Another parent's view

on schools by DOREEN EVERED FOR A long time I have been pondering over the question of Church schools, and now Terence Sheehy's article of September 5 has drawn me into putting another point of view. There are advantages, of course, but 1 think they are outweighed and we have to be realistic.
As a teacher and the mother of seven children I have experienced a very mixed hag of schools, most of them Catholic. 1 trained as a teacher since having my family. This is my opinion as a parent, and that of many with whom I have spoken: some disagree in some aspects, though all show concern.
At first I felt very strongly in favour of Catholic schools as I dearly loved the nuns of my own boarding school, which has now become largely a day school, and 1 expected all Catholic schools to be the same. Over the years, with this only exception, I have become very disillusioned. The types of school which my children have variously attended are as follows — private convent day school, voluntary aided primary school, Catholic preparatory boarding school, two small Catholic public schools, Church of England boys' grammar day school, two non-Catholic secondary modern day schools, — one mixed and one single-sex.
I think boarding schools are unnatural, and certainly singlesex boarding schools create an abnormal attitude to the opposite sex. If there are to be hoarding schools then it would be better if they were mixed and with a mixed staff, such as the schools run by the Society of Fricnds.
Children are meant to grow up in a family and spread out into adult life from there. It is often an intolerable burden, sometimes affecting family relations, to find fees for schooling and the extras which schools, particularly run by religious orders, often unrealistically require.
The money now being spent by Catholics would be better spent on teaching and demonstrating Christian living (eg, supplying help abroad) and studying the Gospel with families at parish level.
It seems odd for Canon Beausang to worry about the cost of £3,500 for the National Council of Priests, which is so necessary when compared with the huge cost of Catholic secondary education, including public schools, in relation to the plight of the Third World. Is it morally right that vast sums of money are spent and debts incurred on Catholic secondary
schools when so many in the world larld lack the basic needs of life?
It isn't even as though these schools were producing thei goods. A high proportion of. children leave these schools and' leave religion behind at the same: time. Children associate religion with school instead of with the whole of life.
Money would be better spent on training and equipping strong forces of full-time . teachers who could efficiently go into schools if need be, visit groups in people's homes and hold Sunday schools, also instruct adults how to instruct their children and how to integrate their religion into their family life so that it becomes a continuing part of living.
If we are only "a whisker away from totalitarianism" we would be much better prepared in that event with a strong, outof-school organisation, as all schools would be taken over anyway.
As things are, a so-called privileged few Catholic children (and non-Catholic children) are taught at Catholic schools at the expense (spiritually) of the many Catholics at local authority schools, who are totally neglected — or, worse, so badly taught by priests inexperienced in teaching that Christianity becomes mocked.
Religious education is not a privilege belonging to a certain class which is what fee-paying schools perpetuate. Catholic boys' public schools particularly are perpetuating an outdated cult and there are unsavoury aspects. The talk and rituals are
on a superficial level. So-called good manners do not spring from the right reasons.
The example of the staff is often one of drinking and smoking, sometimes alcoholism and addiction, associating these with sociability and friendship, and consequently joked about and emulated by the boys when they leave school, if not before. A sense of humour is cultivated which is far from a Christian humour.
There is an immature aggrandisement of sport and physical fitness and an emphasis on militarism, almost colonialism, instead of peace and love and gentleness. Catholic boys' boarding schools are not immune to homosexuality and sadism, and it is not only confined to the boys. Could it be due to lack of fulfilment in work and/or to celibacy?
A non-Catholic friend who recently retired from being a schools inspector in the. North of England gave his opinion that Catholic girls' schools were on the whole in the vanguard of enlightened education whereas Catholic boys' schools notably resisted change from out-dated methods. Perhaps, therefore, my disillusionment partly stems from the fact that most of my children are boys. In various parts of the country I find that it is nuns who are in the vanguard of catechetics. Some years ago I attended a day conference exploring ways and means of catechetics. Again it was the nuns who were full of enthusiasm and practical ideas, whereas a male member of a religious order in my group was
almost disgusting in his repressive and hopeless attitude.
Some of the money saved from secondary education could be allocated for much greater improvement in the teaching of Christianity in Catholic primary schools. Religion from then on should be so real, important and attractive to the children that they voluntarily remain involved, and learn to stand up and be counted in their secondary schools, thus gaining a controlled experience for their rude encounter with life after school.
A certain amount of opposition leads to healthy debate and a desire for Further study. The voluntary desire to learn for a purpose should be tapped outside school, but in the early years of secondary school, before the onset of adolescent rebellion. These well instructed Catholic children could have an evangelistic influence in their schools.
It may be suggested by those who advocate Church schools that their teachers are more dedicated but, much though we may like it to be so, Christian teachers do not have the monopoly of dedication, and in any case many lay Catholics choose to teach in non-Church schools because that is the world as it is, or because in some Catholic schools there are inhibitions and still a relic of the lack of opportunity for promotion to a headship.
Furthermore, one could argue that dedicated teachers should he more widely spread and shared, thus leavening the whole. Christians shouldjoin together to ensure that children are taught a proper syllabus of Bible study by a specialist as a matter of course as are other subjects such as English and mathematics. Any questionable points of view could be discussed at catechetic sessions.
Times have changed. Should so many religious spend their lives in academic seclusion when there is a shortage of priests and workers in the world, especially those with teaching ability to spread the Good News?
As long ago as the thirties my father, Bernard Thistlethwaite, in company with Eric Gill, G. K. Chesterton and others, was pointing out that the Church should be involved with families ' first and foremost. It is no good being excessively and exclusively concerned with money for schools when it is the home which is the prime influence in a child's life — the first six or seven years being the most formative.
In the days when the Church was the sole custodian of education it was good enough for monks and priests to be employed in this way, but now that education is provided for all, the members of religious orders have more important work to do.
Should it ever happen that there are unlimited resources of money and Catholic teachers, and that all peoples in the world are provided for, we might allow ourselves the luxury of Catholic secondary day schools for all Catholic children with all the proper facilities. Even then, however, would it be right to segregate our children?