What are they for?
They exist to provide education within the religious framework prescribed by the trustees or some similar body. This may be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, or whatever. The ethos of the school will reflect its religious affiliation, as will the religious instruction or education given.
Are they successful at it?
My daughters attended an independent Catholic convent school, run by the I.B.V.M., an order of nuns. The headmistress was a nun as were some of the teachers. One daughter removed herself when her class were told to roll condoms onto hockey sticks. The other just refused to take part. We were told that we had to remember that there were many non-Catholics amongst the pupils. The daughter who walked out enrolled at the local grammar school, where she found more Catholics, teachers and pupils. Maybe they are good at it, but not always.
Are they a good thing or a bad thing?
Secularists: No, they promote superstition and irrational belief, and inhibit social cohesion. Or as O’Neill asserts in spiked-on-line, they are so incompetent at religious education as to be harmless , I guess like the village idiot at the “Ball of Kerriemuir”.
Religious parents: If they deliver education in the appropriate religious framework, as they should, yes. In my experience, not always. When successful, they provide a caring environment, rigorous teaching, and an atmosphere which promotes the development of pupils’ faith. The Catholic sixth form college in Poland where I teach is an excellent example.
Ambitious parents: Very good. The teachers and pupils are ‘nicer’ and the discipline better. For this reason there is a rush to enroll in church congregations in time to get children’s names down on ‘the list’ for popular church schools.
Pupils: I don’t know. According to O’Neill, they fail to impart belief. My children were not happy at the watered-down Catholicism they were exposed to, and we had to spend a lot of time at home presenting Catholic teaching in accordance with the Catechism, and explaining how and why the school had got it wrong. This was not surprising, bearing in mind the abysmal level of catechesis in the UK then and now.
Certainly there should be faith schools, because parents want them for their children, and the family, whatever its religion, or none, as the primal unit of society, has rights over and above those of social engineers. However it is arguable that there should be fewer, catering for only genuine practicing believers of reasonably long standing, and employing teachers of the relevant religious persuasion. They should not be admitting children of non-believer parents who simply want something better than the local comprehensive. Those parents should be agitating for better state schools.
If a faith school has no faith, and is imparting no faith, it is fraudulent and should close, or cease to receive public funding.
Put up, or close down.