not out of
date. Therefore, the report suggests that faith schools must implement a universal entry
policy (Runnymede Trust, 2008, p.5).
The second recommendation states ‘children should have a greater say in how they are
educated’ (Runnymede Trust, 2008, p.5). The autonomy of the young should be promoted
and supported. When parents make decisions for children, especially without consultation,
then autonomy is compromised and even undermined.
Furthermore, the report suggests ‘Religious education should be part of the core national
curriculum’ (Runnymede Trust, 2008, p.6). The current coverage of religious education is not
substantial and has a poor religious character. This rings true. Britain is a multicultural,
democratic society catering for a wide scope of religions. According to the Department of
Education (2015), religious education is listed under ‘other compulsory subjects’. Although
religious education may be a compulsory subject in all schools, it is common that faith
schools predominantly only teach about their religion. Quoting from GOV.uk (2015), ‘Local
councils are responsible for deciding the RE syllabus, but faith schools and academies can
set their own’. As RE is not a core subject, children will receive less dedicated teaching of RE
and this may result in religious ignorance and superficial views on ethical matters.
I believe increasing curriculum time for RE and even ensuring it forms port of the core
curriculum would contribute to societal cohesion in Britain, enabling people to act more
tolerantly towards differing religious views. For me, attending faith schooling has disabled

10. 10
me from learning about world religions and limited my knowledge of British society in
general.
The report concludes that if its recommendations are acted upon and maintained, ‘faith
should continue to play an important part in our educational system’. Runnymede believes
that ‘diversity in the educational systemcan improve standards, widen parental choice and
developing responses to local, national and global challenges in education’(Runnymede
Trust, 2008, p.6).
Richard Dawkins- ‘The God Delusion’ and ‘Faith school menace?’
3:6 In his text ‘The God Delusion’ (2006), Richard Dawkins stresses that faith schools are
self-segregating. Within chapter nine ‘Childhood, abuse and the escape from religion’,
Dawkins argues that the idea of faith schooling is indoctrination of our young and that faith
schools should be completely abolished as they equate to ‘mental abuse of the child’
(Dawkins, 2006, p.339). ‘Our society has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal
and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious
labels on them – Catholic child, Protestant child etc’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.339).
Dawkins also criticises the government’s view that faith schools teach the six world religions
in the interests of securing the educational ‘benefits’ of teaching comparative religions.
Dawkins claims within contemporary Britain, children are taught that all religions are of
equal worth, meaning that their own faith is of no significant value. What he finds unclear is
if this is the case, why do faith schools continue to exist? ‘…what transparent nonsense this
is! These faiths are mutually incompatible’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.340). Faith schools represent
the assumption that one faith is better or more believable than others, hence selectivity and
acceptance towards one religion. To impose teachings of other religions is nonsense
because it will not make a difference to the overall perspective of students that their
religion is superior. He concludes ‘Let children learn about different faiths, let them notice
their incompatibility. As for whether any are ‘valid’, let them make up their own minds
when they are old enough’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.340).
In his controversial documentary ‘Faith school menace?’ (2010), Dawkins examines whether
parents should have the human right to educate their children according to their own
religious belief and decide what school their child will attend. Or is granting this right to
parents undermining children’s autonomy?
Dawkins argues that one third of all UK state schools are currently faith-based and that this
figure is ever increasing. Previous decades saw one half of the funding of faith schools paid
by the church which gave them the power to discriminate against children on the basis of
their parents’ religious beliefs. Presently, the funding for faith schools comes largely from
the tax payer, whilst the church has kept its authority to pick and choose who they want to
attend. Dawkins suggests during New Labour’s time in office, the ‘religious flood gate was

11. 11
opened’ and over forty Christian academy schools were introduced. According to Dawkins,
‘Blair wanted one rule for all diverse religions, but they went the wrong way. They should
have abolished faith schooling all together’. However, I personally feel that by implementing
Dawkins’s vision we would be going against society’s general consensus to keep faith
schooling and dispensing with a longstanding tradition.
For Dawkins, religious education is one of the most influential tools adults use to control the
young. ‘Faith schools indoctrinate children at a far too young age as they are at their most
impressionable’.
In faith schools and academies, religious education is fundamentally adapted to what the
school desires to teach and in many faith schools they have their own separate religiously-
affiliated Ofsted inspectors. Dawkins fears that this can lead to biased and prejudiced
adolescents, who have been taught without the ability to reason and rationalise. The belief
that religious education shoves science, physics and other subjects that require human
reasoning out the window may have some scope to it. In an Islamic school interview,
Dawkins questioned a group of female Muslims and their science teacher to evaluate the
form of teaching the children received from that faith school. He first asked the children
whether they believed humans are related to chimpanzees, they all laughed answering no.
He questioned the teacher:
[‘So all sixty of your year 10 students reject evolution?’]
The science teacher replies:
[‘Yes because they have their beliefs which is Islam’]
Here lies evidence that faith schools at times impose their own prejudiced views upon
students, resulting in ignorant children.
The documentary reveals that parents who fake their own faith to get their child into a
certain school, have become an increasing problem in contemporary British society. It
seems parents will attend church consistently every week or even convert religions as a way
of ensuring their children attend the best academically-performing school, which happens
to be faith-based. Dawkins also proves that faith schools are situated in more accessible
areas more commonly to non-faith schools. Thus, children are forced to attend the nearby
faith school instead. I would strongly agree with Dawkins’s opinion here. Whether parents
are ensuring their children attend the primary feeder school that ensures their child a place
at the secondary school ,or whether they are practising their religion faultlessly, the sheer
degree to which parents ensure their child attends a well performing faith school is notable.

12. 12
Pluralist Britain
3:7 Britain is a ‘pluralist’ society which means it entails diverse ranges of religious cultures
and traditions, whereby assorted groups have distinctive ethnic origins, cultural forms,
religions, etc. After hosting empirical studies of Catholic schools within different plural
societies, Jo Cairns’ main aim is to develop and test the means in supporting a civilized civic
debate over the following statement, ‘should plural societies operate common schools
which will ensure full educational entitlement for all, from whatever social, cultural or
religious background; or should there be a plurality of schools whereby religious groups are
granted the right to their own schools?’ (Cairns, 2009, p.1). In other words, should Britain’s
educational system operate to ensure no child is discriminated against when applying to
schools because of factors like their religious affiliation? Or should a plurality of schools
continue to exist, for example, the persistence of faith and non-faith schools?
It is essential that the study is to be examined in accordance with the belief that plurality
itself is central to the common good of society, as individuals and their communities centre
on the pursuit of different components of the intricate human good.
Cairns’ argues throughout chapter one ‘An intellectual framework to support a civic
conversation about faith schools in plural societies’ that within a plural society, faith
schooling has become woven within our society’s framework. If faith schools where
abolished it would cause a severe crisis towards plural living and the overall foundations of
British society as the idea of ‘pluralism’ would also be eradicated. To some extent I agree
with Cairns opinion. Nonetheless, reflecting upon my research findings and other literature
material, it can be argued that despite faith schools claiming to teach other world religions,
this is not always the case. Biased teaching and intolerant views are at times present within
the classroom.
It can be further argued that non-denominational schools resemble British society as a
melting pot of religions. Therefore, it may not negatively affect society if faith schools were
abolished as the nature of non-denominational schools resembles all beliefs and teaches the
six main world religions, embracing diversity and pluralism. I pose the question, why must
we have faith schools to be a plural society if non-faith schools enable knowledge of all
religions? Faith schools can only comply with pluralismas long as they conform to
educational standards and do indeed teach about other faiths.
Chapter two offers a potential solution. Cairns suggest we live in an ‘a-cultural situation’,
whereby cultures live together without a common conscience that leads to prejudices and
discrimination. This is a result of ‘educational policy becoming cut-off from beliefs and
values of individuals and the communities which school serve’ (Cairns, 2009, p. 34). A re-
establishment educational moral purpose must occur, for example schools representing
micro-cultures which enable communities to encompass personal and social formation.
Schools that foster the common good of society through practices such as knowledge of

13. 13
human rights and civic responsibilities, termed as ‘common schools’, is what Cairns suggests
we should strive towards.
Guidance on promoting British values in schools
3:8 In November 2014, GOV.uk released an article called ‘Guidance on promoting British
values in schools’ as a result of ‘Operation Trojan Horse’ and other radicalisation scares. The
Department for Education published guidance for both faith and non-denominational
schools within Britain as a way of protecting society’s overall cohesion. These guidelines
aimed to improve the ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils’ in the
context of contemporary Britain. Selected guidance was intended to be prescribed to both
independent and state-maintained schools in order for all schools to fully exert their
responsibilities to actively promote western, liberal ideologies in the classroom. Effective
schools promote learning about ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual
respect and tolerance of those with different faiths’ (originally stated in the Prevent
Strategy, 2011). According to the Parliamentary Secretary of State for Schools Lord Nash,
‘changes were designed to tighten up the standards on pupil welfare to improve
safeguarding and the standards on spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of
pupils to strengthen the barriers to extremism’. Currently, ‘Ofsted’ and other independent
education inspectors are looking out for all schools abiding to these new requirements and
regulations.
This article proves itself as just one of the many ways in which our government is
proceeding to try and restore Britain’s peace and harmony amongst a vast amount of
different religious backgrounds within our educational system.
Non-statutory national framework p. 6-31 and p. 39-41.
3:9 The influential document, ‘Non-statutory National Framework’ (NSNF) (2004) for
religious education was created by the ‘Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’ on behalf
of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The framework was developed to ‘support
those with responsibility for the provision and quality of religious education in maintained
schools’ (NSNF, 2004, p. 7). Advice is offered to local educational authorities, standing
advisory councils on RE, teachers, pupils, parents and employers and is taught in
collaboration with the locally agreed syllabus or faith community guidelines. Although the
document is not an official law enforced policy, it is a government suggested guideline
which stresses that all maintained schools must follow it so as to secure high teaching
standards and create a safe environment for students (between the ages of 3-19 years) to
succeed in.
The framework claims to pride Religious Education as a top priority in schools, ‘It provokes
challenging questions about the ultimate meaning and purpose of life…it offers the
opportunity for personal reflection and spiritual development’. It further states, ‘RE enables

14. 14
pupils to develop respect for others of different beliefs’, in other words, the promotion of
tolerance (NSNF, 2004, P. 22). I question the validity of this statement. Does the current
teaching of religious education really ensure students are tolerant towards other religions
other than their own? Or does the current nature of their teaching act in a biased manner
towards personal religious beliefs?
The National Framework aims to (1) establish an entitlement, (2) establish standards, (3) to
promote public understanding. Within certain chapters, the intention is to promote
citizenship and fundamental British values. Effective schools seek to develop pupil
knowledge of diversity of nationality and ethnicity; deep an appreciation of human rights;
advance an understanding of our global responsibilities as citizens. The importance of
learning this is it aids ‘helps resolve conflict fairly’.
Chapter 4: Methodology
4:1 In order to research my chosen topic I decided to use two research tools to gain a fully
insightful, in-depth, qualitative understanding of teacher and student opinion towards faith
schools. These included open-ended interviews and participant observation. Technically, I
performed ‘cluster sampled’ open-ended interviews. In my case, cluster sampling depicts
choosing a select few schools and selecting a sample of children at random within those
clusters. In other words, cluster sampling is a research method that is both random but to
some extent still pre-organised. I then aimed to use participant observation on a Jewish
primary school as I gathered interviewing young children for long periods of time would be
challenging. ‘Overt’ observation would have best described this research method, as I was
completely open and authentic about my purpose and motives as an observer within my
letter. By observing a faith school’s RE class, I was more likely to capture the true essence of
what was being taught and how responsive the children were. Open-ended interviews were
to be used on the remaining five secondary schools.
4:2 Fundamentally, prescribing the use of interviews allows sociologists to probe deeply into
their focal topic regardless of its complexity. Interviews are usually open-ended, assembling
a natural flow similar to a conversation where there are no restrictions to what people can
say. This also gives room for detailed, valid accounts. Interviews require proper human
interactions. The interviewer can pick up on body language and emotive reactions to certain
questions, for example hesitating to give an answer. Thus the validity of what people are
indicating is very close to the truth in comparison to other research tools such as
questionnaires and overt observations, where it is easier for the participants to lie or distort
information.
4:3 One could further suggest I used a ‘Bottom-up’ approach which is used mainly by
interactionists. The ‘Bottom-up’ approach is an approach that states we can only
understand society through the eyes of its individuals, as these individuals produce and
shape our social world. The very nature of interviewing reflects the ‘bottom-up’ approach as

15. 15
it solely depends upon real human interactions. According to Stephen Moore, Steve
Chapman and Dave Aiken (2001) ‘Generally, there is a much higher response rate with
interviews compared to questionnaires’.
4:4 I originally wrote to six schools; two Catholic, two Islamic, one Jewish primary and one
non-denominational. Of these, only two schools responded. Nonetheless, the two schools
that accepted were a Roman Catholic mixed school in Guildford and a non-denominational
secondary all boys’ school in Hook, Surrey. I felt positive that these polar opposite schools
would provide me with interesting, comparative responses. In total I interviewed one Head
teacher, one Head of RE and five RE teachers. Fifteen year 11 students in total were also
interviewed. By hosting interviews with those who spent the majority of their time within
the education system, I was able to gain a truly authentic, emotive and reliable insight into
their feelings and views towards whether faith schools promote conflict or cohesion in
contemporary Britain.
4:5 Essentially, I used a dictaphone to record all interviews which was extremely helpful, as I
asked participants many questions resulting in the interviews consisting of around 45
minutes each. Writing notes would have been challenging and time consuming. Recording
the interviews also gave me the opportunity to listen back to the discussions as many times
as I needed to so that I could ensure all comments where noted.
4:6 My questions dedicated to the faith-based school where majorly drawn from my
personal experiences attending Catholic schooling. The questions posed to the non-
denominational school were adapted in accordance to the faith schools answers which
influenced me to adjust my initial questions and add more. Correlations and differences
were drawn upon to appreciate a general consensus of opinions towards the position of
faith schools in contemporary Britain and to apprehend whether British people feel faith
schools contribute to conflict or cohesion. Some questions where constructed in accordance
with trends that I notified within my literature review. For example, researching whether
faith schools are more academically successful compared to non-denominational schools, or
whether students’ autonomy is lost when applying to schools due to parents making the
final decision reflecting their religion.
4:7 Lastly, I will make reflection upon complication that arose due to the chosen research
technique. On the whole, my experience using interviews was a successful, positive one
with only two complications. The first complication was receiving refusal from all Islamic
and Jewish schools that were unwilling to participate as they did not even reply. I am still
unsure as to why this was, perhaps due to society’s current suspicious attitudes towards
these particular types of faith schools. A second problem arose during the student group
interviewing process. Regardless of every student agreeing to be interviewed and recorded,
a minority of students were quite reluctant to talk, perhaps due to anxiety when faced with
an unfamiliar situation. On one rare occasion, classmates influenced a shy student to
participate more, but this only happened once.

16. 16
Chapter 5: Analysis
This chapter will present the findings obtained from my research, extracting the results from
the interviews conducted, whilst making appropriate analysis. The main aim I hope to
achieve is to conceptualize any underlying patterns found throughout the research by
exploring the correlations, differences and contradictions between each member of staff
and pupils results, whilst also comparing the answers to the opposing schools. Some
comparisons will also be linked back to material within the literature review, as I want to
explore whether there were any similar findings or inconsistencies from my research
findings in accordance to other secondary research.
The first Secondary school I interviewed was an all-boy non-denominational Academy
situated in Hook, London. From the outset the school prided itself on its religious diversity
and hosting a multi-ethnic range of students. Therefore, the questions I formulated were
purposely designed for a non-denominational school in order to capsulize the true ethos of
the school, whilst allowing me to gain the appropriate information I was looking for. It was
inevitable that the nature of my questions were direct and got straight to the point, whilst
ensuring they were still very much open-ended and able to spark a flowing conversation. My
previous interviews with the Catholic faith school aided me into adapting my original batch
of questions for the second school in Hook. Certain answers were given which fuelled for
more questions and made me re-evaluate my original script.
To clarify, I decided to conduct the teacher’s interviews separately as individuals and to
interview the students in groups of four and two’s. The first school I attended suggested this
would be an appropriate way of interviewing the students and it turned out very successful
and effective. The students became more involved because their fellow classmates were
amongst them. This resulted in the students discussing answers amongst themselves and
fuelled much debate. This adopted style of interviewing also provided more quiet students
confidence to get more involved with the interview. The grouping gave the students
opportunity to question their own religious beliefs compared to their classmates and
enabled them to truly express how they felt towards faith and non-faith schools.
5:1 When reflecting upon the data, it proved easy to identify contradictions and correlations
between what the teachers said compared to the students but also between what the
teachers said in comparison to their fellow colleagues. For example, an immediate
conclusion I came to was that I felt the authoritative position the teachers occupied within
the schools confinements heavily influenced their answers and overall opinions towards
faith and non-denominational schools. An example of this is the variance of answers
between the headteacher, head of the RE department and RE teachers in school number 1
(non-faith school). The overall essence of the interview was more biased towards his school,
had hints of competitiveness in comparison to his other colleagues, made numerous
generalisations about faith schools and was predominately centred on dismissing the idea of
faith schooling at any given opportunity. For example:

17. 17
[‘Whenyoudiscriminate bythe use of yourentry requirementsyouattractculturallyempowered
parentsand students.Faithschools,due totheirdiscrimination,attractthose whogo to church,
therefore those wholeadstablelifestyles.’]
This to me is an obvious generalisation about faith school students. It might be that many
parents lie about their faith and go to church because they want their child to attend a
particular school.
5:2 I identified a correlation when teachers from the non-denominational school were asked
‘Why did you choose to work in a non-denominational school?’ All teachers stated that the
opportunity arose or ‘fell into their lap’ and that they were in need of a job at the time. It
was ‘convenient’ as other teaching positions had been taken. This suggests they did not
decide to work there because it was a non-religious school. The religious affiliation of the
school did not play a part in their decision. In comparison, staff at the faith school seemed
to imply that their main concern when picking a school was its religious affiliation. Faith
schools complemented their religious convictions. For instance:
Teacher 1: [‘Ihave alwaysattendedCatholicschoolsall throughmylife,ittherefore made sense.’]
Teacher 2: [‘Itwasa veryconsciousdecisionasreligionisabigpart of mylife.’]
One could conclude from this that there was a greater willingness to work at the faith school
compared to the latter. Teachers from the non-denominational school gave the impression
that it was a more convenient position rather than a desired one.
5:3 I further asked, ‘What do you feel non-denominational schools, like *********, offer to
young adults that faith schools do not?’
Teacher one- [‘Faithschoolingteachesonadoctrinal basis,here we will teacheverything
factually.’]
Headteacher- [‘Theybothoffera service tothe youngbut it’s all downto the schoolsethos.’]
Teacher three- [‘Faithschoolsdon’tofferdiversity,buttheydoofferindividualstobe whothey
trulyare withinanacceptingenvironment. However,innon-faithschoolsthereisnopressure to
conform.**********promotes differenceandwelcomeseveryone.Peoplehere alsointeractwith
those theywouldn’tusuallyoutside of school.’]
5:4 I proposed the question, ‘What purpose do non-denominational schools serve in our
society? What do they contribute towards it?’ The answers given here were again all similar
in nature. They advocated that non-faith schooling is a helpful part of our society providing
children with an unbiased view.
Teacher one- [‘Theygive parentsopportunitytosendtheirchildtoan institutionwhere theywon’t
become indoctrinatedtoone religion.Topreventbeingbiasedandhavingreligionrammeddown
theirthroats.’]

18. 18
Headteacher- ['Non-denominational schoolsprovide the goal standardthatyou’djudge other
schoolsby.Theyprovide the ‘norm’asmost schoolsare non-faithbased.’]
Teacher three- [‘They offereducationnottiedtoa religion.If workingwell,itgetsthe youngto
understandhowcomplex oursocietyisandthereforactsas a platformforadultlife.’]
5:5 Interestingly, when I posed the question to the teachers from the non-denominational
school ‘How do you ensure students learn about fundamental British values both in and out
of RE classes?’ A wide range of contradictory answers from the teachers arose with no
consensus. Amorphous styled answers were given. To clarify, fundamental British values are
aspects of our British society that all citizens should be aware of, for example,
understanding the value of democracy, the rule of law and individual liberty. This question
in particular was key in distinguishing whether a wide diverse and multi-ethnic school
ensured sufficient and appropriate understanding of what it means to be a British citizen,
regardless of one’s religious orientation.
According to the first teacher (a former head of RE):
[‘Britishvaluesare includedacrossthe curriculumthroughaspectsof social,moral andspiritual
components.Itshouldintheorybe monitoredbythe assistanthead.Also,throughteaching‘PSHE’,
such as lookingatfraudon computing.’]
There are two points to make here. PSHE (Personal, Social and Health Education) is a
national curricular subject introduced in September 2014. It is a compulsory subject. It is a
legal requirement. This suggests the school has not made any additional effort to ensure
their students are knowledgeable of the core British values, other than what they are legally
required to do. Also, focussing on various social problems such as computer fraud is not
concentrating on British values. Perhaps PSHE considers computer fraud and the law.
The headteacher answered with the following statement:
[‘The governmenthadapanicthinkingschoolswere lettingsocietydownwhichisabsolute
nonsense.Governmentsdon’trealise we’ve donethisall along.Citizenshiplessonsforyear7 and 8,
alsothroughassembliesandthe overall ethosof our school.Itfacturesto have a Britishlesson.’]
The final teacher however was less positive and enthused by the way the school promoted
British values. He stated:
[‘Sometimesthroughtutortime,butwe don’tdoverywell atthis.The promotionshouldcome
throughcitizenshipbutthisisn’thappeningandisa real issue forexample,immigrationorteaching
the Britishwayof life.’]
He went onto argue that:
[‘Citizenshipclassesare onlyforyear8 studentsandconstitute one lessonaweek.Itdoesn’tlead to
a qualification…it’snotevenapropersubject.Thisisa massive disservice toourpupils.Personally,I

19. 19
feel Citizenshipshouldbe acompulsorysubjectforall yearsincludingatGCSE level.Itshouldalsobe
offeredasan A-level optionforsixth-formstudents.’]
This answer completely contradicted the previous two, in particular the head teacher’s.
Whereas the Head seemed to think citizenship was taught throughout the first two years,
this was not actually the case. According to the final teacher, it is only taught in year 8. I was
rather shocked by this lack of teaching and attention to this essential subject. When I
attended a Catholic secondary school, citizenship was an established subject that was
compulsory for all students from year 7 to GCSE level. Living in contemporary Britain, I feel it
crucial to teach the young about British values and what is means to be a British citizen. I
agree with the third teacher that this lack of dedicated education in citizenship is a
disservice.
5:6 I discovered fascinating contradictions between the diverse range of answers from both
schools towards the question: ‘How do you ensure students have knowledge of other
religions other than their own?’ Generally, teacher responses from the faith school were
encouraging. Every teacher agreed that students acquired knowledge of other faiths
through teaching the national curriculum. All claimed to teach the six world religions. The
first teachers stated:
[‘InGCSE, we compare ChristianitytoIslam.We learndifferentworldreligionsineachyearup to
year9.’]
A linked question was asked to the students from the faith school: ‘I know you learn about
world religions, do you feel you are taught a broad and equal enough breadth of all six?’
Feedback contrasted with teacher response. Though children yearn to advance their
knowledge of other faiths, it seemed clear to me that the school provided a disservice, as
revealed in a lack of knowledge amongst pupils of faiths other than Christianity and Islam.
One student stated:
[‘We mainlylearnaboutChristianityandsometimeslearnaboutIslaminGCSE,butwe don’tcover
otherfaithslike Hinduism.’]
The response from student number 2 was notably concerning. She stated:
[‘Itwouldbe harderto learnaboutmore religions,butveryinterestingbecause Idon’thave anyidea
whatHindu’sbelieve basicallybecausewe have justneverlearntaboutit.’]
A massive inconsistency has formed here. One can assume from these findings that the
quality of teaching about world religions from years 7 to year 9 is deficient.
Teachers in the non-denominational school were asked: ‘How do you ensure students have
knowledge of other religions other than their own?’ Before continuing, it is important to be
aware of the diverse religious backgrounds of the student population. The main bulk of the
student population (80%) are practising Muslims and non-practising Christians. Other

20. 20
religions that attended included Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus and a small cluster of Jewish boys.
It is also important to recognise that ‘Academy’s’/ non-denominational schools are required
to teach World Religions are taught in RE classes including; Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Sikhism and Judaism.
The first teacher replied:
[‘Throughthe national curriculumacademies have theirownchoice of whatto learn.Usedto teacha
lotthroughassembliesbutnotanymore due tothe change in law,whichhasoccurredin the last6-
7years.’]
Following on this from this, the headteacher suggested that the school supplies:
[‘Tripsandvisitstoplacesof worship,forexample,churchesandmosques.Ihave a broad
understandingthatthe six worldreligionsare taughtequally.’]
The final RE teacher stated:
[‘We do notteach all the worldreligionsasthoroughlyaswe oughtto.We teachmainlyaboutIslam
as it isa big thinginthissociety.Judaismistaughttosupportlearningaboutthe Holocaust.
Buddhism,SikhismandHinduismare taughtbriefly.The Hinduboysare quieterandnotas vocal
comparedto the Islamicboys.Idon’teven know whyI spendasmuch time coveringJudaismasa
replacementof Hinduism.We barelyhave anyJewishboysattendourschool.The time spenton
each religionisnotspentequally.Itendtouse religiousartefactsduringlessontime.There are no
placesof worshipasmost worshiptakesplace inclassrooms.What’sinterestingisIdon’tteach
aboutthe differentdenominationswithinthe religionsforexamplethe differencesbetweenRoman
CatholicsandChurch of EnglandwithinChristianity.Thisissomething Ishouldperhapslookinto.’]
So, once again contradictions abounded. Teaching time devoted to teaching any one religion
was related to teacher interest and the vocalised demand of pupils. The head teacher was
again under the impression that the six world religions were being taught equally. This was
not the case. A final point to note is the absence of teaching about different denominations
within the six world religions. This limited the students’ understanding of society and this
lack of detail disadvantages their adaption to British life.
Student answers towards the similar question seemed to clarify what teacher three had
stated. Both groups maintained that there was a heavy bias towards teaching Christianity
and Islam.
Group 1- [‘There’saheavierfocusonChristianitydue tohow oursocietyismade up.Islamistaught
a lot.We learna lot aboutthe Holocaust.But Hinduismisdefinitelytaughtthe least.’]
Group 2- [‘There certainlywasabiastowardsthe mainstreamreligions.A lotof time wasspenton
Christianity,JudaismandIslam.Sikhism, BuddhismandHinduismhadlittleemphasis.’]

21. 21
I then asked group two whether they felt that learning about certain religions is more
important compared to others. The two boys agreed that within Britain it is important to
learn about an assorted range due to the intensity of diversity.
Student 1- [‘InBritainitisimportantbecause youdon’thave justone kindof person.If youwentto
Pakistan,forexample,yougetveryfewotherreligionssotheyonlylearn aboutIslaminIslamic
studies.I’mnotsure if that’sright though.’]
Student 2- [‘Iagree,we shouldcompletelyteachreligionsequallyaswe live inamulticultural
society.Thereforeit’sequallyimportanttolearnaboutall of them.’]
5:7 These negatives aside, I was presented with various religious artefacts that impressed
me. They represented a wide variety of religions. They would spark a lot of discussion
amongst students in the classroom.
According to the third teacher:
[‘The school doesnotstop pocketsof the differentreligionscongregatingtogetherasBritainismade
up like that.Ourschool reflectsBritishsociety.Ourschool doesn’tmake peoplebe withothersand
interfere withhumannature.Youcouldargue thatthe liberal view doesn’tmindsegregationas long
as people donotgethurt.’]
However, many would argue that this could cause conflict later in adult life. Tension and
rivalry may occur between these different religious groups, societal cohesion is undermined
as people are excluding themselves from others. Or is this just human nature? Perhaps it is
an unanswerable question.
5:8 I asked all teachers ‘How do you teach tolerance to your students?’ There was a general
consensus between the teachers from the non- denominational school who all agreed that
in order to successfully teach about tolerance, one needs to be tolerant and this will be
reflected in the students. The headteacher stated:
[‘Bysettinganexample. It’simplicitlyclearinthe schoolsvaluesandhow we demonstratethem.
You have to be tolerantyourself.’]
Teacher three- [‘Bystressingthatopinionsaren’tfacts.Also,makingthe space safe enoughso
studentscanbe expressive withinthe classroom.’]
Similarly, all four teachers from the faith school stated that modelling tolerance was key to
teaching it. The school exercised the idea of tolerance through school assemblies, tutor
time, charity work and teaching units such as ‘community cohesion in Britain’. The head of
the RE department said:
[‘We don’tteachtolerance,it’saweakword.We teachrespect.We use the example of the ‘Good
Samaritan’.Alsothroughvariousassemblies,unitsinclassandcharitywork.’]

22. 22
The question ‘Some people claimthat faith schools perform better academically compared
to non-denominational schools? What is your stance on this?’ was put to the teachers from
the non-faith school. The first two teachers had similar answers explaining and blaming it all
on the schools entry requirements:
Teacher one- [‘Itdependsonthe intake criteriaandcatchmentareaof the school (possiblelinksto
class).Faithschoolsare inthe positiontopickandchoose as theyare alwaysoversubscribed.Italso
dependsonthe devotionof the parenttogettheirkidsin.’]
Headteacher- [‘Whenyoudiscriminate withyourentrycriteria,youcanattract culturally
empoweredparentsandstudents.Faithschoolsattractthose whoattendchurchof whomitcan be
saidthat theyhave more stable lifestyles.The keytoacademicsuccessisthe economicstatusand
academichistoryof the parents.’]
The final teacher had a slightly adverse stand point arguing the key to academic success
depends on the level of discipline exercised by the school. His answer suggests there is a
lack of discipline which therefore leads to poor grades:
[‘Academically,it’snoticketin********. I do believe academialinkstodiscipline.’]
5:9 Additionally, I posed the following question to teachers from both schools: ‘Have you
noticed trends since having started to work here? Examples might include student diversity;
the exclusion of certain students; bullying or even student radicalisation?’
All members of the faith school dismissed bullying due to religious difference and agreed no
cases of radicalisation had ever occurred within the school. It is important to remember that
the school is a Catholic school. The majority of its students will be Catholic and the minority
will be from other Christian denominations. Such limited diversity is unlikely to lead to
bullying and discrimination due to religion. This is highlighted in a previous question I asked
about the percentages of students who attended the school from other religions. Every
teacher specified the intake was extremely low.
Teacher 1- [‘There are maybe one or two Muslimstudentshere.There are more agnosticsthan
membersof different faiths.Christianitydominates.’]
Two teachers agreed that there had been a notable influx of Polish immigrants. The head of
RE confirmed that there were also higher numbers of Catholics attending which he believed
was also a result of immigration.
Head of RE department- [‘There are highernumbersof immigrantchildrenbutthathasn’thad an
adverse effectonthe school’sidentity.’]
Teachers from the non-faith school reported an enriched school ethos and the reputation of
the school had improved. All three teachers also agreed the number of exclusions and
bullying had decreased. The student diversity of the school had altered:

23. 23
Teacher 3- [‘There’sanincrease inthe numberof pupilsfromCentral andEasternEuropean
countries.’]
Notably, all three teachers stated that they had witnessed a few cases of radicalisation,
minor cases but still identifiable. For example,
Headteacher- [‘Radicalisation…wehave hadone ortwo small incidentsbutnothingreally
concerning.’]
Teacher 3- [‘There isa degree of concernaboutradicalisationhere.Seniormembersof staff are
keepinganeye outonone or twothingswithinthe Islamicgroup,occasionswherepeople are
concernedaboutinfluencesandthingsthatare said.I’mnot aware of anyhard core radicalisation.’]
Perhaps the assumption can be made that in attending a faith school you are less likely to
experience religious tensions or radicalisation because there is lack of religious variety.
Encountering these difficulties is less likely.
5:10 Richard Dawkins argues that faith schools and parents indoctrinate and jeopardise the
autonomy of children. He claims that faith schools contribute conflict rather than cohesion.
Dawkins suggested that faith schools discriminate against certain religions in their entry
requirements. Furthermore parents encourage indoctrination because they make the
decision as to where their child will attend school and this can be viewed as an attempt to
impose their own religious beliefs on their child.
Mindful of this, I posed the following question to all pupils, ‘Did you or your parents decide
for you to attend this school or did other factors play an influence?’ Answers were shaped
by whether the student attended a faith-based school or non-denominational school. Those
attending the faith school admitted that their parents made the final decision, or at least
steered the students towards certain schools.
Group 1- [‘My siblingswenttothisschool whichinfluencedthe decision,butitwasmainlymy
parents’decision.’]
All of the students that attend the non-religious school had the final decision in choosing
their secondary school. Roughly half of the students explained that their parents did help
them with their final decision but it was mainly up to them. The other half experienced little
influence from anyone and confirmed the decision was completely their own. These findings
seem to offer support for Dawkins’s fears and concerns about the rights of a child to shape
its life. Personally I find this particularly thought-provoking.
5:11 I concluded my interviews by asking all participants what they felt the future for faith
and non-denominational schooling was. Faith school teachers offered varied responses that
were generally optimistic but acknowledged possible challenges. Teacher two said:
[‘The future isan overall positive one forCatholicfaithschools,butnotforotherfaithsas theyare
facingproblems.Britainmaysee more faithschoolsdue toanincrease of immigration.’]

24. 24
Teacher three expressed a negative opinion:
[‘Sadly,quite bleak.A lotfewerstaff thatnow teachinfaithschoolshave an openfaith.Theywill be
probablyonthe decline.Theywillbe decliningastheywill lose theiridentitydue togovernment
legislationsrequiringfaithschoolstoacceptdifferentstudent’saswell asdifferentstaff thatare not
practisinga religion.There willbe lessof acommoncore of belief andteaching.There will be a
broaderdiversityof teachersandstudentsinFaithschools”…makingthemlessfaithbased?’]
A similar array of answers was offered by the teachers from the non-faith school. All three
teachers came to a consensus that non-faith schools had a bright future in Britain, whereas
faith schools face a more turbulent one. The headteacher of the faith school stated:
[‘Faithschoolswill experience aslightlymore turbulentfuture.Why?Backinthe olddays we only
had twotypesof faithschools,Churchof EnglandschoolsprettywateryandCatholicschoolswhich
were more assertivelyCatholic.Nowwe have differentreligiousschoolslike JewishandMuslim
schoolsandto be honest,thatmakespeople feel uncomfortable.The reasonthisisa bigissue in
societyisn’tbecause of Christianschools,it’sbecausepeople are veryanxiousaboutthe effectof
havinga lotof MuslimandJewishschoolsspringingup.Peopleare aware thatthat couldpotentially
cause difference.Thatiswhatthe anxietyis.’]
A second teacher argued that non-faith schools have a healthy future because we live in an
expanding secular society. His views towards the future of faith schools were again less
hopeful:
[‘It’sa mixture.Withinthe currentclimate of afeartowardsradicalisationwithincertainreligions,
theywill be more closelyscrutinisedevenif the school iswell withinthe exceptednorms…Because
some JewishandespeciallyMuslimschoolsdon’tallow childrenof otherfaithstoattend,theywill
alwaysbe seenwithsuspicionaspeopledonotknow what’sreallygoingonwithinthem.’]
The final teacher had confidence in both faith and non-faith schools, but recognised
potential threats both could face:
[‘Faithschoolsare secure because people wantthemfortheirresults.It’sanonsense situation
because if youlive ina tolerantsocietythenone couldargue youshouldallow faithschools.People
are overall acceptingof faithschoolsbutagainitgoesback to thisIslamicthing.Peopleare just
concernedaboutcertaintypesof faithschools.Ithinktheywill increase,inasocietywhere choice
mattersand tolerance mattersyou’re goingtohave more andmore diversity…ithastobe logically
the case.’]
At this point a correlation between the responses of all three teachers from the non-faith
school has crystallised. Responses suggest the overall idea of ‘faith schooling’ is not under
scrutiny. It seems British society has become increasingly suspicious and critical over Islamic
faith schools in particular. Slight hints of this idea emerged in teacher two’s response from
the faith school:
[‘The future isan overall positive one forCatholicfaithschools,butnotforotherfaithsas theyare
facingproblems.’]

25. 25
The student group interviews from the faith school all shared an optimistic stance towards
the future of faith schooling. The two groups from the faith school had a general consensus
that there would be an upsurge in faith schools as parents like them. They also recognised
that increasing immigration may have an effect on their popularity too:
Group 1- [‘There will be more of themasparentslike them.Theyall seemtohave goodmoralsand
are usuallythe ‘nice schools’.Immigrationpromotesmore typesof faithschoolstoo.’]
Group 2- [‘Idon’tthinktheywill change thatmuch.If there are any changesto religion,like new
discoveries,thentheymaybe changes.Immigrationwillbringdifferentreligionsandsocietywill
have to have somethingforeveryone.’]
There existed minor divisions and conflicts between the views of the two groups from the
non-denominational school. The majority of students agreed that faith schools would
continue to play a popular role in British society and would continue to be oversubscribed.
There were still some disagreements between classmates. For example, in this sequence a
pupil from group one suggested a positive future of faith schools which was then challenged
by his fellow classmate:
Student 1- [‘Ithinktheywill remainpopular,astheirvaluesare seenasimportantbysociety.
Parentswhowentto a faithbasedschool will wanttheirchildrentohave the same experience.’]
Student 2- [‘No,theywill notremainpopular.Associetybecomesmore aware of theirlackof
tolerance anddiscriminationovercertainpeople,people will wanttoattendnon-faithschools.’]
The second group both agreed that in the foreseeable future there would not be any
dramatic changes to faiths schools popularity. They stressed, however, that faith schools will
decrease as a consequence of multiculturalism increasing and people will want to become
more integrated in society. People will want to have knowledge of other faiths more
intimately and will want to unite as a society. I further asked group two what they felt the
future for non-religious schools depicted. They stated:
Student 1- [‘Thisisnottoo muchof a massive issue.Thingswill continue the waytheyare,Ithink.’]
Student 2- [‘Asnon-faithschoolsbecome more tolerantforexample,providingmore praysessions
once a week,the needforfaithbasedschoolswill decrease.Unificationof the twotypesof school
will occurand will leave nocleardistinctionbetweenthem.If youputa pedestal onintroducing
more faithschoolsbecause of increasedimmigration,people willlose theirBritishidentity.’]

26. 26
Chapter 6: Conclusion
Faith schools remain controversial. Misgivings exist. Included amongst these are (i)the use
of faith-based selective criteria fosters elitism, exclusivismand apartness; (ii)concern about
the lack of breadth in the taught curriculum; (iii)the danger of indoctrination and
undermining of the authority of children; (iv)the lack of effective transparency and
accountability. Despite this, faith schools remain popular and are often oversubscribed.
Academic results are regularly applauded and pupil behaviour is keenly remarked upon in
positive ways.
My research sought to determine the extent to which faith schools contribute or not to
social cohesion. My findings are inconclusive, though research evidence suggested that
some common misgivings are rightly held. Successful interviews were conducted with
cohorts of teachers and pupils in both faith and non-denominational schools. A more
complete picture might have emerged if sampling had been more extensive. A sampling of
parents would have perhaps shed some light on why parents opt for faith schools; what
their experience of faith schools is (as parent rather than as pupil); what limitations they
think faith schools have.
More fundamentally, expressions like ‘social cohesion’ need defining with precision,
otherwise they can remain nebulous, ambiguous and misunderstood. What does ‘social
cohesion’ look like? How is it to be identified? What are its features? How are they to be
measured? Defining terms better produces a more refined research tool. My interview
questions were perhaps too general for the task set. Interview answers gave me a general
feel for what participants thought about faith schools. Few responses would allow me to
gauge the extent to which faith schools advance social cohesion or not.
Finally, future research might consider the extent to which schools generally, and not just
faith schools, contribute to social cohesion. This would entail exploring the complex
interplay of variables such as family, the media, etc. It might lead to identifying what schools
in general and faith schools in particular need to change, in order to more effectively
contribute to a tolerant and liberal Britain.

27. 27
Footnotes/endnotes:

28. 28
Bibliography:
Parsons, G. (1994) The Growth of Religious Diversity- Britain from 1945. 2nd Ed. Oxon:
Routledge.
Religious Education CPD Handbook. (2011) A short history of religious education. [Online]
Available: http://re-handbook.org.uk/section/intro/a-short-history-of-religious-
education#tab-3 [Accessed: 03/01/2015].
National Secular Society. (2015) What is Secularism? [Online] Available:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html [Accessed: 26/03/2015].
Department for Education. (2013) National Curriculum. [Online] Available:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum#other-curriculum-
subjects [Accessed: 09/11/2014].
Faith School Menace? (2010) Directed by Molly Milton. UK: More4. [ television
documentary].
Mondal, A. (2008) Young British Muslim Voices. Oxford: Greenwood World Publishing.
Roy, O. (Eds.) (2007) Secularism confronts Islam. West Sussex: Columbia University Press
Ameli, S., Azam, A. and Merali, A. (2005) Secular Or Islamic? : What Schools Do British
Muslims Want for Their Children? England: Islamic Human Rights Commission.
BBC NEWS. (2014) Trojan Horse ‘plot’ schools timeline. [Online] Available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-28370552 [Accessed: 13/12/2014].
BBC NEWS. (2014) Trojan Horse: Ofsted says schools were targeted. [Online] Available from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27763113 [Accessed: 11/12/2014].
Prevent Strategy. (2011) UK: The Stationery Office Limited.
Department for Education. (2008)
Berkeley, R. and Vij, S. (2008) Right to Divide? Faith Schools and Community Cohesion.
Runnymede. [Online] PDF. P.2-7. Available from:
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/Summaries/RightToDivide-
Summary.pdf [Accessed: 20/11/2014].
Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion. Suffolk: Bantam Press.
Department for Education and Lord Nash. (2014) Guidance on promoting British values in
schools published. [Online] Available from:

29. 29
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-
published [Accessed: 10/02/2015]
McKinney, S. (2008) Faith schools in the twenty-first century. Vol 23. Edinburgh: Dunedin.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2004) Religious Education: The Non-Statutory
National Framework.
Gardner, R., Lawton, D. and Cairns, J. (2005) Faith Schools: Consensus Or Conflict? 2nd ed.
Oxon: Routledge Falmer.
Cairns, J. (2009) Faith Schools and Society: Civilizing the Debate. London: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Keast, A and Keast, J. (2005) Framework RE. London: Hodder Education.
Moore, S., Chapman, S. and Aiken, D. (2002) Sociology for A2. London: Collins Education.
Holborn, M. and Langley, P. (2002) Haralambos and Holborn, Sociology Themes and
Perspectives: AS- and A-level Student Handbook. London: HarperCollins Publishers Limited.

30. 30
Appendices:
1. Raw material: Please refer to provided memory stick in order to access all the
interviews that occurred.
2. Below is a copy of the letter I sent to all schools:
Dear ********
My name is Isabella Iles. I am a third year undergraduate student studying Sociology
at St Mary’s University in Twickenham.
For my dissertation I have chosen to research the impact that faith schools have on
our society, more specifically; whether faith schools promote cohesion or conflict
within contemporary Britain. I for one have attended a Catholic schooling throughout
my education through to University. Catholicism has played a very influential part
throughout my educational experiences and predominantly shaped who I am as an
adult.
I am writing to enquire whether it would be possible to conduct some research at
your school. I propose to interview some members of your RE department and a
cohort of students of around 4-5, so as to ask some open-ended questions. For my
dissertation, I am required to include a chapter that talks about my research and
which needs to address both methodology and research findings. It is my hope that
school-based research will allow me to gain a first-hand insight into the thoughts and
feelings of those teaching and attending faith and non-denominational schools. I am
hoping that these interviews should take no more than 20 minutes per person and
am looking to perhaps conduct them at the beginning of February.
I am sure you will agree that it is apparent that religion has always played an
important part in our society, which now encompasses a diverse range of religions.
Therefore, I feel that studying and analysing the contribution of faith schools and
non-denominational schools towards society is both interesting and essential.

31. 31
I would be very grateful if you could contact me either by email, post or on my mobile
within the next couple of days so that we can arrange a suitable time to come and
visit.
Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and I look forward to hearing from you
soon.
Kind Regards,
Isabella Iles.