Part of the openDemocracy Network

Power2010

Breaking the monopoly of the professional politician: Guy Aitchison's idea for popular forums in Parliament
 

When you're in a hole, stop digging: Pam Giddy's advice to MPs who still don't get it
 

Ending the divine right of political parties: Steve Hawkins makes a radical suggestion
 

Les Miserables and Power 2010: John Jackson diagnoses the political class's selective crisis-mongering
 

A call to oD readers: Helena Kennedy calls on oD readers to support Power2010
 

More in this series

Submit your idea for the Power 2010 pledge.

The British Crisis

Do the public really want to change ‘the system’?: Stuart Wilks-Heeg presents polling evidence
 

Don't trust MPs' constitutional poker: Guy Aitchison supports the call for a citizens' convention
 

Brown's 'National Council for Democratic Renewal': Anthony Barnett on the Prime Minister's desperate proposal
 

More in this series

Navigation

delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Syndicate content

NUT proposals would make confessional religion a core school activity

27 - 03 - 2008
delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Simon Barrow (London, Ekklesia): It seems the National Union of Teachers thinks it can square the circle. Rightly critical of single-faith schools segmenting education, it is suggesting instead that all schools should become practising multi-faith institutions, so that existing faith schools can be stripped of their powers to control their own admissions, select pupils according to their religion, and screen out teachers or heads with the ‘wrong' outlook.

The media has particularly highlighted the suggestion that pupils from different faith backgrounds should be offered instruction in their own religion, provided with prayer facilities and offered a choice of religious holidays. The legally required daily act of "mainly Christian" worship would be widened to include all faiths, the NUT's annual report suggests.

As a way of provoking a debate, this is bold but problematic. The idea is that strong religious lobbies can be brought on board with publicly funded schools being for pupils of all backgrounds (a wholly laudable aim) by making special provision for faith formation within, not in addition to, the normal patterns of school life. Not surprisingly, the National Secular Society objects. So does the Church of England, partly because this would dilute its existing interests, but also because, as it points out, the role of a school should be to teach people about religion, not to bring them up within a faith, which is the job of religious communities.

On this last point, I strongly agree and would want to carry that insight to its logical conclusion. The 1944 Education Act provisions on Religious Education and collective worship, reinforced in the 1988 Education Reform Act in England and Wales, have long had their day. In today's plural society, pupils certainly need to be given the opportunity to learn about the different world religions and also about non-religious beliefs and life stances. We are harmed by ignorance of the various convictions that continue to shape (and sometimes misshape) our world. But this is about critical learning, not propaganda. As for worship, that is the business of faith communities, not public institutions like schools. Assemblies should be civic and inclusive in character.

As part of the recognition of the place of schools in their local and global communities, it is also right that provision should be made for believers to have space for voluntary devotions and for after-school activities related to their beliefs - in exactly the same way as other clubs, social and non-religious cultural activities are recognised. This is something that both believers and non-believers should be able to support, in addition to properly pedagogic (informative and evaluative) education within the curriculum concerning our different life stances and beliefs.

What the NUT seems to be proposing, on the other hand, goes in a very different direction - towards making "confessional" (conviction based) religious teaching a core school activity. That confuses the role of the school with that of the church, mosque, temple, gurdwara or synagogue. Moreover, as currently conceived, a ‘multi-faith agenda' will not make proper provision, as it should, for the needs of the growing number of non-religious pupils.

Working out how pupils from different faith and non-faith backgrounds can be supported, recognised and encouraged to learn from one another in diverse community-based schools is an important task. But this is not the way to do it.

This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

wrinkled weasel (not verified) said:

Fri, 2008-03-28 11:55

Simon says,

"diverse community-based schools". What are they, I wonder? If, as I suspect this is lazy liberal speak for lowest common denominatorism, then he should think again.

He also says, "Rightly critical of single-faith schools segmenting education..."

Firstly, we have a right to educate our children as we see fit. As long as they are taught to read and write, do a few sums and have the basics of geography, history and the arts, the rest must surely be up to the parents. It is about choice. Secondly, you cannot remove "faith" from education. Not teaching religion in schools is not a de facto absence of "faith" based pedagogy, it is merely the presence of aetheistic humanism or something which is steeped in 20th Century existential philosophy.

When Simon speaks of "segmenting" education, he is really giving his game away. He wants control. He wants control of the political and belief agenda and he wants it on his terms. Take a look Simon at the state sector. It is failing at the most basic level. There are multitudes of independent schools sailing under many flags of convenience who are demonstrating success. And they are doing so because they have a moral imperative, something you seem to want to abolish.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options

Books from Amazon

Email Alerts

Fill in the form below to sign up to our automatic daily alerts, or weekly editorial summary (you will be taken to another page to confirm which options you want).

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

They say about OK

"the ever-stimulating OpenDemocracy"
Ekklesia

"See OurKingdom to keep up"
South Belfast Diary

"...an essential guide to understanding the dynamic constitutional situation..."
Peter Oborne

"...becoming a daily read for me."
Iain Dale

"To make sense of it all, check out OurKingdom..."
Matthew d'Ancona

"Worth a look...it is, however, recommended by Matthew d'Ancona."
The Wardman Wire

"Fast becoming the best political website around"
Tom Waterhouse, CEP

"...attracting energy from a range of contributors."
thenextwave

"...looks very promising..."
The England Project

"The excellent new OurKingdom blog from OpenDemocracy..."
The Green Ribbon

"On the internet, I keep in touch with openDemocracy, a website on global current affairs, and its useful offshoot, OurKingdom"
Andreas Whittam-Smith

"thanks to the fine folk at OurKingdom, (who manage to communicate a variety of perspectives in the way that only a decent group blog can)"
Nostalgia For the Future