Trouble reading this email? View newsletter online.

Newsline 8 July 2016

Our 'Secularism 2016' conference is fast approaching and we were delighted this week to announce that Raheel Raza will be joining our slate of speakers. Our other speakers include Maajid Nawaz, Jacques Berlinerblau, Turkism MP Safak Pavey, the writer Douglas Murray, historian Deborah Lavin, Paul Rowe of Educate Together and Tehmina Kazi of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

It promises to be a fascinating day. Tickets are still available, so be sure to buy yours today!

If you would like to join the National Secular Society and support our campaign for secular democracy, or if you need to renew your membership you can do so here. Thank you for your support.

Raheel Raza to talk about universal human rights at 'Secularism 2016' conference

Raheel Raza to talk about universal human rights at 'Secularism 2016' conference

News | Tue, 05 Jul 2016

The National Secular Society is pleased to announce that secularist campaigner Raheel Raza will be speaking at our September conference 'Secularism 2016 – living better together'.

When is a community school not a community school?

When is a community school not a community school?

Opinion | Wed, 06 Jul 2016

Religious organisations are pushing for an increased role in non-religious community schools. This seriously risks blurring the line between faith and community schools, writes Alastair Lichten.

I've asked before "When is a faith school not a faith school?" However in today's increasingly academized and blurred education landscape, the question arises of when is a community school not a community school?

In April the NSS was contacted after Fulham, Sulivan and Queen's Manor primary schools launched a consultation on forming a new Multi Academy Trust (MAT). Concerns were raised over the involvement of the London Diocesan Board for Schools (LDBS) – with whom apparently the schools already had an existing relationship.

Parents had been assured at all stages that the non-faith MAT would not lead to their schools becoming faith schools and this claim was repeated in local press coverage – "No, absolutely not. The three schools will continue to be community schools".

None of the consultation documents, the spartan local news story or any of my emails to Queen's Manor did anything to illuminate what the relationship with the LDBS was.

The LDBS already provides commercial services (ranging from headteacher appraisals to human resources and legal services) as part of their outreach to community schools such as encouraging collective worship and offering advice on "the interface between religion and school life".

External groups of all types can provide valuable commercial and voluntary services for schools and the Church clearly see moving in this direction as a way to stay relevant. However such offers should always be subject to appropriate scrutiny and should never be leveraged for inappropriate influence.

In 2011 the Bishop of Oxford, John Pritchard, told the Times Educational Supplement how in an age of academisation the Church could take an increasing role in providing services and governance previously provided by local authorities to both community and faith schools as local authorities "wither on the vine".

As part of the academy consultation process Q&A sessions were held at all three schools, one session with staff and one with parents. I leaned from the staff Q&As at Sulivan and Fulham primary schools that the LDBS will appoint 2 members of the trust in order that they control at least 25% of the vote and are able to block any major changes. This is the same proportion of Church appointed governors as in most voluntary controlled (VC) faith schools. The members of the trust will appoint 10 members of the 11 person board.

This information was not included in any of the consultation documents seen by the NSS, nor does it appear to have been discussed at the staff Q&A at Queen's Manor Primary School, nor any of the parents Q&As at any of the schools, nor was it disclosed in repeated emails to one of the schools.

The LDBS is keen to be involved in non-faith based MATs to "go back to its roots and serve the wider community" and already directly runs one MAT containing a non-faith school. In the 2012 "Church School of the Future Review" the Church set out its hopes to "expand its missionary work through non-Church schools" through mechanisms including mixed multi academy trusts – which the NSS has warned undermine the non-faith ethos of community schools, and which the LDBS is keen to develop.

In other MATs (not necessarily religiously affiliated) of which the LDBS is a member, they appoint a minority of trustees – giving them at least the same level of direct board influence as in a VC faith school.

In Fulham, without parents seemingly being informed, the LDBS has acquired voting rights in a non-religious academy trust. One has to wonder where else this is happening, because this sort of piecemeal expansion of undue influence threatens community schools' independence and ethos.

Alastair Lichten is a campaigns officer at the National Secular Society. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and may not represent the views of the NSS.


Church and State united in denying religious freedom to young people

Church and State united in denying religious freedom to young people

Opinion | Tue, 05 Jul 2016

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood writes on the union between church and state that is denying freedom of religion to young people – in defiance of the United Nations and human rights.

The UN recently recommended that the UK "repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school." This was just one of a number of recommendations made by the body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory.

The provisions are principally aimed at England & Wales which are the only countries in the world where every publicly funded school is required by law to hold an act of "mainly Christian" worship, and where withdrawal is only possible at the behest of parents, and some sixth form pupils. Worship is not as prescribed in Scotland, however there are no provisions whatsoever for pupil opt out. Worship is also a daily requirement in Northern Ireland where Catholic-controlled schools hold Catholic worship and controlled schools (which have traditionally served the protestant community) provide broadly Christian worship that is not "distinctive of any particular religious denomination". Again, there is no independent right of withdrawal.

The provisions for England originated in 1944, before the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The only concession to Human Rights in the ensuing seventy years was an amendment campaigned for by the National Secular Society in 2006, which allowed some sixth formers in England & Wales to withdraw. The Government rejected our more ambitious original proposal: that all pupils of "sufficient maturity, understanding and intelligence" be able to opt out themselves, despite support for our position from the Joint (Parliamentary) Committee on Human Rights.

Last month I took part in a series of BBC radio debates around England at which it was announced that despite the UN's recommendations, the Department of Education (DfE) would "not be changing the requirements for the daily act of collective worship".

Its attempts at justification failed to engage with the substance of the UN's objections.

The DfE, led by the evangelical Nicky Morgan, stated that: "Collective worship encourages pupils to reflect on the concept of belief and helps shape fundamental British values of tolerance, respect and understanding for others. The law is clear that all schools can tailor provision to suit the needs of their pupils, and parents can choose to withdraw their children from all or any part of collective worship."

What it didn't admit was that Religious Education gives plenty of opportunities to reflect on the concept of belief and "shared values", and that such values are not a monopoly of religion. Given that the majority of pupils are not religious, imparting such values in a religious setting could be less effective and even counter-productive. The tailoring of Collective Worship to suit school's needs doesn't include an option to drop acts of worship altogether. Referring only to parents' opt out wilfully evades engagement with the UN's specific objection to the lack of pupil opt out.

Not that the DfE was alone. All too predictably, a Scottish civil servant has concluded that "Scottish Government does not consider it necessary to update its guidance in a form of a new circular to headteachers at this time". The Scottish "justification" was that Religious Observance and associated subjects are treated in a "pluralistic manner" and include "non-religious beliefs". In Scotland there is no right for pupil withdrawal whatsoever, even though the relevant legislation was passed in 1980.

Both countries totally failed to engage with the UN's objections, based on the Convention, and an acknowledgement that children have Human Rights too.

Like the DfE, the Church sees no reason to change the law, indeed, on this issue, the Church and state appear indistinguishable from one another.

Derek Holloway, from the Church of England's national educational office, was curiously anxious to concentrate on what happens in practice, rather than to be "hung up" on the law when I debated him on the radio last month. My protestation that one of the first values we should be promoting was respect for the rule of law failed to prevent him repeating this mantra about now being "hung up" on what the law required. It is difficult to conclude other than that the Church is keen for the law to remain in place as it will reduce the ability of children to decide for themselves whether or not to worship. He claimed that children not wishing to worship could "stand back with integrity", whereas the law on this, all will presumably know inside out, not only requires that the pupil attend unless withdrawn but, outrageously, that they "take part".

Repeatedly compelling children to worship involuntarily is indoctrination by any definition. When I spoke to him Mr Holloway would not accept that, and insisted that suggesting as much was somehow an insult to teachers. On the contrary, my sympathy is with teachers who are obliged to uphold this ridiculous law – often against their better judgement. When I told Mr Holloway of a recent complaint we received about a community school - not even a Church school – imposing worship three times a day, he justified it on the extraordinary grounds that "there must be an educational reason for it".

He described the law as protecting "the right of religious expression", conveniently avoiding any admission that, being mandatory, it imposes worship on schools that do not want to have it. The UN did not call for such worship to be banned, its objection is simply that it is required.

Another justification for ignoring the UN was that "faith is important". I am sure it is to him, and his Church clearly has a vested interest in as many as possible thinking so, but the evidence suggests the very opposite. Sunday schools have all-but disappeared, parents of school age children – whose rights include having their philosophical convictions respected in education – are among the least religious cohorts of the population and the non-religious are significantly in the majority.

Mr Holloway assured listeners that the Church very much supported children's Human Rights, quite rich given he had opposed outright the UN's recommendations on worship in schools and children's withdrawal from it.

But both sides to this debate acknowledge that the law is widely ignored. This is particularly the case in secondary schools – of course more so in community schools (non-denominational ones in Scotland and NI) than in church schools. But that is all the more reason for the law to be changed. An unenforceable law is a bad law, and what an example to set to children: there are some laws you follow, others you don't. Ofsted has long since given up on reporting on whether schools follow the law in this area. But there are also cases where it is applied in all its offensive zealotry, perhaps where the headteacher is determined (even in a non-church school) to share their evangelism with those under their charge. This is yet a further reason to implement the UN's recommendations.

The prize for the most shameless comment on the UN's recommendation goes to none other than the Parliamentary Chairman of the Conservative Christian Fellowship.

David Burrowes MP described the recommendation as "ludicrous and mad". He told The Telegraph that "The collective act of worship is not an indoctrination exercise. It is recognising and respecting the Christian heritage of the country and giving people an opportunity to reflect before the beginning of the day. The UN should spend more time doing its main job of preventing war and genocide rather than poking its nose in other countries' classrooms. We can respectfully put those kind of reports in the bin where they belong."

For Mr Burrowes, holding countries to account for not following the Conventions which they have ratified is something the UN should be insulted for, if in doing so it restricts his determination that Christianity be foisted on children at school, whether they want it or not.

In addition to organising an open letter to Nicky Morgan from a range of parliamentarians, faith groups, educators and human rights campaigners, we have now have written to the heads of all the devolved education departments to urge legislative changes along the lines of the UN recommendation, and pointing out the paucity of justifications proffered for not doing so.

The English and Scottish Governments and the Church continue to show shameless contempt for the UN seeking only to protect children's rights in line with Conventions we have undertaken to uphold. What a poor example that sets to the rest of the world. That both Governments should belittle the religious freedom of children and young people provides yet further evidence that they bow to vested religious interests at every turn. And yet more evidence of the growing secular deficit suffered by the increasingly secular population because of the growing deference to religion in our institutions, especially in education where doing so adversely affects millions of pupils and their parents.

Help celebrate our 150th anniversary and support our appeal!

Help celebrate our 150th anniversary and support our appeal!

News | Wed, 15 Jun 2016

The National Secular Society has launched a new anniversary appeal to help commemorate NSS founder Charles Bradlaugh, celebrate the Society's 150th anniversary and support its campaign work.

This email has been sent to you by National Secular Society in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Address: 25 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4RL, United Kingdom.
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7404 3126

Please Note: Newsline provides links to external websites for information and in the interests of free exchange. We do not accept any responsibility for the content of those sites, nor does a link indicate approval or imply endorsement of those sites.

Please feel free to use the material in this Newsline with appropriate acknowledgement of source. Neither Newsline nor the NSS is responsible for the content of websites to which it provides links. Nor does the NSS or Newsline necessarily endorse quotes and comments by contributors, they are brought to you in the interests of the free exchange of information and open debate.