KATHRYN RILEY, HELEN MARKS and GERALD GRACE

BIG CHANGE QUESTIONIN A PERIOD OF GLOBAL UNCERTAINTY, DO FAITH-BASED

SCHOOLS RE-ENFORCE SOCIAL DIVISIONS WITHIN SOCIETIESAND BETWEEN NATIONS?

KATHRYN RILEY

In our climate of global uncertainty, the issue of faith-based school is achallenging one. Historically, faith-based schools have provided a route forimmigrants, refugees and minorities (to many Western countries) to gain afoothold in their new country, yet the extent to which states should endorsefaith schools, as part of publicly funded schooling, has been the sourceof ongoing debate and dispute. The French solution has been to main-tain a divide between state and religion. The British approach, achievednearly 60 years ago, has been one of compromise. Anglican and Catholicschools were granted public status (and funding) in return for broad adher-ence to Government policies and some additional funding from Churchsources. More recently, however, the demands of newer, mainly Moslemimmigrants, for parity with their Catholic and Anglican counterparts havegenerated unease. Would such schools create further tensions and divisionsin multi-racial urban areas, or would they enable diverse communities todevelop their own beliefs, separately, but equally?

Our two respondents to the Big Change Question, Helen Marks fromthe US and Gerald Grace from the UK unpack some of these tensions andcomplexities. What unites faith based schools, Helen Marks argues, is theirwish to instill religious values and identity. What divides them is the extentto which they use religion to breed intolerance and militancy. In her view,it is the co-option of ‘legitimate religious’ beliefs to further ideology andsupport ‘political ends’ which poses ‘an insidious threat’ to our societies.The distortion of history and the promotion of intolerance, she suggests, isas much a feature of the Christian Conservative schools of the ReligiousRight as the Fundamentalist Schools of Islamic extremists.

Gerald Grace focuses on the research evidence – or rather lack of it– about the impact of faith-based schools. He suggests that the researchcommunity has largely ignored faith-based schools, seeing such researchas a ‘somewhat exotic minority activity’, of little interest to ‘mainstream

Journal of Educational Change 4: 295–307, 2003.© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

296 HELEN M. MARKS

educational research and discourse’. Taking the example of NorthernIreland, he questions the evidential basis on which critics (such asRichard Dawkins) draw, to assert that the troubles in Northern Irelandwould largely disappear, if Protestant and Catholic children were educatedtogether. Dawkins, he argues, deploys a ‘guilt by association’ mode ofanalysis which he would be unlikely to use in his own field of evolu-tionary biology. What is needed, according to Gerald Grace is a robustresearch agenda around such themes as: faith schools and communityrelations; faith schools and their contribution to the common good; faith-based schools, liberal education and democratic schooling. The challengehe gives to this journal is to take a lead in systematic inquiry of thosethemes.

KATHRYN RILEY

Institute of EducationUniversity of LondonUKE-mail: k.riley@ioe.ac.uk

HELEN M. MARKS

Faith-based schools and social divisions

Faith-based schools are a heterogeneous lot. Even when they professthe same religion, these schools often differ radically among themselves.Christian, Jewish, and Islamic schools, for example, span a broad reli-gious, cultural, and sometimes political spectrum. Within that range areCatholic parish schools and Christian fundamentalist academies, conser-vative orthodox yeshivas and reform Jewish schools, Islamic schools inimmigrant neighborhoods and nationalistic madrasahs. What faith-basedschools have had in common historically is their focus on instillingreligious values and socializing students into a religious identity. Whatdivides faith-based schools today is whether they are politicized, betrayingreligious and educational principles for the sake of ideological partisan-ship, even militancy.

Over the years as they pursued their religious missions, faith-basedschools also brought a humanizing influence to their communities.Because they derived their inspiration from conceptions of human dignitywithin a divinely ordered universe, faith-based schools taught the value ofmutual respect among individuals and nations. Because they viewed allknowledge as a reflection of ultimate truth, they regarded secular learning

BIG CHANGE QUESTION 297

as a means to becoming fully human. If they were true to the religionswhose creeds inspired their existence, faith-based schools enriched theirbroader societies because they taught ways of living that make sociallife possible, such as peace, respect, cooperation, tolerance, and ethicalbehavior.

In immigrant societies, faith-based schools performed a bridging func-tion between the native country and the new, for children whose back-ground and culture might have subjected them to stares, ridicule, or evenoutright hostility in some public schools. Many faith-based schools, deeplyrooted in urban and rural communities, expanded their missions as theyeducated new generations of children with few ties to family in the oldcountry. As populations moved from cities and farms to suburban areasin the mid-twentieth century, religious groups opened new schools toserve their faith communities. Despite the out-migration of congregationmembers from urban churches, many religious schools in cities struggledto remain open to educate other groups of students, largely poor andminority. Increasingly in western societies, urban faith-based schools haveprovided an alternative to public education for all children, without regardto their religion, particularly in areas where the quality of public educationis inferior.

In reflecting on faith-based schools and whether they reinforce socialdivisions within societies and nations, my frame of reference is informedby experience and observation. My formal education, up until graduateschool, took place in Catholic schools. During childhood, like mostCatholics of my generation, I attended a Catholic grammar school. Steepedin a culture of strict Catholic orthodoxy that had essentially stoppedevolving in the 16th century, our schools took an undeniably dogmatic andindoctrinating approach to teaching religion. In the early years of school,we learned religion through strict memorization and practiced behavior.In high school and college, the study of religion became more intellec-tually grounded – first in apologetics and then in theology. Never duringmy school years, however, at least to the best of my recollection, was theteaching of secular subjects distorted by religion. While learning aboutevolution in seventh and eighth grades, for example, I understood thatreligious texts could be interpreted, although we believed the church to bethe authoritative teacher in such matters. After college, I spent a numberof years as a teacher and administrator in Catholic schools and parishes.By that time, however, the church of my childhood had changed quitedramatically.

Separating my experiences in faith-based schools as a student andteacher, Vatican Council II stands as an ideological watershed. While

298 HELEN M. MARKS

the pre-Vatican II years were parochial in every sense of the term, thechurch in the post-conciliar era sought a rapprochement with the worldand modern times. As the church itself promulgated reforms, change sweptthrough Catholic schools, colleges, and universities. Rather than emphasiz-ing personal piety, the teaching of religion stressed social justice and workon behalf of the poor and disenfranchised. Religious defensiveness gaveway to ecumenical dialogue. During that period of reform, the election ofJohn Fitzgerald Kennedy to the U. S. presidency symbolized to Catholicsnot only an end to religious parochialism but a way of living religious faithin the public sphere. That way was not to be one of ideological partisan-ship, however, rather one of pro-social involvement within a context ofsocial and political freedom.

Many other religions have undergone comparable reforms, modern-izing their teaching and practice to keep pace with developments in humanknowledge in the sciences and in the understanding of biblical and othercreedal texts. Schools affiliated with these religions have adapted theirteachings to reflect these changes. Other religious groups, such as HasidicJudaism and most of Islam, have retained their strict adherence to tradi-tional teachings and practice. Their beliefs have prevented them fromadapting to contemporary society and the changed global context. Theorthodoxy of these religious groups and their schools reminds me of myexperience growing up Catholic. While the religious community to whichI belonged was enclosed and in retrospect narrowly sectarian, it was notsocially divisive. Not only did its schools do no harm, they accomplisheda great deal of good.

Quite distinct from orthodox faith-based schools are the politicizedschools that are either operated or strongly influenced by members ofreactionary religious groups. Fundamentalists, the Religious Right, andlately, Islamic extremists have sought to co-opt the legitimate religiousrole of faith-based schools to further political ends – whether to underminepublic education, turn back the clock on social progress, or even to fomentrevolution.

Conservative Christian schools have been steadily on the increaseworldwide since the 1950s. Variously known as evangelical, fundamen-talist, Pentecostal, or simply Christian, some are affiliated with churches,ideological groups, or international associations of similar schools, whileothers are local and unaffiliated. These faith-based schools demonstrateconsiderable diversity among themselves, but overall they represent atroubling trend. A sizable proportion of their teachers and administratorslack the basic qualifications expected of public schools teachers. Moreunsettling are the condemnatory stances the instructional materials used in

BIG CHANGE QUESTION 299

Conservative Christian schools take toward those whose religious, social,and political beliefs differ from the views of the Religious Right. A recentscholarly study of the social studies textbooks used in Christian Conser-vative schools has documented major distortions and misrepresentations.Lessons both demonize public figures who espouse socially progressivecauses and defame the causes themselves. In some instances, textbooksattempt to re-write history.

Islamic schools in western countries have been relatively rare, butwith emigration from Arab countries rising steadily over recent decades,their numbers have begun to increase dramatically. Islamic schools arediverse in mission, control, and organization. The Nation of Islam hasfor decades sponsored Islamic schools, though few in number, to serveAfrican American Muslims who affiliate with the Black Nationalist move-ment. More recently, Islamic schools have emerged in communities wherelarge populations of Arab immigrants have settled, such as in metropolitanDetroit. Most depend on tuition and private funding as sources of support,however the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt also subsidize – fullyor partially – some Islamic schools in the United States and other countries,including Australia, the Philippines, and the Netherlands.

Unlike the faith-based schools that taught generations of immigrantsfor more than a hundred years, some newly established Islamic schoolsare dedicated to political ends. They propound the message of Islamicnationalism and advocate Islamic militancy. Beyond tailoring the secularcurriculum to be religiously acceptable, some accredited Islamic schools,as a recent Washington Post investigative report disclosed, openly vilifyChristians and Jews, defend Osama bin Laden as a victim of prejudice,and promote a militant separatism.

If faith-based Christian Conservative and Islamic schools allow politicsto subvert their social charter, they fail both their religious adherentsand the broader human community. In the name of religious faith, theysow suspicion and hatred. If their teaching denies legitimate science andthwarts human inquiry in the name of fidelity to sectarian fundamen-talism, they betray intellectual honesty. As messengers of intolerance andpurveyors of untruths, they are indeed socially divisive.

In religiously pluralistic societies, “live and let live” has been thenorm for faith-based schools, whether through constitutional guaranteeor traditions of religious freedom and tolerance. Faith-based schools canbe seriously divisive in pluralistic societies, nonetheless, if policies andpolitics involving them threaten either church-state separation as a legalmatter or the national consensus on church-state relations. In the UnitedStates, movements to channel tax dollars into Conservative Christian and

300 HELEN M. MARKS

other faith-based schools – whether directly through government subsidiesor indirectly through proposals such as vouchers – are relentlessly pushedby the Religious Right and the conservative politicians they support.Although pro-voucher arguments typically focus on the educational optionthey would provide for poor and often minority students who are stuck infailing schools in inner cities, the hidden agenda is the support they wouldprovide elsewhere to Conservative Christian schools.

In Britain, the government funds Catholic and Church of Englandschools. However, when the Labor Party proposed extending fundingto new schools of minority religions, such as Islamic, Sikh, orBuddhist schools, the notion aroused considerable resentment. Eventhough accepting subsidy would require the schools to follow a nationalcurriculum and teach certain core values, opponents of the initiativebelieved funding would encourage the founding of more schools ofminority faiths. The proliferation of these schools, they argued, wouldultimately damage national unity.

Socio-political context inevitably comes into play when weighing thesocial implications of faith-based schools. Even non-politicized schoolscan be politically volatile, particularly in troubled societies or in tensetimes. In countries where religious hostilities rage, for example, faith-based schools symbolize the enemy in the eyes of opposing factions.Children who attend these schools can become objects of taunts andthreats, such as in Northern Ireland, where students have had to dependon the police to escort them safely to their Catholic schools. When thepossibility of terrorism is present, however vaguely, faith-based schoolswith no connection to militant groups can become the objects of suspi-cion. In the wake of 9/11, Islamic schools in London had to be closed,at least temporarily, because fear linked the schools to terrorist groups.The very existence of these schools and the children they enroll stirredup inimical passions. Despite their apolitical missions, these Catholic andIslamic schools divided public sentiment in their localities.

When faith-based schools are actually politicized, the potential to bedivisive – even in countries with a tradition of religious pluralism – isacute. Unlike the controlled worlds of unitary societies where faith-basedschools are strictly regulated and monitored, the openness of pluralisticsocieties allows questionable institutions to emerge. When such schoolsdistort history and teach intolerance in the name or religious righteousness,they pose an insidious threat. Freedom to believe, express, and teach thereligion of one’s choice is an accepted right in pluralistic societies. Thelimit to that freedom, however, is its collision with the common good,including endangerment to other freedoms. While questioning the rights

BIG CHANGE QUESTION 301

of faith-based schools to teach what and how they choose is certain togenerate political firestorms, these schools should, nonetheless, be subjectto reasonable scrutiny. Inquiry into the workings of emergent faith-basedschools has been minimal, but the few available reports suggest the wisdomof exercising a salutary vigilance toward them in the interests of preservingcherished democratic freedoms.

HELEN M. MARKS

College of EducationOhio State UniversityColumbus, OhioUSAE-mail: marks.50@osu.edu

GERALD GRACE

It is not possible to give a definitive and comprehensive answer to thisquestion because of the wide range of socio-cultural contexts implied in‘societies’ and ‘nations’ and because of the varied educational and culturalenvironments generated by schools of the different faith commitmentsinternationally. All that can be attempted here is a limited review of someof the issues that have to be included in the debate.

The neglect of research on faith based-schooling

A detailed scrutiny of the literature on globalisation and education, educa-tional change, school effectiveness and school leadership or of the confer-ence programmes of organisations such as the American EducationalResearch Association or the British Educational Research Associationwill demonstrate this neglect. The assumption appears to be that researchinto faith-based schooling is a somewhat exotic minor activity primarilyof interest and relevance to those in the various faith communities buthardly (post-Enlightenment) a major concern for mainstream educationalresearch and discourse. Thus it may be argued that while faith-basedschools may have come ‘out of the ghetto’ in terms of their relationshipwith external agencies, this process does not seem to have happened to thesame extent in educational scholarship and research.

A comprehensive construct of educational inquiry must include engage-ment with specific faith cultures in given educational situations. If main-stream educational study and research has largely ignored the relevance offaith-based cultures (until recently) it must also be noted that the various

302 GERALD GRACE

faith communities themselves have not given much priority to researchingthe cultures and outcomes of their particular schooling systems. Just asthere has always been an uneasy relation between faith and reason, therehas also been an uneasy relation between faith and research. Research canproduce results which are disturbing to the faithful and for this reasonsome religious authorities have not encouraged systematic and criticalinvestigations of their own schooling systems.

The results of mainstream marginalization on the one hand and offaith-based closure on the other has meant that research into faith-basedschooling systems is remarkably underdeveloped given the extent andscale of faith-based educational provision internationally. The generalabsence of large-scale and sophisticated investigations of faith-basedschooling has had a number of unfortunate consequences. One of theseis that much of the current political and public debate about faith-basedschooling has been conducted at the level of prejudiced and generalizedassertion and counter-assertion with little reference to research. There isa tendency in these debates to draw upon dated historical images of faithschooling, to use ideological advocacy (both for and against) and to deploystrong claims about the effects of faith-based schooling upon personaland intellectual autonomy, social harmony, race relations and the commongood of society, which have no reliable knowledge base.

This amounts to a form of intellectual prejudice (perhaps in some casesof ethnic and racial prejudice) where arguments are based upon distortedor partial knowledge or, as in the case of Northern Ireland, an assump-tion of guilt by association. Given the importance of these issues notonly for national harmony and understanding but also for internationalunderstanding, the need for systematic, scholarly and impartial researchon faith-based schooling is very clear.

Northern Ireland: Faith schooling and community conflict

In recent political and public debate about faith schooling, NorthernIreland, either directly or by implication, has been used as the paradigmcase of the negative consequences of such a system. Thus, the HumanistPhilosophers’ Group in their publication Religious Schools: the caseagainst (2001, p. 35) assert:

We have clear evidence . . . from Northern Ireland where the separation of Catholic andProtestant schools has played a significant part in perpetuating the sectarian divide.

However, it may be noted that no sources of evidence are cited tosubstantiate this assertion. In another mode, Richard Dawkins (2001, p. 17)argues:

BIG CHANGE QUESTION 303

Why do people in Northern Ireland kill each other? It is fashionable to say that the sectarianfeuds are not about religion, the deep divides in that province are not religious, theyare cultural, historical, economic. Well, no doubt they are . . . (but) . . . if Protestant andCatholic children ceased to be segregated throughout their school days, the troubles inNorthern Ireland would largely disappear . . .

It is important to note the use of ideological as opposed to scholarlylanguage in this extract. Potentially significant structural causes of thetroubles in Northern Ireland which refer to cultural, historical andeconomic relations are described as ‘fashionable’ explanations, while thethrust of the article is to suggest that faith-based schooling is the funda-mental cause of the problem. This is an example of what has already beencalled the ‘guilt by association’ mode of analysis. It may reasonably beasked whether Professor Richard Dawkins would accept such an analysisin his own field of evolutionary biology?

In fact, assertions such as these represent an ahistorical, decontextu-alised and oversimplified view of the Northern Ireland situation, as anyserious scrutiny of relevant literature demonstrates. In the 1970s, system-atic investigation of this issue in relation to the British government’s (1973)White Paper, Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals, resulted in thefollowing conclusion:

To make the educational system itself the scapegoat for all the ills of Northern Irelandwould obscure problems whose origins are of a much more complex character. (p. 7)

and the research of O’Donnell (1977, p. 155) reported that:

religion, per se, plays an insignificant role in the stereotypes of Northern Ireland. Power isthe crucial factor.

A review of the impact of faith-based schooling in Northern Irelandby A.M. Gallagher of the Centre for the Study of Conflict, University ofUlster, noted that:

despite years of discussion there is no consensus in the research literature on the impact ofsegregated schools on attitudes and behaviour. (1992, p. 354)

John Greer, a leading researcher in this field, reporting his own investi-gations into ‘openness’, defined as ‘the willingness of pupils to valuemembers of the other tradition as neighbours, relatives, workers . . . ’concluded from large-scale survey of 2,000 pupils in 19 secondary schools(9 Catholic, 10 Protestant) that:

Throughout the age range for both sexes and both denominational groups there was apositive relationship between attitude towards religion and openness. The young peoplemost favourably disposed towards religion were also most open to members of the otherreligious groups. This is an important finding, contradicting the notion that NorthernIreland religiosity increases closeness to “the other side”. (1992, p. 458)

304 GERALD GRACE

Of course, all of these considered statements and research findings areopen to challenge on conceptual, methodological and analytical groundsbut what does become clear from a survey of the literature is that assertionswhich suggest that faith-based schooling in Northern Ireland is ‘deeplydamaging, even lethally divisive’ can only have a base in prejudice orideology and not in scholarship and research.

The future: A research agenda for faith-based schooling

With the growing importance of faith-based schooling systems internation-ally there is an obvious need for more systematic research and inquiry intotheir spiritual, moral and intellectual cultures and into their educationaland social outcomes. Such research will need to be impartial, compre-hensive and sensitive to the pluralist range of faith traditions and faithcommunities, In addition to studies of the various forms of Christianeducational provision (Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Evangelicaletc.) such research will need to focus upon Islamic, Jewish, Sikh, Buddhistand other schools founded by major communities. To combat ignoranceand prejudice about how different forms of faith-based schooling actu-ally operate in the contemporary world, systematic inquiry is necessary.This means that research trusts, foundations and also government agen-cies must recognize that such research has become a mainstream needand is no longer a marginal activity. It also means that the authoritiesof the various faith communities must be prepared to open their schoolsto such impartial inquiry. There are some encouraging signs that this isbeginning to happen. My own research into schools in London, Liverpooland Birmingham was funded by the Leverhulme Trust and supported bytwelve religious orders with missions in education. In Jewish education, animportant research report by Oliver Valins, Barry Kosmin and JacquelineGoldberg has recently been published with the title The Future of JewishSchooling in the United Kingdom (2001). The foundation of the IslamicAcademy at Cambridge in the 1980s has prepared the ground for suchsystematic inquiry in that community.

However, as Harry Judge of Oxford University has recently argued,it is also important that researchers from outside of the various faithcommunities should scrutinise the operations of faith-based schoolingsystems. This would contribute helpfully to the process of triangulationwhere specific cultural phenomenon is viewed and analysed from a numberof different perspectives. Some examples of this do exist in the work ofWalford (2000, 2001) on Christian Evangelical schools and of Halstead(1995) and Hewer (2001) on Muslim schools, but much more needs to bedone.

BIG CHANGE QUESTION 305

A possible research agenda for the future, it is suggested, could includesome of the following main areas of investigation:

Faith schools and community relationsThe impact of faith schools upon community relations appears to be apriority area for research inquiry given that large claims are made onthis subject with little reference to empirical evidence. A comprehensiveexamination of the subject would require an investigation of communityperceptions, attitudes and evaluations of such schools at both adult andyouth levels. For instance, does the existence of such schools contributeto perceptions of the ‘strangeness’ and ‘otherness’ of particular faith andethnic communities in ways which seem negative for community andrace relations? In other words, investigations of what might be calledthe external social consequences of faith schools are required. At thesame time (because they are interrelated) research is needed in specificcommunity contexts on the internal cultures and educational programmesof both state schools and faith schools. In particular, the extent andeffectiveness of programmes of multicultural and anti-racist education insuch schools should be evaluated and also the content and pedagogicmethods used in all programmes of religious and moral education. For faithschools their own mission integrity should be a focus of self-evaluationas well as of external inquiry. Given that all the major faiths proclaimmissions of love, peace, harmony, forgiveness and reconciliation (oftenformally expressed in school mission statements), a leading question forthem all is, do the educational cultures, programmes and relationshipsin their schools contribute to the enhancement of these characteristics intheir students and in wider community relations? Does the faith, in educa-tional terms, lead young people to an open and caring relationship withothers beyond their immediate community, or does it lead to closure andprejudice?

Faith schools and contribution to the common goodThis is a related but wider area of investigation. To the extent that publicfunds are used in support of faith schools, can it be shown that suchschools contribute to the common good of society and not simply tothe particular good of the faith community? Existing research evidencesuggests that the common good effects of faith-based schooling can bedemonstrated in various ways. The classic text on this subject, CatholicSchools and the Common Good by Anthony Bryk et al, has shown empiri-cally the substantial contribution made by Catholic schools to communityresourcing and educational progress in American inner-cities. It has also

306 GERALD GRACE

shown that such provision has been at the service of students who are notCatholic, especially from black disadvantaged groups. Further research isneeded to see how general this common good effect is in faith schoolsin other contexts. There is also the fascinating and very under-researchedquestion of what effect does faith-based schooling have on adult menand women in their personal, social and public lives? My own research,using personal oral history accounts of the long-term effects of a Catholicschooling, showed some interesting indications. While there were adultswho had found it an oppressive experience, there appeared to be morewho had found it a positive experience which they related closely to theprinciples and practice of their public lives in politics, social and educa-tional service, community work and contemporary feminist writing. If thelong-term outcome of faith-based schooling is the sort of adult citizen ithelps to form, then we need to know more about this by systematic inquiryamong adults from different faith communities. Here is a major field fororal history research in the future, and one of great relevance for the studyof educational change.

Faith schools, liberal education and democratic cultureCritics of faith-based schools often imply that the pedagogical climateof such organisations is inimical to the realisation of a liberal educationor of the formation of democratic citizenship. This view is premised onthe assumption that the particular faith in question is absolutist, closedto liberal intellectual discourse and, in its own internal power rela-tions, incompatible with modern democratic culture and citizenship. Assuggested earlier in this paper, such assumptions may be based upon out-dated and distorted understandings of a particular faith community. To tryto establish a more reliable evidence base in this sector, in-depth studies ofparticular faith school cultures are needed with a focus on liberal educationpractice and on citizenship formation.

Philosophers of education, such as Terence McLaughlin (1996) haveargued that certain forms of religious schooling are compatible with aliberal and democratic education, especially if they are characterised bywhat McLaughlin and others have described as ‘openness with roots’, i.e.:

providing a particular substantial starting point for the child’s development intoautonomous agency and democratic citizenship. (p. 147)

We need extensive empirical research to investigate to what extent thephenomenon of ‘openness with roots’ exists in the cultures and practicesof various forms of faith-based schooling.

It will be apparent from the previous argument that the question asposed is one of major importance for the contemporary world but we

BIG CHANGE QUESTION 307

will only be able to answer it confidently when the necessary researchand systematic inquiry have been undertaken. The Journal of EducationalChange could give the lead in this sector.

REFERENCES

Bryk, A., Lee, V. & Holland, P. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Catholic Education Service (1997). The Common Good in Education. London: CES.Dawkins, R. (2001). No faith in the absurd Times Educational Supplement (London), 23

February.Gallagher, A.M. (1992). Education in a divided society. The Psychologist 5, 353–356.Grace, G. (2002). Catholic Schools: Mission, Markets and Morality. London: Routledge-

Falmer.Greer, J. (1993). Viewing “the other side” in Northern Ireland. In L. Francis & D.

Lankshear (eds), Christian Perspectiveson Church Schools. Leominster: GracewingBooks.

Halstead, J. (1995). Voluntary Apartheid? Problems of schooling for religious and otherminorities in democratic societies. Journal of Philosophy of Education 27(4), 515–527.

Humanist Philosophers’ Group (2001). Religious Schools: The Case Against. London:British Humanist Association.

McLaughlin, T. (1996). The distinctiveness of Catholic education. In T. McLaughlin,J. O’Keefe & B. O’Keeffe (eds), The Contemporary Catholic School: Context, Identityand Diversity. London: Falmer Press.

O’Donnell, E. (1977). Northern Ireland Stereotypes. Dublin: College of Industrial Rela-tions.

Valins, O., Kosmin, B. & Goldberg, J. (2001). The Future of Jewish Schooling in the UnitedKingdom. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

Walford, G. (2000). Policy, Politics and Education: Sponsored Grant-Maintained Schoolsand Religious Diversity. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Walford, G. (2001). Evangelical Christian schools in England and the Netherlands. OxfordReview of Education 27(4), 529–541.

White Paper (1873). Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals (Cmnd 5259). London:HMSO. Quoted in M. McGrath (2000) The Catholic Church and Catholic Schools inNorthern Ireland: The Price of Faith. Dublin: Irish Academic Press.

GERALD GRACE

Centre for Research and Development in Catholic EducationInstitute of EducationUniversity of London, Bedford WayLondon WC1 H0AUKE-mail: crdce@ioe.ac.uk