Crisis of faith in first secular school

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1677,n,n

by Anushka Asthana, Guardian

Reposted from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2175224,00.html

Headteacher is told establishing non-religious education would be 'politically impossible'

A headteacher who tried to reduce the influence of religion inside the classroom by creating the country's

first secular state school

had his

plans blocked by senior government officials who called it a 'political impossibility'.

Dr Paul Kelley, head of Monkseaton High School in Tyneside - the first to join the government's flagship 'trust school' scheme - wanted to challenge the legal requirement in all state schools for pupils to take part in a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature. There are only a handful of exceptions at faith schools where the daily worship can be based on a different religion.

He also

wanted to change the way that religious education was taught, introducing tuition about a number of world views, some that involved faith and some that did not. He intended to follow a 'third way' that neither banished religion from the classroom completely nor had children attending daily worship.

'We wanted a fundamental change in the relationship with the school and the established religion of the country,' said Kelley, talking about the proposals he put forward towards the end of Tony Blair's premiership. 'They accepted it would be popular but said it was politically impossible.'

One senior figure at the then Department for Education and Skills, told Kelley that

bishops in the House of Lords and ministers would block the plans. Religion, they added, was 'technically embedded' in many aspects of education.

'I feel that children have a right to not having a particular point of view,' said Kelley. 'They should not be promoted to a political party, nor should they to a religion. The daily act of worship is, I think, inappropriate at school.'

However, he added that

moral discussions about religion and world views were appropriate and could take place in lessons.

Although

many schools are not classified as being of religious character, if they do not carry out the daily act of worship they lose points during inspections by Ofsted.

Kelley said he wanted to change that.

The details of his meeting with government officials emerged when Kelley was speaking about

a book he has written on the subject, entitled Making Minds, What's Wrong with Education and What Should We Do About It?

In it Kelley argues against the existence of faith schools. He praises the Church of England for setting up schools in a time that the government did not offer education to all but says there is no longer a reason to maintain those schools as faith-based.

The schools, says Kelley, 'directly or indirectly influence children into a belief that a particular faith is preferable either to other faiths or to a lack of faith'. He adds: 'That is not, in my view, fair to a child and it is not offering them the opportunity to choose freely.

The problem we are left with is a 19th-century architecture of education in a 21st-century environment.' He argues that

there should be no legal requirement for religious education teaching, although he would still teach pupils about different religions.

Kelley said he had not given up on his plans but realised he could not change things by himself. Instead, he is hoping other schools might join his campaign.

Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, said: 'The majority of schools do not have a religious character, and are not affiliated to any faith group. But where the local community wants a school of a religious character, the government continues to support them as part of our commitment to enable parents, where possible, to send pupils to schools of their choice.

'All schools, faith and non-faith alike, must teach religious education as part of the basic curriculum. In maintained schools without a religious character, this will focus on learning about different religions and the role they play in today's world, not religious instruction.'

A spokesman for the Church of England said: 'If he is arguing for a way for individual schools to opt out of those bits of the act he does not like that is not something we would support. Either overtly or by default, this country is still a Christian one.'



Selected Comments from
Richard Dawkins http://richarddawkins.net/article,1677,n,n

2. Comment #72783 by jaytee_555 on September 23, 2007 at 12:59 am

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

9. Comment #72811 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 3:08 am

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

Well ... we could write to him and express our support.

We could write to our MPs to draw this matter to their attention and let them know that, at least so far as the electorate is concerned, it certainly WOULDN'T be politically impossible.

We could write to the press and make the point that way too.

And, when doing these last 2 things, we could link it to the whole question of having an Established church at all - if freeing children from the obligation to submit to a daily act of worship is only politically impossible because there are bishops in the House of Lords, then it really is time that there WEREN'T bishops in the House of Lords.

Now then, where's my pen?

13. Comment #72801 by MartinSGill on September 23, 2007 at 2:20 am

jaytee_555 on September 23, 2007 at 12:59am Wrote:

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

Join the NSS (national secular society) a lobby group in the UK whose aim is to make Britain secular. www.secularism.org.uk

I personally think all atheists should be members; it's the only way to stop the government discriminating against us.

15. Comment #72803 by d4m14n on September 23, 2007 at 2:32 am

Russell,

The rules are quite simple: all state schools must provide a daily act of collective worship, of a broadly Christian nature (technically daily can mean >50% of school days). A parent has the right to withdraw their child from collective worship, and the school would be expected to make alternative arrangements for the child. What exactly is 'collective worship' seems pretty much open to interpretation. At my child's school it seems to mean 'indoctrination opportunity'.

There's more information here:

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1252

20. Comment #72813 by d4m14n on September 23, 2007 at 3:19 am

Well if anybody is considering writing to their MP about this, you'd best be aware of the government's recent response to just such concerns ... they couldn't give a shit!

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page11583.asp

The Government remains committed to the provision of collective worship in schools and recognises its valuable contribution to the spiritual and moral development of pupils.
This is a view which is shared by many parents who still expect their children to understand the meaning of worship whether they hold a faith or not.

We believe that it is important that collective worship should provide the opportunity for pupils to worship God as well as to consider spiritual and moral issues and to explore their own beliefs. Collective worship can play a valuable role in developing community spirit, promoting a common ethos and shared values. The Government believes there is sufficient flexibility in the law to allow both Christian and other forms of worship.

The Government respects the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own faith and this is why parents have the right to withdraw their children from collective worship. From September 2007, pupils in school sixth forms will also be able to withdraw themselves from collective worship. The Government believes that for younger pupils, it is appropriate and practical for parents to decide on whether to withdraw. The Government believes this strikes the right balance between the requirements of the law and accommodating the wishes of parents.

22. Comment #72816 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 3:27 am

Well if anybody is considering writing to their MP about this, you'd best be aware of the government's recent response to just such concerns ... they couldn't give a shit!

Changing attitudes, changing cultures, takes time. It's no good expecting these things to change overnight. The government takes that line because the government thinks that line will be generally approved of by the voters. Who is going to convince them otherwise, if we ourselves don't take the first step?

25. Comment #72822 by d4m14n on September 23, 2007 at 4:02 am

Changing attitudes, changing cultures, takes time. It's no good expecting these things to change overnight. The government takes that line because the government thinks that line will be generally approved of by the voters. Who is going to convince them otherwise, if we ourselves don't take the first step?

I completely agree. I wasn't inferring that we shouldn't bother. My intent was to provide some intel on the government's current stance.

From their reply, I'd have to ask the following:

- what is 'spiritual' development and why is it considered important?

- on what evidence do you base your assumption that collective worship contributes to the moral development of children? (I'd reference the experiments outlined in TGD referring to the corruption of the morals of Israeli schoolchildren in light of their faith)

- I'd question whether collective worship has actually been shown to play a valuable role in developing community spirit, and I'd counter that it most certainly has been shown to be divisive.

- I'd state that the flexibility in the law is firstly a weakness because it allows for subjective interpretation, and secondly, is completely inflexible when it comes to those with no religious belief.

- I'd question why the government believes that segregating children, whose parents disapprove of collective worship, is in any way acceptable?

- Finally, I'd question how collective worship, or any type of religious teaching can be given to very young children without implying that what is being taught is fact?

26. Comment #72824 by RascoHeldall on September 23, 2007 at 4:13 am

"We believe that it is important that collective worship should provide the opportunity for pupils to worship God as well..."

Holy crap! There's not even the basic recognition in this that 'God' might not actually exist - it's just taken as read! Likewise, the airy-fairy commitment to 'spiritual development' of pupils, as if any of this crap is actually, like, real!! (It is also the gravest insult - the assumption that children NEED this bullshit mythology in order to grow as people.)

New Labour are writing this medieval drivel into the policy of our country. This is goes beyond disgraceful and into the terrority of barbarism. What on earth can we do to stop the rot?

27. Comment #72825 by d4m14n on September 23, 2007 at 4:27 am

And why is it necessary for those who wish to worship God to do it in school?

And just how many parents with no religion really require their children to learn what worship is in school? And since when is actual worship a requirement for learning about worship?

Grrr. It makes my blood boil.

28. Comment #72826 by _J_ on September 23, 2007 at 4:28 am

This is worrying and I might join in the letter writing (perhaps with a copy of the standard Government bit of evasion d4m14n helpfully gave in post 20, with red biro to show just why it is wholly inadequate).

Quickly, meanwhile: d4m14n

I'd question how collective worship, or any type of religious teaching can be given to very young children without implying that what is being taught is fact?

Good point. But, thinking back, when I was very young there was a part of the school day in which we used to sit on the floor whilst the teacher read us a story. Our awareness that this was the same person who'd been filling us with facts all day long didn't prevent us from recognising stories as stories. I'm confident that if Teacher says 'Sit on the floor, children - I'm going to tell you about some stories from religion', the kids will be safe enough from 'collateral indoctrination'.

29. Comment #72828 by d4m14n on September 23, 2007 at 4:41 am

I'm confident that if Teacher says 'Sit on the floor, children - I'm going to tell you about some stories from religion', the kids will be safe enough from 'collateral indoctrination'.

I guess that would work. I'm going through all this at the moment with my daughter, so unfortunately for her school at least, that's not the approach I believe they are taking. It's more like:

Teacher: Can anybody tell me anything about God?
Jonny: He lives in the clouds.
Teacher: Good Jonny.
Caitlin: He's got a white beard.
Teacher: Excellent Caitlin.
Alexis: He's really big.
Teacher: Jolly good Alexis.
Mark: He made all the plants and the animals.
Teacher: Very clever Mark.

30. Comment #72830 by mdowe on September 23, 2007 at 5:10 am

This is ridiculous. It is long passed time the UK reformed the House of Lords IMHO. A few bishops should not be able to force religion on an entire country. In the mean time, maybe Dr Kelley should have his school offer up daily prayers to Joe Pesci (that would be 'broadly Christian' wouldn't it?)

33. Comment #72833 by dmshinty on September 23, 2007 at 5:42 am

The Government says "parents have the right to withdraw their children from collective worship."

I suspect that they are betting that parents will not withdraw their children. Presumably because they will fear the consequences to the child of setting them apart and because it's something that a parent would have to take time to do.

If the Government were fair about this they would make parents OPT IN to a daily act of worship.

39. Comment #72841 by d4m14n on September 23, 2007 at 7:31 am

I ought to add that the collective worship business is seen by the punters as even less of a problem than are faith schools.

Maybe so, but I suspect that the vast majority of parents are completely unaware that collective worship is actually mandated in schools. I was up in arms when I first learnt that my daughter was praying in school, only to find that it was a legal requirement.

40. Comment #72844 by Richard Dawkins on September 23, 2007 at 8:18 am

19. Comment #72811 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 3:08 am

Does anyone have any good ideas about how we could actively support this brave headteacher?

Well ... we could write to him and express our support.

His address is:-

Dr Paul Kelley
Headmaster, Monkseaton High School
Seatonville Road
Whitley Bay
Tyne and Wear
England NE25 9EQ

42. Comment #72846 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 8:24 am

Maybe so, but I suspect that the vast majority of parents are completely unaware that collective worship is actually mandated in schools.

You may be right, d4m14n, but do you suppose that the majority of them would also object?

Someone (a non-Christian) was telling me the other day that the school his 8-year old son attends is "quite into God". The father's view was that this was ok, because it was giving his son a moral education. He was quite comfortable with my comment that you don't need religion for morality - but this was how morality was being presented in his son's school, and of itself that didn't worry him.

Interestingly, he also added that he didn't want his son to feel out of place in the school, so he didn't want to say anything that might lead to his son challenging the prevailing religious ethos.

Consequently, when his son had asked him recently where he had been before he was born, this person had decided to reply, "In God's pocket".

Remember, this is not a religious believer and not someone who particularly wants his children to grow up being actively Christian. He chose this answer a) because it was in keeping with the sorts of things his son was being taught at school and so wouldn't set him at odds with that and b) because he thought that would be easier for an 8-year old to handle than the truth.

Daniel Dennett really hit on something when he coined the phrase "belief in belief", didn't he? I can't for the life of me see why an 8-year old who is thinking about things seriously enough to ask such a very interesting question should be fobbed off with a purely fictional answer. Why should someone with no personal belief and no vested interest in promoting religion resort to such a reply? I didn't have time to go into it properly at the time the conversation took place, but it's a topic I'm looking forward to coming back to with this person when I get chance.

It adds another dimension to this topic, though, doesn't it. When a school creates a religious ethos, it also creates a pressure to conform to it. Amongst the children attending compulsory daily worship will be a) those whose parents wholeheartedly approve, b) those whose parents haven't fully appreciated that a sense of morality can be inculcated without a side serving of religious brainwashing and c) those whose parents would prefer it not to be happening but don't want to rock the boat.

If abandoning the daily act of worship seems like a step too far for our timid politicians, a good start would be to make it something that had to be actively opted in to, rather than opted out of. It would be interesting to see what emerged from that, wouldn't it?

45. Comment #72854 by d4m14n on September 23, 2007 at 8:47 am

Maybe so, but I suspect that the vast majority of parents are completely unaware that collective worship is actually mandated in schools.

You may be right, d4m14n, but do you suppose that the majority of them would also object?

Nope. I'd concede that most couldn't give a damn. A significant minority might object however, and when they do the apathetic majority might begin to tune into why.

46. Comment #72857 by Northern Bright on September 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

A significant minority might object however, and when they do the apathetic majority might begin to tune into why.

Yes, good point. I'm all for fighting for what you believe in. It's too easy to assume it won't make any difference and therefore not to bother. But if no one bothers, then there's no reason for anything to change, is there?