"There will be a widespread welcome for today's announcement by the main religious organisations that children in faith schools should, as a matter of course, be taught about all the major faiths.

This confirmation that a broad religious education should take place within all faith schools demonstrates their explicit commitment to promoting inclusion and tolerance which have never been more important in our society." Ruth Kelly, 22nd February, 2006

The key word here, of course, is 'should'. Whereas, in the past, we have sen it as right and fitting to impose restrictions on schools to assure that certain provisions were provided (such as the national curriculum), we now are preparing to replace 'must' with 'should'.

This is especially worrying when it comes to the teaching of religion, as the way in which it is taught is obviously a fundamental concern for everyone in the 21st century. Why does teaching more and more about a wider range of irrational beliefs (perhaps only with the aim of promoting one of them above the others) strike us as an example of a 'commitment to promoting inclusion and tolerance', when, if followed to its extreme, it is quite the reverse.

"A strong ethos is important to raising standards in any school, regardless of whether that ethos is faith based or not." Ruth Kelly, 22nd February

So, presumably, non-faith schools are just as good at educating childen, and better at not having them turn into religious fanatics. Would it not be best to try and create more secular schools, then?

"That ethos, of course, must reflect the values and goals of their community in which these schools are based."

Must it? What if the values and goals of a local community directly conflict with those of society as a whole? I went to school in Caterham in Surrey, should my school have promoted a sense of privilege, conspicuous consumption and casual racism? It did, but should it? And should it have been designed to?

This is not to say that local communities do not have local needs, but that too much emphasis on them is a step back for education, a move towards a more American system, in which intelligent design can be taught in publicly-funded schools. Some beliefs are just wrong, and, if one has the misfortune to grow up in an area where many peopel hold those beliefs, why should we compound them by rteinforcing them at school. School should be a place to go to get away from the demand of the local community, not to have the conformity it demands enforced on one in a place of learning as well.