CONTROVERSIAL report into this summer's race riots posed faith schools as a "significant problem" in dividing communities. The government rejected the report's recommendation that a quarter of school intakes should be children from other religions. Here in an article for the BEN, the headmaster of Canon Slade School, the Reverend Peter Shepherd examines the issue.

IT is regrettable that the debate about "faith schools", nationally and locally, is being conducted so simplistically.

Those who are against faith schools because they are simply anti-religion, cynically and opportunistically cite race riots and division in Northern Ireland to support a case which they have failed to justify on philosophical grounds. So the cry now is for CE schools to be "inclusive" of all-comers; let's celebrate Diwali and Eid as well as Christmas -- no wonder our children are confused!

How patronising for Christians to think that they are able to celebrate meaningfully and with integrity the festivals of other faiths -- it would do us no harm to try to celebrate our own in a more confident and convincing manner!

Of course there is a Christian imperative to serve -- that wonderful "Magnificat" theology -- but does it necessarily require the Church of England in the 21st Century to operate "schools for the nation"?

Britain is hardly a third world country reliant on Christian aid for the provision of schools. That has, for many years, been one of the central functions of the State which, on the whole, is doing a pretty good job. Proponents cite the historic contribution of the CE to school building in the 19th Century, when, of course, the State did not. That, as an historical phenomenon, is undeniable; but such people conveniently forget that the rationale in those days was to provide educational "service" for a society which (to paraphrase Parson Thwackum) was simply thought to be Christian, or even Protestant, but "Church of England". The purpose in providing those schools was hardly disinterested; it was to "educate" (induct?) children into the "Principles of the Established Church". Indeed, much of the race to build schools in the 19th Century was, sadly, a reflection of inter-Christian denominational rivalry.

Does that mean there is no rationale for faith schools? Quite the contrary. In a democratic, civilised and reasonably prosperous country, with a tradition for providing a "liberal education", we recognise that no education is "delivered" in a values vacuum. Why then shouldn't all parents, not just those who can afford to pay for it, have the opportunity of having their children educated in a school which reflects the beliefs and values of the home?

As Estelle Morris herself is reported as saying to the Synod of the Church of England: "I want to show the same tolerance that all our predecessors have shown to a parent's right to a faith-based education."

Quite -- even though she then fails to draw out the logical implications of that remark, and simply falls back on the relatively unexamined concept of inclusiveness. It surely follows that admission to faith schools should be predicated on the parents demonstrating that they genuinely uphold the particular beliefs and values of the school, and that they don't want it just because it achieves good examination results. In Christian terms the obvious objective demonstration would be involvement in the life and worship of the Church; that will inevitably mean a certain element of exclusiveness, as with any oversubscription criteria (grammar school or "leafy" comprehensive). I would, however, prefer to call it a proper distinctiveness within a diverse, yet self-confident society.

The logic of my argument is clear. We should, wherever possible, and within a national framework which rightly celebrates diversity, enable various communities of belief and values to establish voluntary aided "specialist" schools. Provided of course, that they have a genuine commitment to education, and are not simply interested in indoctrination ("nurture" is a more positive concept recognising the importance of partnership between school, home and faith community). The bottom line must be their capacity to deliver the National Curriculum and RE in an appropriately critical (educational) manner. So we may have Christian Schools (I, personally, see no continuing need for non-ecumenical school communities), Jewish, Moslem, Hindu (etc) schools; there would also, of course, be a place for Humanist schools (although Humanists may be content with secular community schools); perhaps even for schools built on political beliefs and values? Would that be divisive? No -- not in itself. There is no intrinsic reason why society shouldn't be strengthened by such "faith" schools. Schools may reflect the divisions of a broken society (like Northern Ireland); they may even help perpetuate them, but they certainly do not cause them; other, far more complex factors do that.

But, in a healthy society, schools can celebrate diverse religious and other kinds of identity, none of which need to fear or envy each other.

At the moment we seem intent to prevent such a potentially rich display of diversity. Of course, I am "for" a society that is inclusive of all who wish to belong to it, and that encourages and enables people to integrate so far as they choose to do so (remember the lesson of the USA's efforts to combat segregation in the 1950s!). But it is a naive political correctness that hinders objective examination of the contrasting intentions and realities of inclusiveness and integration. If that debate were energised, then perhaps could we could judge whether simply uttering these mantras ad nauseam is, in itself, sufficient for societal health.

COMPLEX ISSUE: Canon Slade headmaster The Rev Peter Shepherd gives his personal view

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS? WRITE TO: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, BOLTON EVENING NEWS, CHURCHGATE, BOLTON BL1 1DE, or email palvino@lancashire.newsquest.co.uk.