|
Right to divide?
Is there more to the
debate over religious schools than meets the
eye? The subject certainly generates a lot
of anger among atheists and secularists. The
Runnymede Trust has just put out a report
called “Right
to Divide?”, which, among other things,
recommends an end to selection on the basis
of belief, a greater say for children in how
they’re educated and a requirement that
religious schools should serve the most
disadvantaged and value all young people.
Here,
Simon Barrow of the
Ekklesia
think tank analyses the arguments.
|
 |
|
Simon Barrow |
The current “debate”
about faith schools (that is, state-funded
schools with a religious foundation) is both
unproductive and unsustainable.
It is unproductive
because the terms of engagement have been
too easily determined by vested interests,
both “pro” and “anti”. It is unsustainable,
because diversity of provision, fairness of
operation and equality of access can never
be achieved simply by trying to implement
policies without adequate regard to their
actual impact, and nor can it be achieved by
seeking to “privilege” or “ban” certain
participants a priori.
The Runnymede Trust’s new
report, “Right to Divide? Faith Schools and
Community Cohesion”, offers a
well-researched set of investigations,
findings and proposals for those who wish to
negotiate a way forward through reform and
change, rather than confrontation and
exclusion. It signals what ought to be a
“giant leap forward” in a vital public
conversation and (often) argument.
Neither those who
strongly back faith schools nor those who
strongly oppose them can claim that their
arguments have been ignored. Rob Berkely and
Savita Vij have sought to be fair, open and
independently evaluative in consulting a
thousand people from different belief
backgrounds (religious and non-religious)
who are parents, pupils, professionals and
policymakers.
|
 |
|
A Church of
England School
in Leicestershire, England |
They have sought to
demonstrate on an evidential basis both the
contribution that faith schools can make to
the education system and the community, and
also the severe problems, divisions and
challenges that the current system of
provision and policy will go on perpetuating
if it is not changed.
It is to be hoped that
protagonists in the current debate
(including government) do not seek simply to
“cherry-pick” what suits their existing
argument, but engage fully with the range of
issues. Likewise, the fact that the report
does not directly deal with employment
issues, for example, or that its
consideration of religious education may
need to engage more substantially with
nonreligious beliefs on an equal basis,
should not be used as a means of dismissing
it. No report can cover all angles. But
hopefully this one will open up and enable
the current conversation to be broadened and
developed.
The case for
constructive reform
The trajectory of the six
proposals put forward by the Runnymede Trust
is broadly consonant with the that of the
Accord Coalition, which was launched earlier
this year, and in which Ekklesia (a
Christian think tank on issues of religion
and society) is a founding participant,
along with the Association of Teachers and
Lecturers (ATL), the British Humanist
Association (BHA) and a range of other
religious and nonreligious voices, both
corporate and personal.
What marks out Accord is
that its call for fully inclusive schooling
for all, and for the substantial reform of
faith schools in that direction, is one that
has brought together those who may take
different “final” positions on whether
religiously founded and operated schools in
the community are a good thing or not.
What they have seen is
that much common ground can be staked out,
the terrain redefined, aims harmonised, and
specific ways forward offered – in Accord’s
case nondiscrimination in admissions and
employment, a balanced curriculum, a common
inspection regime and assemblies that
reflect the whole community in our schools.
Ekklesia is specifically
concerned with a “tradition-based” (in our
case, Christian) case for fairness and
equality in state-funded education and
provision. We have argued this elsewhere (“The
Christian case for Accord”), and in our
own summation of the major issues, “Changing
faith schools for the better”. Those of
other faiths, humanists and people whose
beliefs are defined on pragmatic grounds
will have other points and perspectives to
offer.
Challenging
false divisions
The important thing here
is to disarm the (false) accusation that
those who wish to introduce what Runnymede
acknowledges to be “radical and difficult
changes” in what amounts to a third of the
schools sector are simply “anti-religious”
or “one-sided” in their stance. In policy
terms, that is materially not the case. In
terms of the breadth of those who have
expressed deep concerns to Runnymede,
Accord, Ekklesia, teaching unions, the BHA,
community organisations, parents groups and
others, it is also not the case.
The only people who
benefit from the current mischaracterisation
of the case for change are either those who
wrongly perceive that genuine reform will
leave no space for religious persons and
values in pubic life, or those who fear that
radical change will undermine their case for
excluding such persons and values – because
their reasons for wishing this are more
ideological than evidential.
In terms of Christian and
other faith concerns, Runnymede’s “Right to
Divide?” report points out that “[at] the
moment, faith can be used by parents as a
means of ensuring social exclusivity within
a school” – and indeed it can accentuate the
inequality of provision generally and in
particular areas. This does not just
undermine government commitments to fairness
and cohesion, and in some cases (as the
Ouseley Report into race relations in
Bradford pointed out) feature in highly
damaging social and cultural disintegration:
it also violates some basic principles of
the major faiths themselves.
For example, both
Christians and Jews are enjoined to love
their neighbours as themselves, not to put
themselves above their neighbours. In these
terms, an ethos of privilege, partiality and
exclusivity is neither a “Christian ethos”
nor a “Jewish ethos”. Equal regard and
treatment is also important to Muslims,
Hindus, Sikhs and others – not as an
“ethical extra” but often in terms of
foundational beliefs about the world and the
divine.
What do we
mean by “ethos”?
When the phrase
“religious ethos” is used, it is often
construed as heavily identified with, if not
identical to, the particular institutional
and ideological interests of religious
sponsoring bodies. But arrogating one’s
self-interest in the guise of religion is
something that the great prophets in all the
faiths warn and argue against time and time
again. Ekklesia believes that using “ethos”
as a justification for privilege is
unhelpful and misleading, not least from the
spiritual and theological perspective that
the faiths claim as their determining core.
The question that arises
in relation to using faith affiliation as a
determinative factor in admission applies to
its use as a determining factor in
employment. In this sense, the two cannot be
separated. To argue for nondiscrimination
here is not to say that “a church school
cannot employ Christians”, as some have
claimed. No one wishes to forbid particular
people from particular faith backgrounds
applying for staff posts.
On the contrary, it is to
say that no school should reject a highly
capable and qualified teacher who is willing
to support the school’s work and ethos
(thereby possibly appointing someone less
capable or less qualified) simply on grounds
of personal faith and belief.
To do that is to limit
the diversity and skill range of the pool of
applicants. It is also unfair when the
school is being funded overwhelmingly by
people of all faiths and none. Again,
unfairness is not a “faith value”, but
stands directly against the teaching of the
great religions concerning interpersonal and
social justice (“righteousness”).
Opening our
doors
Among the many points
raised by the Runnymede Trust’s report, two
deserve special attention in our opinion.
First, the case is made that “faith schools
should serve the most disadvantaged”. This,
Ekklesia has suggested frequently in the
past, gets far closer to the question of
what a genuine “Christian ethos” is, for
example.
In the Gospels Jesus
makes it absolutely plain that God’s concern
for all translates, in a unequal and unjust
setting, to a particular love and concern
for the excluded and marginalised – by which
he means those marginalised by certain
interpretations of religion, too. No school
that practises discrimination, that
privileges its own, and that perpetuates
social or cultural division can claim to be
truthfully “Christian”, even if it uses that
label and perpetuates it “religiously”, so
to speak.
Similar debates about
authenticity and community are occurring in
other areas of society, including other
religions and belief systems, too. This is
the second point. Schools funded by the
whole community should be open to the whole
community.
At church, in the mosque,
gurdwara, temple, synagogue and meeting
house, children and parents have the chance
to meet and share as communities of
conviction. At school and in the community
they should have the genuine chance to cross
boundaries and meet “the others”, not just
in theory but in person.
Schools policy should be
enabling, not blocking that encounter, and
providing people of all backgrounds with the
opportunity and challenge of meeting and
influencing one another beneficially, as
well as finding ways of handling conflict.
This is not just right. It is vital.
|
