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.
Why is the Catholic church allowed to hinder secondary school choice?
Posted: Thu, 21st Oct 2021
A case in Leicestershire shows the mess faith groups make of admissions and why secular accountability is necessary, argues Alastair Lichten.
The practice of state funded faith schools discriminating in favour of prospective pupils on the basis of their parents' religion is well known. 'On your knees, avoid the fees' has become common parlance in conversations about religiously selective state schools. But the ways in which faith schools undermine families' choices can be more diverse, complex, and occasionally counterintuitive.
The problem of families being pushed into a faith school, because of a lack of options or faith groups' influence over other education decisions, is less visible. A case in Leicestershire, now the subject of a legal challenge, provides one such example.
Parents at St Thomas More, a Catholic primary school in Leicester, claim the Catholic Diocese of Nottingham which runs the school is fostering discrimination by impeding a meaningful choice of secondary school. The diocese is blocking local non-faith (community-ethos) schools from listing St Thomas More as a feeder. This leaves parents at the school with almost no options but St Paul's Catholic School, a secondary school run by the diocese's trust.
Another community-ethos academy affected by the diocese's meddling is Beauchamp College. When they consulted on listing St Thomas More as a feeder, the diocese wrote to all parents, in a tone described as "intimidating", criticising support for the plan. In 2020, 45 St Thomas More parents called for the move, followed by 60% of consultation respondents. However, the diocese remained adamant that St Thomas More pupils are expected to transfer to St Paul's.
The head of the diocese's academy trust Neil Locker said neither they, nor the bishop, would allow any Catholic school to associate as a feeder with any non-Catholic school, because the relationship between primary and secondary schools "is fundamental and sacrosanct".
Another community ethos secondary school affected is Manor High School. When this school consulted local primary schools on its plans to update its feeder schools, St Thomas More's academy trust decided not to inform parents, in a possible breach of the School Admissions Code.
St Thomas More parents have been fighting for years to be given an equal choice of secondary schools. They describe the decision not to designate the school as a feeder for Manor High School as "a complete surprise and shock".
Frustrated by the diocese's influence over school choice, one parent is taking legal action with the Office of Schools Adjudicator (OSA), a body which helps to clarify the legal position on admissions policies, seeking to challenge the decision of the non-faith secondary schools not to list St Thomas More as a feeder.
The parent leading the legal action said: "I am doing this because many parents were unaware that they were being implicitly tied into a rigid sort of 'contract of Catholic faith education' that, effectively, means parents forgo their choice of non-Catholic secondary schools.
"This was not an informed decision for a substantial number of parents. Being locked into a consumer or employment contract with no exit strategy would never be accepted in any other area of society."
NSS research shows 260 pupils across Leicester and Leicestershire were assigned faith schools against parental preferences this year. Thirty-six per cent of pupils in the county have little choice but a faith-based primary, and the diocese's policy will leave many with little choice but a faith-based secondary school.
A representative of the Doyle Clayton legal firm supporting the case said, if successful, it "will help to ensure that children's secondary school choices are not restricted by the faith of their primary school and by a 'feeder school' system that funnels children into faith schools."
"By operating in this manner, the current system is limiting parents' choices of non-faith 'good' schools in their area, ultimately forcing a Catholic education onto children due to a lack of choice for their parents."
Designating a faith school, as a feeder to a community-ethos school is not straightforward. If this creates an advantage for the faith school pupils, it may risk indirect discrimination. However, in this case all the other local primary schools have been listed by both Manor High School and Beauchamp College. Only St Thomas More is being treated differently, and only at the diocese's behest.
But whatever the arguments for or against specific feeder arrangements, they should not be a matter for the diocese to decide.
The case also raises questions about academisation, and the decreased role of local authorities in admissions. Our research shows that half of former community schools now in multi-academy trusts have some form of religious (normally C of E) governance. If faith-based academy trusts can insist on controlling the admissions of other schools as well as their own, many more families will be locked into faith-based education.
Everywhere you turn, faith schools' institutional and privileged role in admissions creates unnecessary hardship and complexity for parents. It leads to decisions being continually taken in the interests of faith bodies, with little or no genuine transparency or consultation. It's time we had an open, community-led and accountable admissions system, and seriously reevaluate the suitability of faith groups running public schools in an increasingly secular society.
The NSS will be following the case closely. If you have been affected by similar issues, please get in touch.
If you would like to support parents' legal action, a Crowd Justice fundraiser for the legal action is aiming to raise £5,000 by 31 December.
Religion shouldn’t frustrate assisted dying reform
Posted: Thu, 14th Oct 2021
Ahead of parliament's first consideration of assisted dying for six years, Stephen Evans calls on secularists to help ensure that religious objections don't stand in the way of necessary reform.
Later this month peers will debate a new Assisted Dying Bill. The bill, tabled by Molly Meacher, would legalise assisted dying as a choice for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in their final months of life.
By Baroness Meacher's own admission, the bill is "very conservative" and "modest in its scope". Two independent doctors and a High Court judge would have to assess each request, which if granted would enable a terminally ill person with six months or less left to live, to end their life in a manner, time, and place of their choosing.
For some people, the proposed law is too restrictive. Groups such as My Death My Decision argue that choice should be limited not only to those with terminal illnesses but also available to those facing intolerable suffering, as is the case in Canada. But this is not what the bill before parliament proposes.
Despite the bill's narrow scope and stringent safeguards, religious lobby groups are mobilising to oppose it.
This is because a key driver of opposition to greater patient choice at the end of life is the religious idea that God gives and takes life away. The prospect of this being overridden has led the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales to call the proposed legislation an "unprecedented attack on the sanctity of life". They would prefer all matters of life and death to be left in God's hands.
That may be their view, but it isn't a rational, compassionate, or legitimate basis for policy making. It's not for the state to impose religious dogma on citizens.
Anti-choice activists know this. Their opposition is therefore often framed in secular political or philosophical language. This is of course legitimate. Indeed, as Barack Obama once pointed out, "democracy demands that the religiously motivated must translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values."
But one downside of this is that it can distort the debate. Dire warnings about the coercion of disabled, elderly, sick or the depressed can mask true motivations for opposing a change in the law. In dressing up religious objections as secular concerns, rather than seeking ways to mitigate potential risks of legalising assisted dying, opponents can exaggerate the risks, weaponising them to spread fear.
For example, evangelical Christian Danny Kruger MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Dying Well, has written to all parliamentarians warning of "widespread euthanasia of the elderly and disabled" if this bill is enacted. The group's website makes no mention of religion, but it's no coincidence that almost all its officers are committed Christians.
Another new anti-assisted dying campaign, 'Better Way', also warns that safeguards will be "completely ineffective". You have to look very hard on their website to find out the campaign is a front for CARE, a Christian charity with theological objections to reform.
Suffering people who would benefit from a change in the law deserve better. That's why it's important to have an open and honest public debate. The British Medical Association's decision to move to a neutral stance on physician-assisted dying is helpful in this regard – as it will enable doctors to fully participate in the debate. And an honest and sincere expression of religious motivations would provide context and enable better assessment and scrutiny of arguments against assisted dying.
But it's worth noting that many religious people support a change in law. A Populus survey commissioned in 2019 found that 80% of religious people supported the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill adults with mental capacity. Religious lobby groups and leaders (including the Anglican bishops with a law-making role in the House of Lords) are, as is often the case, out of step on this one.
But for many religious people, such questions are essentially religious ones. For some, their compassion will lead them towards wanting to relieve suffering where possible. But for the more dogmatic, a belief in the sanctity of life makes it hard to accept that individuals should have agency to exert control over the beginning or end of life. They feel this is God's responsibility, not ours. Speaking on the NSS podcast recently, Baroness Meacher recalled a conversation with an archbishop in parliament in which she stressed the importance of autonomy. "I don't know that I believe in autonomy," replied the archbishop.
It's fine for faith to guide the personal decisions of the faithful, but religion shouldn't restrict the freedoms and choices of others. Patient autonomy should be the key guiding principle.
On Friday 22nd October, peers in the House of Lords will debate the bill at its second reading. Religious opponents to assisted dying are making their voices heard. If this bill is to progress to the next crucial stage, it's important that secularists make their voices heard, too. Only then can we overcome the influence, power, and funding of the small, vocal minority who stand against change.
That's why the National Secular Society has teamed up with Dignity in Dying to share their online platform to write to peers in the House of Lords.
There is now overwhelming public support for the law to be reformed to enable assisted dying with robust legal safeguards. As is happening in an increasing number of jurisdictions around the world, legislation can be passed that will fulfil a dual purpose: To protect vulnerable people from pressure to end their lives; whilst supporting people to exercise their autonomy and end their suffering in a humane and dignified manner.
Only secular law can bring justice to victims of mass clerical abuse in France
Posted: Thu, 7th Oct 2021
Keith Porteous Wood says France's deference to the Catholic Church has obstructed justice for hundreds of thousands of abuse victims.
An inquiry commissioned by the Catholic Church into clerical abuse in France has just concluded that victims of both clerics and laity (teachers, for example) totalled around a third of a million since 1950.
In no country in the world has such a high figure been included in an official report. Nearly all victims were minors or vulnerable adults.
The commission, to its credit, held exhaustive hearings in every major town in France. But listening to so many harrowing testimonies took its toll. The president of the commission was not alone in needing psychological assistance.
At the public launch of the inquiry report, abuse survivor François Devaux told Church officials: "You are a disgrace to our humanity. In this hell there have been abominable mass crimes...betrayal of morality, [and] betrayal of children".
The report concluded: "The Catholic Church is, after the circle of family and friends, the environment that has the highest prevalence of sexual violence." Its president accused the Church of "sometimes knowingly putting children in touch with predators."
Prior to this week, the president of the commission was sticking hard to his estimate of 10,000+ victims. In correspondence with him I pointed out the implausibility of this low figure. The final number arrived at by his multidisciplinary team is 330,000.
The estimated number of perpetrators, just 3,000, remains bafflingly small – it equates to 2.6% of priests. In contrast, state-commissioned inquiries by Australia and England & Wales both found 7% of Catholic priests to be perpetrators. The resultant ratio of victims to priests and lay perpetrators cited by the report is a completely implausible - 110:1. A much more realistic figure would be in the range of 10,000 to 30,000 perpetrators - maybe too many for the bishops to handle? Let's hope not.
The key question is, what happens next? Having studied the French Catholic Church closely over the last two years, I'm convinced it's institutionally incapable of putting its own house in order. Even while the report was being written, bishops were distancing themselves from accepting any responsibility. They refused to let their fabulously rich church bear even a centime of the meagre compensation (they recoiled from even using the word), determining that it should be dependent on the amount raised by public subscription. It's thought reparations were conditional on the abandonment of any civil or criminal action. Quite a bargain, for them.
While some give the Church credit for commissioning the report, in my opinion, the Church only did so because it realised that if it did not, the scandals would sooner or later result in a state inquiry. Such an inquiry would have the power to require the production of documents, summon witnesses and examine them under oath.
One of the commission's recommendations was revisions to canon 'law'. Canon 'law' is not an appropriate mechanism for enforcing such rampant criminality; for example, the maximum penalty is removal from the clerical state. The Vatican was urged by the United Nations in 2014 to require such abuse to be reported to the secular authorities, something the current Pope, to his shame, still refuses to do so. He only acts on clerical abuse when absolutely forced to, and usually as little as he can get away with.
It is beyond regrettable that the French state did not institute its own inquiry, as Australia, Germany and England & Wales have done. In contrast, the French National Assembly ignored the matter almost entirely, and the senate's hearings amounted to little more than the Church being asked to sort the matter out itself. That was a monumental failure of secularism.
Devaux accused the Church of cowardice. I charge the state of cowering before the Church. It is almost as if the Revolution never happened; for all practical purposes, the French Church remains above the law and that is the greatest single reason for this, doubtlessly centuries-old, catastrophe.
A state inquiry is still desperately needed. Its terms of reference could be much wider than the commission's. They must include reform of the law and an examination of why around 25 bishops have failed to observe the mandatory reporting law with complete impunity.
The papal adviser on abuse Prof Hans Zollner said yesterday: "If a bishop has not done what the law of his State, and Canon Law, demands of him, then yes [he should resign]." So does that mean we are about to have 25 vacancies? Somehow I doubt it.
France's mandatory reporting law, and the statutes of limitation on abuse and reporting, need urgent reform. As is also needed in the UK, there must be a law requiring those in institutions, including churches, to report reasonable suspicions of abuse to the secular authorities, with safeguards protecting those doing so in good faith. An example of how that might look is here.
No solution is possible without a fit-for-purpose secular law on abuse, and enforcement of such law without fear or favour. France, at present, lacks both.
Image by István Kis from Pixabay
Terry Sanderson’s memoir shows gay and secularist activism go hand in hand
Posted: Thu, 7th Oct 2021
Helen Nicholls reviews The Reluctant Gay Activist, the revised memoir of former NSS president Terry Sanderson.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
"How did I, an ill-educated poverty-stricken lad from a Yorkshire mining town, get swept up in the creation of two of the most amazing and unexpected social revolutions of the past century – gay rights and secularism," asks Terry Sanderson on the first page of his autobiography.
Sanderson was born in 1946 in Maltby, near Rotherham. As a youth, Sanderson knew that he was different to other boys but did not know the reason until he overheard his aunts whispering that the singer Johnnie Ray was "one of them homosexuals". He looked up the word in the dictionary and realised it described him. This was a relief as he reasoned that if there was a word for it there must be others like him.
Until 1967, homosexual acts between men were illegal and even after decriminalisation, there was a strong social stigma. As a young man, Sanderson struggled to meet other gay men until he saw a newspaper advert for 'The Campaign for Homosexual Equality'. He wrote to them and was put in touch with a group in Sheffield. The group was mostly social as its members feared the consequences of public activism. Sanderson later founded a Rotherham group that gradually became more involved in activism.
Sanderson's activism began when he decided to organise gay discos, which led to a long-running battle with the local council which refused to hire out their rooms for gay events. Over the years he became increasingly involved in gay activism as a writer and campaigner. He also wrote books providing advice for gay men such as How to be a Happy Homosexual.
Sanderson's family were never very religious. As a youth he had experimented with different Christian denominations and concluded it was not for him. As he became more involved with gay activism, he saw how much opposition to gay equality came from religious groups. He joined the National Secular Society and became increasingly involved when his partner Keith Porteous Wood became general secretary in 1996. Sanderson joined the NSS council of management and was president from 2006 to 2017.
There was a lot of overlap between gay and secularist activism. Sanderson notes: "I saw the value of secularism in protecting gay rights.
"Religion is the greatest opponent of justice for homosexuals and when laws are made according to religious principles, as they are in much of the Islamic World, then homosexuals become criminalised, persecuted and in constant peril."
Major campaigns during Sanderson's time at the NSS included the abolition of England's blasphemy laws, last used against Gay News in 1977 and finally abolished in 2008, and the protest against the state visit of Pope Benedict who had declared gay and transgender people "a bigger threat to mankind than even the destruction of the rain forests". The NSS also campaigned against religious exemptions to equality law.
During Sanderson's time as NSS president, the organisation shifted its focus from atheism to secularism. Sanderson explains that arguing about religious scripture and belief achieves little and often serves only to entrench the believer's views. However, limiting the political power of religious groups prevents them from imposing their beliefs on others. He has also defended the right of street preachers to read passages from the Bible that condemn homosexuality because his experiences in gay activism have taught him the value of free speech.
In 2017, Terry Sanderson was diagnosed with bladder cancer. The epilogue describes his treatment, which has so far been successful but nevertheless forced him to confront his mortality. His final message is to the next generation. He reflects on the incredible progress that has been made in gay rights in his lifetime. He warns of the growth of religious fundamentalism and notes that homophobia is still widespread. He says that it will be for the next generation of gay people to resist attempts to make them suffer as previous generations did.
The Reluctant Gay Activist is an excellent account of the gay rights and secularist movements as well as an insight into Sanderson's personal history. It shows us how much the world has changed during his lifetime whilst reminding us that we should ensure that future changes are in a positive direction.
Beware the government’s “new normal” of faith-based public services
Posted: Thu, 23rd Sep 2021
A new government fund exclusively for faith groups threatens to embed religious privilege into public services, warns Megan Manson.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government has recently announced a new £1 million pilot fund for organisations that provide community services. But there's a catch – your organisation has to be faith-based in order to qualify.
This is puzzling. There are many charities and other organisations that provide excellent community support. Some have a faith ethos, some do not. So why limit this fund only to groups that are religious?
The very idea seems to fly in the face of equality law. Religion or belief is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010, which means you generally cannot treat people unfavourably due to their religion or their lack of religious beliefs.
What's more, there are genuine concerns about giving certain faith groups unfettered access to public funds for community projects. For some less scrupulous groups, access to large numbers of vulnerable, desperate members of the public is an irresistible opportunity to proselytise. There are also concerns about how inclusive some faith-based charities truly are – just last week, Dundee Foodbank was slammed for advertising for a stock coordinator who can "evidence a live church connection".
Then there are the worries regarding safeguarding. Just weeks ago, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse highlighted "egregious failings" in the way a wide variety religious organisations have handled child abuse. Surely these issues should be addressed before the government makes overtures to faith groups with the offer of cash?
We're not the only ones concerned. Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters, which defends the rights of women in ethnic minority communities, says her own organisation has to "constantly contend" with faith groups that claim to deliver services to women and children subject to domestic abuse but in reality puts them "at further risk of abuse and harm". She says public funds should go to community groups, "especially those working on unpopular issues within their communities such as violence against women and girls".
So why has the government apparently decided that religious groups are more worthy of support than non-religious ones?
The fact is, the government has been building up to this kind of project for some time. It wants faith groups in particular to deliver more of our public services. Last year Conservative MP Danny Kruger released a report recommending the government "invite the country's faith leaders to make a grand offer of help". He dismissed concerns regarding faith-based public services as "faith illiteracy" and "faith phobia".
And in December, the government's 'faith engagement adviser' Colin Bloom launched a biased review into engagement with faith communities seemingly designed to reach a conclusion that would please religious interest groups. The call for evidence attached to the review said: "Because the review is specifically about faith and religion, priority will be given to responses that fit within those parameters." And a press release on the launch said it was calling for views only from "people of all faiths", with no mention of anyone else.
The 'Faith New Deal Pilot Fund' launched this month is the next stage in the government's plan to incorporate religion into the workings of community support. This is quite clear from its prospectus.
The prospectus says the government wishes to "embed 'a new normal' of national government and local government working in partnerships with faith-based groups." It says the 'Faith New Deal' aims to "reset the public sector's mindset towards faith groups."
Danny Kruger has hinted at what may happen if the public sector do not change their mindset, or the wider public do not embrace this "new normal". Individuals who raise concerns about faith groups in public services may stand accused of "faith phobia". In a world where accusations of faith-based "phobia" can result in losing one's job, the threat alone may be enough to silence criticism.
The prospectus also reveals that the outcomes of this pilot "will be captured and fed into a Faith Compact that will be developed". The "Faith Compact" will be "a set of partnership principles for sustainable collaboration between national government, local government and faith communities."
I'm sure it's no coincidence that the 'faith compact' sounds a lot like the 'faith covenant' developed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on faith and society in order to guide interactions between local authorities, faith groups and the general public.
And it's possibly no coincidence that around the beginning of this year, the faith covenant was quietly changed to remove a clause that stipulated faith groups should refrain from proselytising. This change was made following a meeting of the APPG where one religious leader said this clause was a "stumbling block for a couple of churches".
The NSS previously supported the faith covenant. But since this essential clause was removed, the covenant can no longer be relied upon to protect people from unwanted evangelism.
It's notable that one of the objectives applicants of the 'Faith New Deal' fund must support includes "debt advice". This is where a glaring example of unwanted proselytising regularly occurs. Christians Against Poverty (CAP) is a major provider of debt counselling – and uses that opportunity to preach to vulnerable people in financial trouble. AdviceUK, the national body which represents the interests of advice-providing organisations, has terminated CAP's membership, because it considers the "emotional fee" of the offer or expectation of prayer whilst offering debt advice to fall below the ethical standards expected of service providers.
Since the launch of the 'Faith New Deal', the NSS has written to the ministry on multiple occasions asking what similar support will be available for non-religious groups providing community services, and what safeguards will be put in place to ensure the groups in receipt of the grant do not proselytise and do not exercise any forms of discrimination. So far, no response.
The 'Faith New Deal' fund is religious privilege in action: government funding exclusively for faith groups as part of a scheme to hand over more community services to religion – and to get both local government and the public to accept this as the "new normal".
The prospectus says applicants must show how they will deliver "improved community cohesion", "improved outcomes for marginalised groups" and "build greater trust in local public services". But without addressing the genuine concerns regarding proselytising and discrimination in faith-based public services, the 'Faith New Deal' surely risks undermining all three.
Giving generous funding only to religious groups is divisive and the very antithesis of community cohesion. Having no safeguards to protect people from discrimination will have worrying implications for marginalised groups, including LGBT+ people, women and people from minority religions. And being prayed to or preached at while seeking a community service will be disastrous for public trust.
As they stand, the 'Faith New Deal' and the proposed 'faith compact' do not bode well for inclusive public services – let alone the principle of separating religion and state.
But they do bode well for a government keen to attract votes from faith groups.
If the government wants to demonstrate it truly cares about our local communities, and the organisations that work tirelessly to help local people in need, it must ensure its funding is available to all decent charities and community groups, both religious and non-religious alike. And it must ensure those groups prioritise serving people – not religious interests.
Image by Ch AFleks from Pixabay
