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.
Faith groups have no business inspecting schools
Posted: Fri, 30th Apr 2021
Publicly funded school inspections which enable clerics to exert undue influence should have no place in a modern education system, argues Stephen Evans.
In a 21st century school system, should faith groups have the authority to inspect schools to determine whether the education they provide is sufficiently religious?
Most people will be familiar with England's school's inspectorate, Ofsted – or its equivalents in Wales and Scotland, Estyn and Education Scotland. These bodies inspect schools to provide information to parents, to promote improvement and to hold schools to account for the public money they receive.
But many people won't be aware that these aren't the only school inspections required by law.
Around one third of state-funded schools are faith schools. These schools are subject to additional inspections by religious bodies. The inspections are mandated by Sections 48 and 50 of the Education Act 2005. Their purpose is to evaluate the religious aspects of school life – denominational religious education, worship and the overall approach to promoting a religious ethos.
You might think that ongoing secularisation and the decline in the church‐going population would give rise to a corresponding decline in religion's involvement in state‐funded education. Instead, successive governments have bolstered religion's influence over state schooling by funding ever more faith schools.
Section 48 inspections are yet another mechanism for religious groups to exert control and influence children's education. They ensure organised religion remains a powerful force in education at both state and community levels. The inspections are used by faith bodies to pressure school leaders into ramping up the religiosity in schools. They influence decisions about the way in which education is provided and the environment in which it is delivered.
School leaders are more qualified and better placed than religious bodies to make these decisions. They understand their school communities better than anyone, and will usually be keenly aware that, unlike a church congregation, their pupil intake is far from religiously homogenous. Few families choose schools on the basis of their religious character, and many parents have little option other than a faith school. Yet religious inspection regimes coerce schools into acting like places of worship.
Now a new National Secular Society report has made the case for ending these inspections.
The report highlights numerous examples from school leaders of inspections being used to "sell the Church of England message", as one teacher puts it. The Catholic Church itself says the inspection process is intended to ensure schools "fulfil their mission of making Christ know". This is state-funded evangelism, plain and simple.
Take this Section 48 inspection report where a Catholic school in Birmingham is judged as "outstanding" for being "innovative in the way it uses the internet to evangelise"; gives staff, pupils and governors "many opportunities to pray"; and delivers relationships and sex education in a way that is "consistent with the teachings of the church".
In other words, the school is praised for inculcating children into the Catholic faith – rather than giving them the freedom to make up their own minds about their beliefs, or giving them the education they need about relationships and sex.
A key role of these 'religiosity inspections' is to assess the school's religious education. If religious education is a genuine academic subject, it should receive the same scrutiny as any other area of the curriculum.
But particularly in faith schools, religious education is too often an exercise in faith formation – a hangover from history more akin to confessional 'religious instruction'. The justification that Section 48 inspections are needed to assess RE provision tends to prove this point.
Teaching about religion or belief in schools should be objective, critically-informed and pluralistic. And like any other area of the curriculum, it should be inspected by Ofsted.
The purpose of education should be to develop critical faculties. But religiosity inspections are all about ensuring schools promulgate faith and impose acts of worship on pupils. This is all educationally inappropriate.
Even in an education system that includes faith schools, such extensive clerical meddling shouldn't be permitted, let alone funded with public money.
Yet the taxpayer stumps up £760,000 every year to fund inspections that serve the interests of religious groups, rather than pupils.
Britain is becoming more non-religious and more religiously diverse. It needs a secular education system that educates children of all faith and belief backgrounds together and enables children to make up their own minds about their beliefs.
And if we are going the cut the archaic connection between religion and state education, bringing an end to religion's role in inspecting schools would be a good place to start.
This blog is also published on Medium.
Regressive religious demands shouldn't hold sway over political decisions
Posted: Thu, 15th Apr 2021
Much of a pre-election letter from Scotland's Catholic bishops highlights the risks of allowing religious dogma to dictate public policy, says Stephen Evans.
With the Scottish parliamentary election approaching, Scotland's Catholic bishops have urged the faithful to play their part "in putting human life and the inviolable dignity of the human person at the centre of Scotland's political discourse".
In a pre-election 1,000 word pastoral letter, distributed via Scotland's 500 Catholic parishes, the bishops ask Catholic voters to give consideration to several key areas of concern, including family and work; freedom of expression, thought, conscience and religion; and Catholic schools.
The National Secular Society and the Catholic Church have been, unusually, aligned on the subject of free speech in Scotland in recent months. We were both among those who warned that the hate crime bill, which recently became law, would unreasonably restrict freedom of expression. Our lobbying helped to secure amendments which will go a long way toward protecting freedom of speech, particularly on religion.
So in principle I agree with the bishops that voters should caution politicians against imposing "unjust restrictions on free speech, free expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion" - although naturally our opinions on what constitutes a reasonable limitation to religious freedom is likely to differ in many instances.
But too often the Catholic Church's teachings have been instrumental in undermining the rights of others. And much of the bishops' letter should serve as a reminder of the dangers of allowing religious dogma to drive political decisions.
For instance, the bishops call for Catholic schools to "be allowed to flourish". This is merely a self-interested plea for outdated sectarian schooling to persist. As well as enabling religious groups to proselytise with public money, religious schools foster segregation of children and undermine equality.
The bishops talk of the "right of parents to choose a school for their children which corresponds to their own convictions", saying public authorities have a duty to guarantee this parental right. This is true. But there is no obligation to provide funding for religious schools. If parents really want their child educated within their religious tradition, they can do that, but they shouldn't expect the state to support that choice with public money. A better use of public money is to provide schools that are open, inclusive and equally welcoming to all children whatever their religion and belief backgrounds.
If politicians want Scotland to be a tolerant, open, diverse country, then making sure children of all faith and belief backgrounds are educated together is an obvious starting point.
Meanwhile the church appeals to "human dignity" as it, predictably, makes the case against abortion rights and assisted dying.
On abortion, the church claims that "caring for the unborn and their mothers is a fundamental measure of a caring and compassionate society"; elsewhere it talks of "the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo". Behind this rhetoric lies a wholly unreasonable demand – that women's control of their own bodies should be subject to a religious veto. As Oliver Kamm has written, the impact of this would violate "personal liberty, the exercise of conscience, women's rights and the sanctity of family life".
And the church's support for the status quo on assisted dying would mean people facing intolerable and incurable suffering would be unable to seek help to end their lives if they so choose. Decisions over assisted dying and reproductive rights should be based on medical ethics and personal autonomy, not religious dogma.
The church doesn't just have a limited view of 'dignity', which would justify the denial of rights to those who don't abide by its teachings. When it urges politicians to value the family, its website makes clear that this is based on "monogamous marriage between a man and a woman". This outdated vision excludes many Scots – most obviously those who are LGBT, or those who have children without being married.
At election time candidates or parties may be tempted to pander to religious interest groups in the hope of benefiting from a perceived block vote. The bishops' positions should be a reminder of the risks of doing that. If they want to promote the interests of Scottish society as a whole, Scotland's politicians should ensure regressive religious demands don't hold sway over their decisions.
Image: Diego Cervo/Shutterstock.com.
Women Leaving Islam: the rights of those who leave religion must be protected
Posted: Wed, 14th Apr 2021
The film Women Leaving Islam shows the risks facing those who stand up for the fundamental right to leave religion and the ongoing neglect of minorities within minorities in public life, says Helen Nicholls.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
In 2019 the British Social Attitudes survey revealed that more than half of the British population has no religion. Over the years many British people have chosen to leave their religion. For many, this is a gradual drift and the process is not necessarily difficult, especially if their families are not very religious. However, for others the process is not only painful, but also dangerous.
In the documentary Women Leaving Islam, six ex-Muslim women tell their stories. These are often harrowing. Halima Salat underwent female genital mutilation and was later subjected to an exorcism after trying to prevent a little girl from undergoing the same treatment. Fauzia Ilyas was prevented from seeing her daughter after her divorce. Fay Rahman describes an abusive childhood with a violent father. However, one of the most chilling parts of the programme comes right at the beginning:
"These interviews are limited to public activists as many other women originally interviewed didn't want their identities revealed or pulled out due to the personal risks involved."
This leaves us to wonder what stories the women who pulled out would have told and what might have happened to them if they had gone public.
The revelation that many interviewees were afraid to speak out publicly came as no surprise. At the NSS, we often hear from ex-Muslims, and count many amongst our membership. Some can never return to their countries of origin; others fear that they will be sent back. They are not only in danger in other countries. An ex-Muslim living in Britain once told me that he feared his family so much that if they came to his area he would move. One of our members told us that even in Britain he lives in fear, which takes the joy from his life. Another ex-Muslim living in a Muslim-majority country described the difficulties he faces every day. He did not ask us for anything but thanked me just for listening to his story.
In the documentary, Fay Rahman, who was brought up in London, describes how family members refused to intervene to prevent her father's violence. Eventually they turned on her when she called the police after he beat her badly. She left but could do nothing to help her younger siblings after the family did their best to cover up the abuse. At this point, she had not left Islam. Her offence was to involve outsiders. This echoes the pattern seen with sexual abuse within many religious organisations, where allegations have been handled internally to prevent outside interference. A public reluctance to discuss abuses within minority groups reinforces the silence.
Strict religious communities often go to great lengths to prevent members from leaving. This may take the form of educating children in illegal unregistered schools so they are unfit for life in modern Britain or keeping members in line with threats of shunning by the entire community, including family members. Ex-Muslims sometimes experience shunning.
In the documentary the YouTuber Mimzy Vidz describes family members saying they could not associate with her once she became public about her apostasy. However, what stands out in ex-Muslim narratives is the constant threat of violence. Even those with supportive families are in danger from extremists if they are public about having left Islam. Those wishing to visit family in Muslim-majority countries must also consider local laws on blasphemy and apostasy, which are punishable by death in some of them. Earlier this year, interviewee Zara Kay was arrested whilst visiting her native Tanzania on charges which appeared to be politically motivated. She has since been released and has returned to her home in Australia.
The right to freedom of religion includes the right to leave a religion. This right is not recognised in many Muslim-majority countries. However, it should be recognised in Britain both domestically and in foreign policy. The government has pledged to support Christians facing persecution abroad. It should also be willing to defend the rights of the non-religious.
There is no easy solution to the problems faced by ex-Muslims. As with other strict religious groups, the state cannot prevent religious people from shunning those who leave the faith although it can intervene when violence is threatened and, especially, when it is carried out. It can also offer some relevant services to support those affected. However, prevention is better than cure. Education on diversity must not neglect the minorities within minorities, who are often sacrificed on the altar of community relations.
The women interviewed on Women Leaving Islam were willing to risk their safety to speak up about their experiences. Politicians, journalists and human rights campaigners should be brave enough to lend their support. The risk they face is smaller: most fear allegations of racism and Islamophobia more than they fear violence. There are no easy answers, but nothing will be achieved if too many people in public life remain scared of the reasonable and necessary debate it should provoke.
There are many ex-Muslims willing to speak out. Some do so publicly, more will do so privately. We should be willing to listen to them.
Women Leaving Islam is a film by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, produced by Maryam Namazie and Gita Sahgal. You can watch it now on YouTube.
We must find the political will to end discriminatory school admissions
Posted: Mon, 12th Apr 2021
As families in England prepare to find out which primary schools their children will attend, Alastair Lichten says ending faith-based discrimination would make the admissions system fairer and simpler.
This Friday is primary school offer day in England. It comes in the middle of a few months where families of around 600,000 pupils across the UK will find out where they'll be attending school next academic year. There will be joy, relief and frustration for many.
And for large numbers the day will confirm they are the victim of the most pervasive form of legal faith-based discrimination in the UK. These families will miss out on places at their local schools thanks to faith schools' religious selection criteria.
The extent of religious discrimination in primary school admissions varies widely between different school types and individual schools. Estimates suggest 17% of primary school places in England are subject to religious selection, affecting well over 100,000 families a year. This includes people like Zoe from Wolverhampton, who told us via a petition: "I live right by a school (2 min walk) I would like my daughter to go to. But as we are not a religious family, I'm told she can't go there, and will now have to drive my child to school as the others are 5-10 minutes' drive."
These 17% of school places are not evenly distributed. Many faith schools operate a mix of open and selective admissions, while others can select up to 100% of their pupils based on religion. This discrimination affects people like Jonathan from Warrington who said: "My child is at the bottom of the list for our local primary school just because we are not part of any religious group."
Faith based admissions can lead to absurd demands being placed on parents, and it is well established that they lead to ethnic and socioeconomic selection. The complexity of admissions also confuses families and makes it harder to assess the impact of faith-based discrimination.
It's time politicians faced up to the damaging message that permitting religious discrimination sends to our children. For example, Charandeep from North London told us: "As a British born Sikh, the first time I felt excluded by society was when applying for primary schools. Despite having faith and regularly attending our local temple, my children were excluded."
Even among those with a range of views on faith schools, there is a lot of consensus over discriminatory admissions. Few people are willing to support religious selection. Even the faith school groups that do feel the need to obfuscate and dress this up in euphemism, such as claiming that pupils of all faiths are 'welcome to apply'. Various surveys in recent years have put support at only 15% or 17% among the public, and 18% among teachers.
The government promised a national review into school admissions in 2017 – but we've been waiting for it for almost four years. But rather than stand with the majority who support inclusive admissions, politicians continue to pander to the faith school lobby. Most recently, schools minister Nick Gibb signalled that the government is potentially open to removing the cap on religious discrimination in admissions to new academies. This would make it far easier to open faith schools with potentially total religious selection.
Politicians should go in the opposite direction. Ending faith schools, or at least the Equality Act exemptions which permit discriminatory admissions, would make the admissions system fairer and simpler. In the meantime, we need to call out discrimination for what it is and shame the politicians who give this practice their support or acquiescence.
Image: Andrew Heffernan/Shutterstock.com.
There is nothing new about cartoons which mock religion
Posted: Thu, 8th Apr 2021
Religious leaders have long feared irreverent drawings that could challenge their authority. We should remember that amid the latest effort to prevent the use of Muhammad cartoons, says Bob Forder.
In recent weeks there's been another furious response to the use of Muhammad cartoons – this time in an educational setting, at Batley Grammar School in Yorkshire.
There is nothing new about cartoons being used as a device to poke fun at the religious. They have been a contentious source of blasphemy prosecutions and allegations ever since technical developments enabled their mass print production.
An early example is Leo Taxil's 'La Bible Amusante', which satirised what Taxil regarded as biblical inconsistencies and absurdities. G.W. Foote latched onto the cartoons in this book when he founded The Freethinker in 1881. He would undoubtedly have been encouraged by efforts to have Taxil's book banned in this country. From the outset Foote republished some of the cartoons as 'Comic Bible Sketches', although they were supplemented by others. More than anything else it was cartoons that made The Freethinker notorious and the reason the newspaper was such an immediate success in terms of its circulation.
At the same time, the leading US freethought newspaper The Truthseeker was publishing Watson Heston's cartoons (example below), which satirised biblical passages and celebrated US secularism and secular heroes like Thomas Paine. These were later collected together in books such as 'The Bible Comically Illustrated' and 'The Freethinkers' Pictorial Textbook'. These caused quite a rumpus, although little is known about Watson Heston.
Both D.M. Bennett (who founded The Truthseeker) and Foote were clear about the purpose of their cartoons. They reasoned that if you laugh at priests or ministers you can't take them seriously and they therefore lose authority. He had a point – and the same could be said for imams as for priests. I think this accounts in large part for the furious response in Batley.
Foote was eventually prosecuted for blasphemy (partly for the special 1882 Christmas number of The Freethinker, which was a cartoonists' feast). I include a copy of the cartoon from the front page (see main image). Other contents included a cartoon strip "A new life of Christ" and a particularly contentious cartoon "Moses getting a back view" with a quotation from Exodus "And it shall come to pass that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and I shall take away my hand, and thou shalt see my back parts". The cartoon features a rather startled Moses staring at a pair of well-filled check trousers with a tear in the rear. None of this has me rolling around with laughter, but I can understand the furious response provoked in 1882 – and Foote's courage in publishing them.
Foote got a year in Holloway Gaol and was widely regarded as a hero and martyr in National Secular Society circles. It was this that ensured he became president when Charles Bradlaugh – the NSS's founder – resigned in 1890.
The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were published for similar reasons and are part of the same tradition.
There is, however, a significant difference between now and then. Those who objected in the 19th century were largely part of an elite which held a privileged position in society as a whole, embodied and supported by the established church. In some ways those demanding retribution in Batley can be considered amongst the least privileged in society and, for them, this is an issue tightly linked to their ethnicity and sense of identity.
This makes the issue far more complex and helps explain the disappointing woolly thinking, platitudes and fudge about the need to engage and listen that has crept in amongst what might loosely be termed the liberal left. But those condoning the dangerous and over-hasty behaviour of the Batley Grammar School governors and management really need to think again.
Secularism is a fundamental liberal democratic principle. The strength and success of liberal democracy rests not only on principles such as fair elections but also on the assumption that the political system accommodates all religions and beliefs with equal respect and access, apart from those intent on its overthrow.
A failure to understand this, and the freedom of speech it entails, is the real threat to us all, particularly the less privileged. Freedom of speech must entail a right to offend, however regrettable this might seem.
Sadly, the array of religious and community leaders (some self-appointed) assembled outside Batley Grammar School purport to represent a less privileged community. But giving in will simply enhance and protect these leaders' own status and position within their community, at others' expense, and run the risk of that community becoming further isolated from society at large.
