Secular Education Forum
The Secular Education Forum (SEF) provides expert and professional advice and opinion to the National Secular Society (NSS) on issues related to education and provides a forum for anyone with expertise in the intersection of education and secularism.
The SEF's main objective is to advocate the value of secularism/religious neutrality as a professional standard in education. The SEF welcomes supporters of all faiths and none. It provides expert support for the NSS working towards a secular education system free from religious privilege, proselytization, partisanship or discrimination.
Want to get involved?
Sign upJoin our mailing list to apply to join the forum. You'll be kept up to date with news, meetups and opportunities to contribute or volunteer.
Membership of the Secular Education Forum is intended for education professionals (including current, former and trainee professionals) and those with a particular expertise in the intersection of secularism and education. All requests to join will be considered after signing up to the mailing list.
Education blogs and commentary
A selection of blogs and comment pieces on education and secularism. For education news from the NSS, please click here.
Playing whack-a-mole with religious charities isn’t working. Time to reform charity law.
Posted: Wed, 26th Jan 2022
Regulating charities effectively will not be possible until religious privilege is removed from charity law, says Megan Manson.
The Charity Commission for England and Wales has a lot on its plate. It regulates over 185,700 charities, and actively seeks to register more – including more religious charities.
It's therefore laudable that despite its heavy workload, the commission is keeping its ambitions high in its 2021-22 business plan. The plan's aims include "keeping charity relevant" and continuing to "put the public interest front and centre of our approach to regulating charities".
The National Secular Society, which campaigns for religious and non-religious charities to be held to equally high standards, naturally supports these aims. But without fundamental reform to charity law itself, the commission will be unable to truly realise its objectives.
According to charity guidance, charities must serve a public benefit and must not promote extremism. But over the years, the NSS has reported dozens of charities to the commission for promoting extremist ideas, including homophobia and misogyny, through their websites.
What do these charities have in common? They're all registered under the charitable purpose of "the advancement of religion". The harmful ideas they promote are rooted in the particular religion each one is advancing.
Out of all these cases, only two appear to have resulted in significant action from the commission. After the NSS reported them for serious failings, the commission appointed interim managers to Kingdom Church GB and Islamic Research Foundation International, which now puts the future of those charities in question.
However, in all other cases, the charities remain in operation and no significant action appears to have been taken.
To the commission's credit, in the majority of cases most of the harmful content we reported was removed from the websites.
But is this sufficient? For many of these charities, the website is only a minor part of their communication. Most of their public engagement will be via a place of worship. Unless the charity routinely records and publishes its sermons, there is no way to know whether the extremism, homophobia and misogyny purged from its website continues to be repeated in its church or mosque. And that's before we consider the books, pamphlets and other materials charities produce or distribute – all virtually tax-free, of course – that may also contain these ideas.
And in a few cases, intervention from the commission has not led the harmful material being removed.
For example, in 2019 we reported the Afghan Islamic Culture Centre (AICC) in London to the commission after discovering its website hosts an ebook that condones the death penalty for Muslims who don't pray enough or who leave Islam. Its homepage also links to another website, Ask Imam, which condones the execution of gay men and apostates.
Although AICC has launched a new sanitised website that doesn't feature this content, the old website is still live (and still solicits donations) and none of the content has been removed.
What's more, no lessons appear to be learned. The NSS monitors all charities that register under 'the advancement of religion' every month, and we continue to find new charities with content on their websites that flies in the face of the public benefit duty. The most recent example is Utrujj Foundation, which registered as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation in December, and had an article on its website written by one of its trustees about how and when men may beat their wives according to Islam.
That article has recently been removed after the NSS reported it to the commission, but why should it fall to NGOs to play charity watchdog? And why do these kinds of charities keep being registered in the first place, with all the tax benefits and public trust such status provides? The 'whack-a-mole' approach to regulation is inefficient and ineffective – as one bad charity is hammered down, more pop up in its place.
The fact is, the Charity Commission, and its equivalent regulators in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are hamstrung by archaic charity laws that give special privilege to religious charities.
As highlighted in the 2019 report For the public benefit? , 'the advancement of religion' charitable purpose is no longer compatible with the public benefit requirement, the need to promote equality and diversity in charities, and the need to keep charities relevant.
The 'advancement of religion' charitable purpose is based on an assumption that it is inherently 'good' for people to have a religion – a highly outdated and prejudiced assumption in a country that is increasingly non-religious. And this assumption, evidence suggests, enables religious charities to promote extremist ideas that non-religious charities would be unlikely to get away with.
The uncomfortable truth is many religions at their core are homophobic, misogynistic and intolerant by 21st century British standards, reflecting the values held by the ancient societies where those religions originated. It's therefore unsurprising that charities set up to advance orthodox interpretations of these religions will end up advancing ideas that are homophobic, misogynistic and intolerant.
There are and will continue to be religious charities that really do good work. They have no need of the charitable purpose of 'the advancement of religion' to continue; they'll find their mission easily aligns with other charitable purposes such as 'the relief of poverty'.
We cannot reasonably expect the commission to vet the websites of every single charity it registers for dodgy content. But we can crack down on the common factors that make a charity more likely to promote such content in the first place. The charitable purpose of 'the advancement of religion' is a glaring common factor.
For as long as 'the advancement of religion' remains on the list of charitable purposes, the commission, hardworking though it is, cannot hope to achieve its objectives under the current system.
If the commission is to succeed in "keeping charity relevant" and putting "public interest front and centre", charity law must be changed to ensure only religious organisations doing genuine good, without any extremism attached, can benefit from our charity system.
Religious selection is only part of the problem with faith schools
Posted: Thu, 20th Jan 2022
Ending religious discrimination in faith school admissions is an important first step – but it will not undo all the harms caused by faith schools, says Alastair Lichten.
It's easy to see why religious selection in admissions dominates the debate over faith schools. It is perceived by many as their most obvious and egregious problem. It is a form of direct and open discrimination that would be unlawful and unacceptable in almost any other public context, and contributes to the problems of middle-class parents 'gaming the system'.
Public opinion is clear on this matter. Even many supportive of, or more ambivalent about, faith schools strongly oppose religious selection, making it unpopular across all religion and belief groups. Support for religious selection of pupils is such a minority view that defenders of the practice are forced to rely on obfuscation and exaggerated claims about how difficult a transition to open admissions would be.
Supporters and opponents of faith schools are often united in seeing open admissions as a stepping stone (or a slippery slope, depending on perspective) towards a fully secular or community ethos education system. On the other hand, some supporters of faith schools see open admissions as a necessary compromise to shore up their continuation.
There are clear benefits to ending faith based selection in schools that extend beyond ending discrimination and segregation on the basis of religion or belief. An end to religious selection would reduce associated forms of social selection. Faith schools would gradually become more representative of their local communities. With a more pluralistic intake, they could be forced to moderate their approach and to take greater account of those who do not share their faith.
But open admissions wouldn't solve all the problems with faith schools. While open admissions would give families a fairer choice when faith schools are oversubscribed, what about where they are undersubscribed or not wanted? What about the hundreds of thousands of families across England with little or no choice but a faith school locally?
Open admissions may make oversubscribed faith schools, particularly CofE or Catholic schools, more representative of their communities, and therefore reduce many forms of segregation. However, other minority faith schools which are even more unpopular with families from other backgrounds could remain highly segregated. For example, the 50% cap on religious selection in new faith-based academies has been less effective in encouraging integration in Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish schools. Northern Ireland shows religious segregation can be driven by social attitudes and exclusionary practices, rather than direct religious selection.
What's more, open admissions alone don't make a school inclusive when its religious education, school assemblies, relationships and sex education (RSE), teacher selection and inspections regime are all organised around an exclusive religious ethos. New faith school proposals often point at the ability for pupils from other faith backgrounds to gain places to deflect from all other issues of inclusion.
Faith schools also use open admissions to argue that parents attending such schools - often their only practical option - are accepting all aspects of the religious ethos, and should not complain.
For politicians overestimating the popularity of faith schools, supporting open admissions feels like a safer option. It makes sense to form broad coalitions to tackle the specific issue of admissions, and work together to mitigate harms of faith schools and make incremental improvements. A policy of open admissions would be simpler than working out the details to get rid of faith schools, and reformers may wish to temporarily sidestep such questions.
But limiting criticisms of faith schools in pursuit of some allies can have long term problems. For example, campaigners seeking to introduce statutory RSE in different parts of the UK understandably sought to work with all schools, including faith schools. However, such campaigns often downplayed the problems with how RSE is delivered in many faith schools, and in their haste to celebrate a victory, have robbed attention from these problems.
This isn't to say that the direct benefits of ending faith selection wouldn't be significant, or that the moral imperative to end such discrimination isn't clear.
Achieving a secular and inclusive education system free from religious privilege, discrimination, or control, will be a lengthy process. Ending the ability of faith schools to religiously discriminate in admissions is only the first step.
Remove religious gatekeepers from school admissions
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2022
Faith-based selection forces families' religiosity to be assessed, compels conformity, and undermines everyone's freedom of belief, says Alastair Lichten.
Religious discrimination in school admissions is opposed by people right across the religious and political spectrum. It is often the number one objection to faith schools and regarded by many as their most egregious aspect.
Faith-based admissions all require some way for parents to get proof or validation of their religion. This means that religious clerics play the role of gatekeepers to publicly funded schools. The circumstances in which these gatekeepers grant approval, their discretion, and the level of religious activity required varies widely. Because the law allows discriminatory policies, technical objections are often limited to challenging the basis of this endorsement or validation, or the consistency of their application.
The most obvious downside to faith-based admissions is that it builds discrimination into our schools system. The social economic selection resulting from faith-based admissions is well documented. The indirect effects are less obvious, particularly in minority faith schools. When coupled with a strong social pressure to attend faith schools, onerous and extremely intrusive admissions policies can be used by religious leaders to exert control over 'their' communities. Even where the intrusion is less direct, religious leaders are aware of the leverage church attendance and religious sign-off requirements give them in trying to rustle up worshipers.
This leads to widespread gaming of the system, principally by better off parents. Single parents, those who regularly work at weekends, low-income families, those with language barriers, disabled or seriously ill members, and those alienated by religious institutions, are all less likely to be able to maintain and document religious attendance. This could include many people within those religions.
A lot of discourse around such practices focuses on blaming 'pushy parents', rather than addressing the desperate situation where many families can't otherwise access a local school, or having to deal with the challenges of a socially segregated system.
Freedom of religion or belief demands that people get to determine their own religious identity. We generally take a dim view of anyone trying to dictate whether someone else is a 'true' Christian, Muslim or atheist. There are few circumstances where we need to declare our religious identity to the state, and none where it is subject to religious tests. One does not need a form or approval from their priest, imam, rabbi or other cleric, to mark their religious identity on the census; equality monitoring forms are not accompanied by a quiz, assessment or attendance register.
COVID-19 and lockdowns have forced some faith schools to temporarily abandon worship attendance as a selection criteria. Some schools have found other ways of assessing applicants' religiosity. But such religious self-identification is incompatible with selective admissions. Self-identification may reduce religious discrimination and the better off's ability to game the system. But it still leaves us with a two tier system, where those willing to at least feign or accept religion would always have more school choices.
Limited government efforts to address the potential corruption and favouritism in the system, have focussed on reducing the discretion granted to individual gatekeepers in admissions policies by codifying the conditions under which they should endorsement religious applicants. But that can have the counter effect of encouraging schools to demand even stricter religious attendance or declarations. And it does nothing to address the fundamental injustice of religious practice dictating school options.
By far the best solution would be to end the religious discrimination by removing exemptions to the Equality Act that allow faith schools to select pupils in this way. Any administrative hurdles would be more than worth the practical benefits, and moral imperative of ending state sanctioned discrimination.
Removing religious gatekeepers would make the school application process much simpler. It would end intrusive assessments, no one would be compelled to attend religious services or follow religious instructions. It would promote religious freedom, giving people the right to decide their own beliefs and identity, and how they want to worship – or whether they want to at all. It certainly shouldn't be a prerequisite to attend a publicly funded school.
A message from the chief executive
Posted: Wed, 22nd Dec 2021
It's that time of year again, when we look forward to a break and reflect on the year that's been.
For all of us campaigning for a secular state in a country with such deeply entrenched religious privilege, it's easy to grow frustrated at the slow pace of progress. Organised religion still has a stranglehold over state education. And the Church of England remains established by law, a status that brings with it many unjustified privileges, not least representation as of right in our parliament.
But a look at the longer view reveals a path of clear progress for secularism, paved with a series of incremental gains (and a few setbacks) along the way. This year was no different.
In Wales, many years of campaigning led to major reform to the way religion is taught in schools. From 2022 RE will be replaced with a new subject of religion, values and ethics. Not only will all pupils now have the right to a more pluralistic and objective education about religion and belief, but secularism will also be taught as a key concept.
Meanwhile, in Scotland, the common law offence of blasphemy was finally abolished. As originally drafted the bill to accomplish this would have potentially made things worse – by outlawing insults, and even expressions of 'ridicule' and 'dislike' towards religion. Fortunately, working in coalition with others, we secured vital amendments to the Hate Crime Bill to ensure free speech around religion is adequately protected.
Northern Ireland is now the only part of the UK with blasphemy on the statute books. But even there, the justice secretary has denounced blasphemy laws as "archaic", saying they have "no place in a modern society". We're lobbying assembly members there to support the legislation necessary to get rid of them, and we encourage our supporters in NI to help
Another ray of light from NI comes in the form of an independent review of education. In a country where over 90% of pupils attend religiously segregated schools, we're lobbying for reforms to bring schools in line with equalities legislation and ensure children and young people there have access a secular education.
In England, we've been shaping public policy around marriage reform, animal welfare, speech laws, and conversion therapy – and leading the fight against faith schools. The faith schools research databank we published in August provides a solid evidence base against faith-based education and is a valuable resource for advocates for a more inclusive education system. Meanwhile, our Choice Delusionresearch has revealed the extent to which faith schools restrict families' options of a secular school – something every child should be entitled to.
The debate over assisted dying came into focus this year with Molly Meacher's bill to provide choice at the end of life. It came as no surprise when the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby told parliament that the bishop's bench was "united in their opposition". Other religious leaders also lined up to oppose the modest reform, despite most people of faith supporting it. This debate can be seen in the context of the ongoing battle between bodily autonomy and the controlling tendencies of religious authority. By supporting carefully regulated assisted dying, we're standing up for your right to be free from other people imposing their religious beliefs on you and society.
Speaking of which, one of the more concerning episodes of the year was the alarming situation at Batley Grammar School where a teacher was suspended and forced into hiding after using an image of Mohammed as an educational resource to teach about freedom of expression and blasphemy.
The teacher hasn't returned to the school. The materials are no longer used. A new blasphemy code has effectively been established, imposed not by the law, but by intimidation and the threat of violence.
The unease of many liberals to stand up for basic liberal principles and support the teacher illustrated the reluctance many have about speaking out about issues involving Islam, through fear of accusations of racism or Islamophobia.
That's why we've continued this year to caution against use of the vague, double edged term 'Islamophobia', which does a much better job of silencing and derailing debate around Islam than it does of protecting British Muslims from bigotry and hatred. The government at least seems to recognise this.
But while standing up for the freedom to subject Islamic belief and practice to scrutiny, and even mockery, secularists must be ready to call out and tackle hatred and racism targeted at Muslims – and all other religious minorities for that matter. Secularism is nothing without a commitment to peaceful coexistence and freedom of religion or belief for all.
So, it's been a year of steady progress, but we know there is much more to be done.
As we come to the end of 2021, I'd like to take this opportunity to say a huge thank you to all our members and supporters. Your contributions provide the financial backing necessary to face the challenges ahead. If you're not a member, please do join the NSS today and we'll put your principles into action.
With your support we'll continue to champion your right to live without people imposing their religious beliefs and practices on you.
Best wishes for the season. Stay safe, and we look forward to working for a freer, fairer and more tolerant society in 2022.
Christian lobby groups’ doublespeak is a distortion of human rights
Posted: Fri, 17th Dec 2021
Evangelical activists' insistence that equality amounts to discrimination is a narcissistic approach to human rights, argues Stephen Evans.
The UK is one of the 'most intolerant' countries in Europe towards Christians. That's the extraordinary claim of a report published this week by Observatory of Intolerance Against Christians in Europe (OIACE).
The report identifies the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden as the top five countries driving what it describes as a "rising phenomenon" against Christians.
The scientist Carl Sagan famously said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This report offers little.
A few examples of the supposed "discrimination" and "intolerance" faced by UK Christians illustrate just how scant the evidence is.
One of the more bizarre examples provided by the report is schools being "pressured to provide atheist content".
What's being referred to here is one instance of a Church of England controlled multi-academy trust agreeing to provide a meaningful alternative for pupils withdrawn from Christian collective worship after two parents launched a legal challenge. The parents simply wanted their local (non-faith) school to provide a more inclusive environment for their children.
The authors are looking through the wrong end of the telescope here. Those on the receiving end of intolerance and discrimination when it comes to state education are the pupils locked out of local faith schools due to discriminatory admissions policies – and those compelled to take part in Christian rituals by a law that forces all schools to hold daily acts of Christian worship.
But this report never lets the reality get in the way of its victim narrative.
The report's authors go on to cite 'buffer zones' as further evidence of victimisation of Christians. These are the zones introduced around abortion clinics by a handful of local authorities where women were facing harassment and intimidation when accessing healthcare.
It takes a very myopic mindset to refuse to recognise that the right to oppose abortion shouldn't interfere with the fundamental right for women to make individual reproductive choices and access sexual health services.
The report goes on to claim the requirement on schools to provide LGBT inclusive relationships and sex education; the refusal to allow religion-run adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex parents; and even the inclusion of places of worship in measures to curb the spread of coronavirus indicate a "decline in religious freedom".
The point entirely and intentionally missed by this report's authors is that human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to everyone, not just Christians. In pluralistic societies, competing rights sometimes clash – and a balance needs to be struck. When the practicing of your religion encroaches on the rights and freedoms of others, a restriction on your right may be reasonable. The belief that not always entirely getting your own way amounts to discrimination is a highly narcissistic and flawed approach to human rights.
The appalling treatment of Christians and other religious and nonreligious minorities in countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, China, and Nigeria is deserving of everyone's attention. This year's #RedWednesday campaign did a fine job of highlighting the persecution faced by millions of Christians, not least the girls and women living under the constant threat of abduction, sexual violence and forced conversion.
But claiming that the human rights of Christians are "under pressure" in a country where, in almost all walks of life, Christianity is uniquely privileged, is simply absurd.
Nevertheless, hardline Christian advocacy groups continue to push a false narrative of Christians being persecuted here. So loud became their calls that in 2016, the Equality and Human Rights Commission carried out a comprehensive review of equality and human rights law relating to religion or belief.
The Commission's findings gave lie to the claim that Christians are being unfairly treated. Their report said the law strikes the right balance between protecting religious freedom and upholding the right to non-discrimination.
The labelling of National Secular Society backed legislative attempt to end the automatic right of 26 Church of England bishops to seats in the House of Lords as an 'incident' of anti-Christian intolerance is further evidence of the crybully tactics deployed by unscrupulous Christian campaigners.
But the cries of persecution will undoubtably grow louder as those wanting to impose their beliefs on others see their privileges challenged.
Secularism isn't intolerance of Christian beliefs. It's the view that those beliefs shouldn't be elevated or privileged above others.
All around the world well-funded Christian activists are lobbying for laws to allow them to discriminate and impose their beliefs on people who don't share them – all under the guise of 'religious freedom'.
Human rights advocates everywhere need to be wise to these bad actors claiming victimhood to gain special privileges to trample on the rights of others.
