This document presents three recommendations each prefaced by numbered comments which lead towards it.
In roughly 4000 words it offers a clear rationale for reform.
The air of reasonableness with which it proceeds flies rather magically over difficulties of prejudice and power; and the supports of empirical evidence and rigorous argument are implied rather than stated. Its title – Faith in the Classroom – is perhaps a trifle queasy (like this one, but not as slimy as the recent Faith in the System wherein all is well, thanks be to the gods).
The recommendations are in brief: 1) that state funded schools should not be able to select their pupils; 2) that compulsory religious worship be abolished; 3) that Religious Education should become a National Curriculum subject.
It seems easiest to begin with the narrowest and most feasible of these, the last.
This reviewer certainly applauds the aspiration that RE may become ‘owned and valued by all: those who belong to a religion and those who do not’. But why is RE currently directed by local bodies (SACREs)? This surely implies a content which is partial in all senses, a sop to local tastes (the prejudices of pluralism). My own Norfolk SACRE deserves a G & S treatment for it consists of officers, cooptions and four principal subcommittees whose 25 members almost all represent religious bodies (the C of E dominates, bizarrely Baha’i and Rome have equally one dedicated place); there are none irreligious and it has always astonished me that some humanists want to join (and so lend credibility to) this nonsense. My local secondary school enters all pupils for an RE GCSE without any consultation – conveniently no extra work is required and no knowledge beyond Christianity.
Disposal of this rickety rackety apparatus is one nettle to be grasped. The other is the question of withdrawal which presumably would not be available for a National Curriculum subject. And quite right too, I think, but it is not argued here. Compulsory Worship was enshrined in the Education Act of 1944 and reflected the conventions of the times and the powerful position of the churches in schooling and parliament. As the Report states, a majority of secondary schools are no longer compliant, but it sensibly resists the expedient of ‘every faith its prayer room’ and emphasises the value of inclusive assemblies broadly moral and spiritual in character. This is roughly what goes on now and, especially if such assemblies had a brief silence for reflection which enabled private prayer, the proposal would seem widely acceptable for non-faith schools. The interesting and difficult questions here are about faith schools and whether ‘not compulsory but optional’ applies to school or pupils, where parents fit in, and how far the options extend. The right of sixth formers to withdraw as individuals from collective worship has recently been recognised but should younger pupils remain subject to unfettered preaching?
The very broadly worded first recommendation is prudently taken as concerned only with selection by faith, but even so it is all a bit rum. Arguing that ‘The Church would not wish to distinguish between Christians and non-Christians in deciding who should be fed and healed, nor would we expect it to in the case of education’ strikes an implausible note given the history and purpose of the faiths. Imagining the headlines – ‘Catholics (or whatevers) Can’t Go to Catholic School’ (a proposal already rejected) – also makes me feel this is currently unattainable. But government policy favouring new faith schools adds to the difficulties and divisions and should be reversed. There are very important root and branch arguments about what states should provide and permit by way of education. Just for starters suppose Eton had to take at least half in each of the categories non-Christian, non-posh, non-clever and non-paying. In short, provision and who selects and on what open or covert basis, and who pays and who profits (control of our schools is appallingly dirt cheap) are chaotic.
Utopian principles awaited.
My own opinions (with a roughly humanist perspective) happen to be very supportive of the spirit of these recommendations and they are well worth developing.
Other thinking, including an Accord Coalition involving the British Humanist Association, has similar intent. The Sea of Faith can be pleased with its Commissioners (Stephen Mitchell with David Boulton and Allan Hayes, the last signing only the recommendations) for formulating concise proposals. Underlying issues are out of focus in this report but perhaps the chances are better for limited progress argued on narrower grounds. Undoubtedly there are dragons in the path, but this most reasonable ‘Boo’ will help their vanishing Dr.Edwin Salter works as a psychotherapist.His too many previous careers include much teaching.
SoF Commission on Faith Schools is on the website www. sofn.org.uk or by post from Stephen Mitchell, All Saints Vicarage,The Street.Gazeley,Newmarket CB8 8RB.Please sendA4 sae with 78p stamps.
SoF Commission on Faith Schools is on the website www.sofn.org.uk or by post from Stephen Mitchell, All Saints Vicarage, The Street, Gazeley, Newmarket CB8 8RB. Please send A4 sae with 78p stamps.