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.
The PM's Catholic wedding shows the need for a church-state divorce
Posted: Wed, 9th Jun 2021
In light of his Catholic wedding, Boris Johnson has handed over the duty of advising on the appointment of bishops. Megan Manson asks why the prime minister should have any business in church affairs in the first place.
A head of government will no longer advise the state religion on appointing its clerics because he got married according to the rites of a different sect.
It's a story we might expect from a distant, troubled theocracy. But it's exactly what's happened here in the United Kingdom following Boris Johnson's surprise Catholic wedding.
The wedding, coupled with Johnson's infant baptism into Catholicism, means one can convincingly argue he is a professing Catholic. And according to the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, nobody "professing the Roman Catholic religion" may advise the crown "directly or indirectly" in the appointment of Church of England bishops.
Thanks to reforms introduced when Gordon Brown was prime minister, when there's a vacancy for a bishop the prime minister no longer chooses nominations for bishops from a list. The PM's job is to pass a name which is pre-chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission to the queen. But as Joshua Rozenberg has argued, it still seems fair to say this constitutes advising the crown on the appointment, at least "indirectly".
If Johnson continued doing this, he could face being found guilty of "a high misdemeanour, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the crown". So understandably lord chancellor Robert Buckland (a practising Anglican) is taking on the job instead to avoid any potential legal cases.
The whole fiasco raises uncomfortable points about the established church's impact on our democracy.
The first point is that anti-Catholic bigotry still lingers on the statute books. The law barring Johnson from advising on bishops is explicitly anti-Catholic – a prime minister belonging to any other faith, or one of no faith, could perform this duty without breaking the law. As one No 10 source said: "It's an incredibly anachronistic thing that a Jew or a Muslim could nominate a bishop but not a Catholic."
It's by no means the only example of anti-Catholicism at work in our state. Catholics are explicitly prohibited from becoming the monarch. Indeed in 2018 Princess Alexandra of Hanover lost her place in the line of succession after deciding to become a Catholic. The coronation ceremony also has anti-Catholic overtones. The anti-Catholic discrimination within our constitution is completely at odds with our supposed values of equality and tolerance. It surely does nothing to alleviate entrenched sectarian divisions and resentment, particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. And it weakens our ability to speak out against state-endorsed oppression of religious minorities in other countries, such as Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.
And perhaps the more obvious point is: what business does any government minister have in appointing bishops? It makes about as much sense as the PM advising on the next chief Druid, or the next England captain.
The state's role in appointing bishops exposes weaknesses in our constitution when antiquated laws clash with the realities of the 21st century UK's pluralistic society. It also creates a convoluted process for the church - which would arguably be better served by disestablishment, as it would have the independence to pursue its mission without state interference.
The relationship between the head of government and the bishops serves as a reminder of the bishops' unique position within parliament. Twenty-six C of E bishops are granted specially reserved seats in the House of Lords as of right. Iran is the only other country to automatically grant seats to clerics in its legislature. The Anglican bishops wield power both in terms of their ability to vote on issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, and their access to key decision-makers in the corridors of Westminster. Their presence in the House of Lords is an anti-democratic elephant in the room.
Handing the job of advising on bishops over to Buckland saves the government from the task of tackling these knotty problems. It's a fudge, and it's one that will probably work for the time being.
But other fudges made to accommodate the established church are getting harder to ignore - and have a more direct impact on people in Britain. Consider, for example, why one third of our state schools are (mostly C of E) faith schools, and why we have laws requiring Christian collective worship in all state schools. In the increasingly irreligious and religiously diverse society of the UK, the discriminatory nature of faith schools and collective worship stands out like a sore thumb.
Once again this stems back to the church's ties to the state. This is all made possible thanks to the raft of exemptions put in the Equality Act 2010 in order to avoid the question of religion in schools. During the drafting of the act the Joint Commission on Human Rights, which played a key role, recommended the government "revisit" the collective worship law. It also pointed out the incompatibility of allowing faith schools to discriminate on religious grounds in their admissions criteria.
But rather than tackle this issue head-on by challenging the Church of England's role in state education, the government opted to create exemptions in the act that would give the church and other religious organisations free rein to discriminate against children on the basis of religion or belief. It opted for a fudge, to prop up the status quo and to avoid confronting the more challenging, fundamental problems caused by the relationship between church and state.
Over half the British population have no religion. Little more than 10% are affiliated with the Church of England, including only one per cent of 18-24 year olds. Prior to the pandemic less than two per cent of the population regularly attended C of E church services. With every passing day the UK is outgrowing the established church, whose privileged place in our democracy looks increasingly unsustainable.
The problems caused by Johnson's apparent Catholicism acutely highlight the conflict between the ancient codes directly flowing from the establishment of the church, and the modern concept of human rights and equality for all. There is simply no getting away from the fact that you cannot simultaneously have a state religion, and a democracy that treats all citizens of all religion and belief backgrounds equally. The problems the PM's marriage has highlighted should prompt divorce proceedings between church and state.
Image: 10 Downing Street, OGL 3, via Wikimedia Commons
Requires improvement: Ofsted review shows need for a major rethink on RE
Posted: Wed, 2nd Jun 2021
A review has highlighted significant problems with the way RE is taught. Alastair Lichten argues that it shows the need to ask fundamental questions about the purpose of education about religion.
Ofsted recently published a subject level review of religious education, the first since its 2013 review found that the structures of local determination underpinning the subject were not fit for purpose. In the years since there has been a plethora of initiatives, commissions and reports calling for fundamental reform of the subject. Unfortunately, there is little in this review to suggest this has impacted practice in schools.
Given Ofsted's remit, the report is more limited than some which have looked at the subject. It says nothing about the poor public perception of RE. Because of the Section 48 'religiosity inspections' regime, Ofsted cannot inspect confessional RE in many faith schools.
But the review strongly suggests that the lack of an agreed pedagogical approach, aims and knowledge base for the subject is holding it back at all levels. In particular the review finds that approaches are often unscholarly because clear curriculum aims are not identified or because teachers pick approaches to fit content, rather than content to fit an overall pedagogy. While the freedom of teachers to create innovative lessons and try different approaches is important, the report finds that activities are often selected because they are perceived to be "engaging" or fun, without any clear curricular links.
Many religious groups resist what they perceive as an overly secular sociological approach to the study of religion. Philosophy of religion is also a powerful tool, though not suitable for analysing all topics within the subject and rarely utilised before key stage five. However, Ofsted recommends that different "ways of knowing", which could be translated as tools or approaches to study, be developed among all ages. This could be made more difficult when other less scholarly approaches or those only suited to particular religious traditions, such as theology and efforts to look at religions exclusively on their own terms, are encouraged - particularly in faith schools.
The review finds plenty of examples of positive coverage of religion being prioritised over critical approaches. This is explicitly called "unscholarly" and repeatedly contrasted with best practices.
Teaching about controversies where religion intrudes on the rights of others is often popular with students - although the report argues an excessive focus on this can give students a distorted view.
Legislation in England requires that RE syllabi "reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain". The report finds that this should be a starting point not a prescription, but that it can "unintentionally cause tensions", in disputes over how much time should be devoted to different religious or nonreligious traditions.
For example, it points out that "unfortunately, some leaders interpret the legislation in percentage terms, for example by devoting 51% of RE to the study of Christianity and 49% to 'other religions'". In many schools, particularly those with a religious designation, this can be even more unbalanced. For example, the Catholic Education Service estimates that 85-90% of RE curriculum time at key stage four should be devoted to Catholicism. Many Church of England dioceses require two thirds or more of RE content to be focused on Christianity. Such denominational RE has a wide impact on the subject but is beyond Ofsted's review.
The report finds that "simply covering a greater number of religious and non-religious traditions (as inclusive as that sounds) is no guarantee of a high-quality RE curriculum". But for too long there has been a belief that criticism of bias in the subject can be headed off through adding more diverse positive coverage. This only reinforces what I call the advertising space approach.
This can create particular problems when external speakers or groups are invited into schools. As the report says, such visits by faith (it does not add "or belief") representatives can "be valuable experiences for pupils because they are genuine and organic". However, "sometimes teachers can be unclear about the curriculum object". These visits can be exploited by external groups for inappropriate evangelism and teachers are often either not expected to or not prepared to set appropriate boundaries.
The disconnect between the ambitions of Ofsted and reformers on the one hand, and what actually happens in RE on the other, is only growing. Too often practitioners - from teachers to subject leaders and resource creators - work forward from what they would like to do, to find a purpose for the subject. This gets things the wrong way round and serves the interests of religious groups, rather than those of children and society.
If we want to change that, we need to be prepared to ask more fundamental questions about the purpose of education about religion - and how it fits within the wider curriculum. We need to be prepared for truly radical reform.
Image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com.
Is the C of E ashamed of discrimination in school admissions?
Posted: Fri, 28th May 2021
Research suggests the Church of England downplays the extent of religious discrimination in admissions to the schools it runs. Its embarrassment shows the need to end this practice, says Alastair Lichten.
There is a widespread misconception, encouraged by the Church of England, that 'its' faith schools are open to all and do not religiously discriminate in admissions.
Like the C of E's efforts to avoid church schools being described as faith schools, efforts to downplay or obfuscate discriminatory admissions have various motivations.
Firstly, it is true that compared to other faith – but not community ethos – schools, C of E schools practice far lower levels of religious selection and are more interested in reaching beyond their own faith community.
Secondly, the C of E is more relaxed about efforts to reduce religious selection in admissions - although again only when compared to other faith groups. There are also voices within the church itself calling for a total end to religious selection.
Thirdly, and a cynic might say most importantly, the C of E simply recognises that religious discrimination in admissions is deeply unpopular, particularly in new school proposals.
For example, a new C of E faith school has been proposed in Kingston upon Thames. The local diocese claims the school will be open "to all faiths and no faith", and "children from families of any faith or no faith will be able to gain admission". This downplays the fact that up to a third of places will be selected based on religion. Similar language has been used in other C of E school proposals.
A row in the local press in Oldham this week has been revealing for similar reasons. Those behind a proposal to open a discriminatory C of E faith school have claimed its admissions policy is "specifically designed to be very inclusive". Local campaigners have rightly criticised these claims.
So, does the rhetoric match the reality? We looked at a random sample of 110 C of E schools' admissions policies to examine the extent of these practices. We found that 44 of those schools – 40% – had some sort of religious discrimination or selection in their admissions. And eight of those schools used potentially misleading language to obfuscate or downplay their religious selection.
Several schools emphasised how open they were to children from the local area, even when that was a low priority within their admissions criteria. For example:
- A school which said "admissions are prioritised for siblings and children living nearest to the school before offering places more widely". In reality, locality was fifth on its list of admissions criteria, below attendance at either a specific church, or any local Christian church.
- A school which claimed it "serves the local community and extends a warm welcome to all children whose parents live or work in the area". In reality, locality was seventh on its list of admissions criteria, below three other religiously selective criteria.
- A school which said "not being a church goer will not prevent your children from having a place", "you don't have to be a Christian or attend church to apply for a place", and "we welcome all children (of any & no faith)". In reality, locality was sixth on its list of admissions criteria, below attendance at either a specific church, or any local Christian church.
Other examples included:
- A school that said it was "inclusive" and it "welcomes children from all backgrounds". In reality, if it was oversubscribed, its criteria for admission included: "A commitment to the ethos of the Church of England. The criteria for this will be a letter from a minister confirming attendance of at least three times per year."
- A school that said: "We welcome children of all faiths or no faith". In reality, its oversubscription criteria give priority to those whose parents are "either practising members of the Church of England or practising members of another Christian denomination".
- A school that said: "We are a school rooted in the community and welcome applications from all." In reality a third of places at the school are foundation places (subject to specific religious selection) and for the remaining places locality is the bottom criterion, below attendance at specific local churches.
Defenders of these discriminatory practices may protest that they do not preclude those of other faith backgrounds from gaining places. They may claim that prioritising those of specific faiths does not indicate that those of other or no faith backgrounds are not welcome at all. And they may say that in practice undersubscription and low levels of religious adherence mean selection is lower than policies would theoretically permit.
These excuses are not always relevant, but they are always unpersuasive. A school which reserves the right to discriminate sends a damaging message, regardless of the extent it does so in practice.
In undersubscribed faith schools, discriminatory admissions criteria may not be applied. However, this increases the opposite problem of pupils being assigned faith schools against their families' wishes.
And our researchers also found that in 13 of the schools, language strongly suggested that parents would have to accept all aspects of the school's religious ethos. Examples included:
- "The governors welcome applications from all members of the community and ask all parents to respect the Christian ethos of the school and its importance to the community. Therefore, the governors hope that all pupils will take part in the Christian worship of the school and will attend Religious Education lessons."
- "Governors hope that parents who have chosen this school for their child have done so with the knowledge that it is a Church of England school with a distinctive Christian ethos. Governors, therefore, expect parents to give their full support to the ethos of the school."
- "We ask all parents applying for a place here to respect the ethos and its importance to the school community."
Parents attempting to withdraw their children from confessional religious education or collective worship often find such language is used to claim they have accepted all aspects of the school ethos. This can further dissuade non-Christian families, regardless of admissions.
Many may also assume that C of E faith schools will probably have voluntary controlled (VC as opposed to voluntary aided, VA) status. VC schools can only rarely religiously select, when permitted by their local authority. But there are 90% as many VA C of E faith schools as VC ones: 1,443 and 1,604, respectively. And in 2017 researchers found that 69% of C of E secondary schools practice some form of religious selection, affecting 50% of places across these schools.
Organising a school around an exclusive religious ethos fundamentally undermines claims of inclusivity. However, genuinely open admissions can at least reduce social segregation and force greater efforts towards inclusion.
The C of E is clearly embarrassed enough about religious selection to try sweeping it under the rug. It's time it was consigned to the dustbin.
Image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com.
The outcome of the Batley investigation is a surrender of liberal principles
Posted: Thu, 27th May 2021
As an investigation into the Batley Grammar affair concludes, Stephen Evans says we should recognise the censorious precedent it has set.
Earlier this year a number of teachers were suspended after an image of the prophet Muhammad was used in a lesson to initiate a discussion about blasphemy at Batley Grammar School in West Yorkshire.
Pupils were forced out of school as angry protesters gathered at the gates demanding action against one of the teachers for 'offending' "the whole Muslim community". Some protesters accused him of stirring up anti-Muslim hatred.
The school's head teacher apologised "unequivocally" and sought to placate the protestors by saying the use of the image was "totally inappropriate". Meanwhile, one teacher and his family were forced into hiding after receiving threats.
An independent investigation launched by the academy trust behind the school has now concluded. It's found that the image was used for an "educational purpose" to benefit students and was not used with the intention of causing offence. The suspensions have been lifted – and rightly so.
Everyone's primary concern should be for the safety and wellbeing of the teacher at the centre of this and his family. We should hope they can now move on and rebuild their lives. I would be surprised if the teacher returns to the school.
But we should also recognise that the investigators have given the protesters what they craved by imposing a de facto blasphemy code on the school.
The executive summary of the investigation says: "It is not necessary for staff to use the material in question to deliver the learning outcomes on the subject of blasphemy; or any such images of the type used… in any trust RS lessons, or any other lessons."
Nobody claimed it was "necessary". But if you're teaching about blasphemy and freedom of expression, you may reasonably think the most effective way of exploring this subject involves using images that have caused controversy. You may also think that if you don't show them, pupils will look them up on the internet anyway, and the best environment for this learning is a teacher facilitated discussion. Teachers appreciate the diversity of their students and can foster civility to ensure students learn about sensitive topics in authentic, sensitive, engaging and meaningful ways.
On a fundamental point, the outcome of this investigation represents a capitulation to the mob. The reason this school and others won't use such resources again is not because they aren't educationally justified, but because they don't want to cause offence. Not because they aren't conducive to learning, but because of the threat of disruption and violence. This is how a de facto blasphemy law works.
Right from the start, the National Secular Society urged the government to take the lead on this issue. We warned that treating it as little more than a local dispute would leave the investigation more vulnerable to pressure from assertive, intolerant religious voices.
And that has now happened. The outcome of the investigation has been influenced by unreasonable religious demands and intimidation and threats from religious extremists.
In many ways, the trust's response is a clever fudge. It endeavours to conciliate between the various parties by offering them all something, while selling out on liberal, secularist principles. It says it's committed to "ensuring offence is not caused". This is a route to censorship that sets a very dangerous precedent.
And the outcome of this local investigation will inevitably affect teachers' ability to do their jobs across the country. One trainee teacher at Manchester Metropolitan University who expressed concern over the weak response to the Batley Grammar affair and said he would be willing to use images of religious figures in class has already been called to a 'fitness to practise' meeting.
Teachers have been given the message that they should censor themselves. And that message could be relevant on any other number of sensitive subjects where well-organised and vocal groups could take offence.
When the incident first happened the Department for Education said it was "never acceptable to threaten or intimidate teachers", adding that schools are "free to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their curriculum". With fundamental principles at stake, the government should now launch its own investigation into the handling of the affair and consider how we got ourselves into the position where religious extremists have a veto on which resources teachers can use in the classroom.
But instead the DfE has simply said "parents, families and the local community" should "recognise the findings of the investigation" and "welcome and support" the trust's plan to "strengthen its oversight of the curriculum".
Everyone will understandably want to move on from this now. But before we do, we should recognise that an Islamic blasphemy code has been quietly imposed. Teachers' and pupils' freedoms have been sacrificed to appease offence takers.
The outcome of the Batley affair is another damaging chip away at the fundamental right to free expression and inquiry.
Additional note - Friday 28 May
The NSS has today written to the DfE about this. The letter urged the department to investigate the handling of the protests outside Batley Grammar School.
It added that the investigation should consider the wider context of religious fundamentalism being imposed on schools through protests and intimidation, and ask what can be done to protect and support schools in such situations.
Image: Oxana Maher / Batley Grammar School / CC BY-SA 2.0.
Parents’ religious wishes must not trump children’s safety and education
Posted: Thu, 20th May 2021
Every child has been withdrawn from sex education classes at an independent faith school. Megan Manson says the parental right of withdrawal is incompatible with children's right to an education that keeps them safe.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
School inspectors recently concluded that leaders of an independent Orthodox Jewish faith school had "fulfilled their statutory responsibilities" regarding sex education – despite no children at the school taking any sex education classes.
According to its Ofsted report, Ateres Girls High School in Gateshead allows for sex education to be taught but all parents have withdrawn their children from these classes. That's nearly 250 teenage girls who are missing out on sex ed.
It is almost comical that Ofsted can consider this school to be fulfilling its duties to provide sex education when none of its pupils are actually studying it. But the implications of this are no laughing matter.
Sex education and the law
The requirement that all schools teaching secondary age pupils must provide sex education is relatively recent. It's thanks to the implementation of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, intended to promote the welfare and safeguarding of children.
The fact that this act includes a legal duty for schools to provide relationships and sex education (RSE) tells us something about the importance of RSE in keeping children safe.
Department for Education guidance further illustrates how sex education is, first and foremost, a form of safeguarding. According to the guidance, sex education should include information about contraception, pregnancy and abortion, sexually transmitted infections, LGBT+ orientations, abuse and violence within relationships, and where to get further advice on all these issues. This is all essential to prepare teenagers for adult life and to make sure the relationships they form are healthy and happy.
However, the Children and Social Work Act also requires that parents be given the right to request their child to be withdrawn from sex education. This is to accommodate parents, usually from conservative religious backgrounds, who object to their children learning about sex, even in an age-appropriate manner and in order to keep them from harm.
This is why Ofsted is technically correct about Ateres Girls High School. On paper at least, the school appears to be providing sex education. But the parents have en masse decided to exercise their right to bar their children from sex ed classes. To what extent the school has influenced this decision is unclear; the Ofsted report said the school's policy "anticipates that parents are likely to withdraw their child".
The parental right of withdrawal has therefore rendered Ofsted powerless to ensure pupils receive sex education.
The case for ending the right of withdrawal
What happens when teenagers aren't given access to sex education? A recent report from Jewish counter-extremism group Nahamu revealed some of the dire consequences.
The report identified the lack of RSE as a key factor in forced marriage within Charedi ('ultra-Orthodox') Jewish communities. Charedi communities are notoriously insular and highly controlled by religious leaders. Access to information, be it via television, newspapers, the internet or books, is strictly limited.
Nahamu highlights that Charedi Jews typically marry young after a very short engagement and may not be made aware of the sexual aspects of marriage until the run up to their weddings. They may not understand the concept of consent or be able to recognise dangers such as domestic abuse or marital rape. This is why the report recommends that all RSE programmes, including in independent faith schools, include information about forced marriage.
But this is of little use if parents are able to withdraw their children from sex education. And as Nahamu makes clear, young people in conservative religious communities who are the most likely to be withdrawn from sex education are those who are in the greatest need of these classes.
Children from conservative Christian, Muslim and other religious backgrounds may also have this information withheld at their parents' wishes, and they too are vulnerable to issues around abuse and unhealthy relationships.
It is notable that while Ateres Girls High School did not fail its inspection in terms of sex education, it did fail to meet equality standards by refusing to teach about LGBT+ orientations. This too is a serious problem. Nahamu's report highlighted that the "total exclusion" of reference to LGBT+ people in Charedi communities means that LGBT+ Charedi Jews "face additional challenges and very serious issues of consent".
It is also common sense to make sure all young people are aware that LGBT+ people exist. Imagine being a teenage boy in a conservative religious community growing up to realise you are attracted to other boys rather than girls. Unless you're aware that homosexuality exists and that it is quite normal, completely harmless and nothing to be ashamed about, this could be a terrifying ordeal with serious mental health implications. It is also important for schools to challenge stigmatising and discriminatory attitudes that pupils may hold.
For these reasons, teaching about LGBT+ people is not optional – there is no right of withdrawal from this part of the school curriculum. In this case, the government has decided the right of pupils to an education that prepares them for adult life in the 21st century trumps the desire of communities to censor information about LGBT+ orientations for religious reasons.
Independent schools, religious or not, should retain greater freedom than state-funded schools over the content and delivery of their curricula. However, that freedom should not come at the cost of putting pupils' welfare at serious risk. Depriving young people, especially those in insular communities, of information about their own bodies and healthy relationships makes them extremely vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and entering marriages that they regret for the rest of their lives.
The right of parents to withdraw children from sex education is in direct conflict with the right of children to learn about a key facet of adulthood and how to protect themselves as they grow up. It's time for the balance of these rights to be shifted towards the children. All young people, whatever their religious or cultural background, should be given genuine and unconditional access to objective, inclusive and age-appropriate education about relationships and sex.
Image: © palidachan/Shutterstock.com.
