You can become involved - visit your local SACRE

http://www.secularuk.org/sacre.htm says"

Education is probably very high on your list of concerns about the role of religion in our society - it is also the easiest one where you as an individual can become involved in doing something about it rather than just moaning about it.

Background to SACREs

Under the Education Act, every Local Education Authority must have a SACRE (Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education. SACRE is pronounced "Sack-ruh") to determine the local RE curriculum. Members, apart from local authority appointees, are drawn from local religious groups. Non-religious groups are not represented by right but most SACREs co-opt a humanist or secular representative.

SACREs are public bodies and you have a right to attend as an observer but you have no right to speak or question - unless invited to do so. You can obtain meeting dates from the SACRE clerk - contact details are available at www.theredirectory.org.uk. Send a polite letter requesting meeting dates and the chances are that you will be welcomed with open arms - initially!

More: http://www.secularuk.org/sacre.htm
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Possible issues to raise if you are allowed to ask questions:

• What steps does the SACRE recommend schools should take to inform parents of their legal right to withdraw their children from worship and RE and what arrangements does it recommend for the education of children who are withdrawn?
• It is obviously important that all schools provide a balanced view of all religious and non-religious beliefs so that pupils can appreciate the wide variety of views held about religion. Which schools in the LEA area follow the SACRE syllabus and which do not?
• Page 8 of the Ofsted document "An evaluation of the work of SACREs" says "RE teaching must not be distinctive of any denomination; it should not try to force specific beliefs or doctrines upon children." What steps does the SACRE take to ensure that this is the case in all schools and is the SACRE aware of any schools which do promote specific beliefs or doctrines?
• How does the SACRE syllabus explain that religious beliefs are not necessary to lead a good life with strong social values and responsibilities? How are those values and responsibilities taught to pupils withdrawn from RE?
• How does the SACRE syllabus explain the validity of a non-religious world-view given that Atheism and Agnosticism are not mentioned in the NFRE (see below) and Humanism is mentioned only once, is not a core requirement and is not covered at all in teaching-related material?
• How does the SACRE syllabus explain that some people need a god while others do not, and how are those needs examined?

The Non-statutory National Framework for Religious Education (NFRE)

• There is no national syllabus for religious education.
• SACREs may determine their own syllabus but many follow the NFRE.
• Local authority schools normally follow the syllabus agreed by the SACRE. (LEAs can legally ignore the advice of their SACRE.)
• Faith schools may do as they wish. Many C of E faith schools follow the SACRE syllabus. Many new faith schools do not.

Please click here to download a copy of the NFRE produced by The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in 2004.

Our primary concern is to ensure that RE involves teaching about belief systems, religious and non-religious, it should not involve teaching or instructing in any specific religion.

The beliefs of the non-religious should have equal place to the beliefs of the religious and we must argue against promotion of "the god assumption" that is common in the corporate acts of worship and RE forced on all schools by the Education Act.

No RE in schools?

Some atheists/secularists believe that RE should not be taught in schools.

Our view is that it would be impossible to understand the world around us, its literature, its art, its history and its problems, without being taught about religions and what is done in their name.

We may have no need for a god, but we appreciate great religious music and architecture - we are not advocating ignorance - we are promoting informed choice."

Religion in schools – long overdue for a radical rethink by Terry Sanderson

It seems the issue of "faith schools" is not going away – however much the Government would like it to. The NSS is doing its best to keep this vital subject on the boil and in the public eye. The most recent example of this was when we drew the attention of the Observer to an outrageous document published by the Catholic bishop of Lancaster, Patrick O'Donoghue, which he sent to all Catholic schools in his diocese. The bishop, it seems, wants to introduce a Taliban-style regime of Catholic orthodoxy in his diocese's schools.

reposted from: Newsline 4th Jan 2008
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

You can read what the Observer made of the story and the bishop's gob-smacking demands.

We have been told continually by the churches and the Government that "faith schools" are not about indoctrination and are not primarily about proselytising. The Lancaster document, with its revealing title, Fit for Mission, tells a different tale.
Fit for Mission? Is that what our schools have become – "missioning" grounds for failing religion?

It is time that the Government told the churches that it will no longer collude in the promotion of religion at public expense in this way. It is time for Ed Balls to do what other education ministers have not had the guts to do – tell the Archbishops and the bishops that their time is up in schools.

But how are we to overcome the very successful barrage of propaganda that the churches and mosques put out about how important a sense of morality is in schools – a sense of morality which, of course, only they can provide? How are we to challenge the deeply ingrained idea that religion is vital for children? Why does it seem so radical — even revolutionary — to suggest that, actually, children can have a perfectly adequate education without the input of priests, imams and vicars? They manage quite well in America and France without such interference in the education system.

The time has come for us to leave behind the idea that it is OK for religion to be pushed and promoted in schools so long as "humanism" or "atheism" gets a mention along the way. But it is not OK. It is far from OK.

We should stop asking for crumbs from the table and demand instead a neutral space in which children can learn without competing ideologies trying to use schools to recruit new members. But while the humanist movement continues to go along with the idea that it is important to educate children about religion in our state schools, the clerics will always be on hand to ensure it is done their way. And whatever small concessions they might make to "critical input from non-religious standpoints" it will always be they who have their hands on the steering wheel.

If we are to have religious education in schools at all (and, personally, I see no need for it), then it should be taught as an academic subject in short courses created by independent academics, not by agenda-pushing evangelists.

As well as dismantling the "faith school" system, we need to get the churches, temples and mosques out of our schools completely and allow children to have a well-rounded, propaganda-free education that lets them reach their own conclusions.

At the moment, it starts in primary school with a contentious premise (religion is good and, indeed, essential for a person to function in the world) and then, throughout the whole of their school life, religious education will be on hand to reinforce that idea for children. Anyone who has read the religious education framework will know that it is a charter for indoctrination – it is unbalanced, partisan and makes only the most grudging allowances for religions other than Christianity, and humanism gets only a fleeting mention.

Religious establishments and institutions in this country are at full liberty to preach their messages and to seek converts. But the converts must be free agents who have made the decision to embrace the faith without pressure and coercion. That is not the case in Britain's schools. Children are not given the option of saying: "I don't believe this and I don't want to have anything to do with it" as they might be about political opinions and other contentious matters.
No. Unless they get parental permission (or sixth form self-withdrawal), they are forced — by law — to take part in worship. Not just to attend it, but to take part in it. In any other circumstance, this would be seen as a gross abuse of human rights. Why is it not seen that way in the context of schools?

Once again, we are told that it is part of the child's "heritage" and they must be made aware of it. But is it? With only 7% of people in this country worshipping on the average Sunday, religion is no longer the heritage of most people, it is something they have chosen not to embrace.

A Home Office survey showed that when asked to name the characteristics that were most important to them, the population of Britain ranked religion as ninth. If we value it so little, why do we allow its enthusiasts to bully us into defending it and force-feeding it to children?
Would we really be a nation of amoral reprobates if religion was not part of the state, and not part of the education system? Of course we wouldn't. And it is time for us to break free of the conditioning that has told us that we must cleave to God in order to have an ordered society.

The NSS's opposition to "faith schools" will increase in the coming months. An unarguable case has been made against them and the time has come to demand action.

Schools must once again become repositories of knowledge, purveyors of facts, encouragers of skills, promoters of aspiration – not platforms for philosophies that seek to control our lives.

See also: Forcing faith on children is abuse
4 January 2008

Berkshire Humanists - SACRE Education resources

reposted (pdf) from: http://www.s118900929.websitehome.co.uk/Page_8.htm
Chris Street comments are in bright green; highlights in yellow blockquotes.

The document submitted to Berkshire SACRE proposes that children be taught about Humanism

• Key Stage 1
• What alternatives do Humanist offer to the Bible, the Koran and the teachings of the Prophets?
• a dozen questions
• Key Stage 2
• a dozen questions
  
• Key Stage 3
• a dozen questions

Our interest in the field of education is particularly concerned with the provision of Religious Education (RE) in state schools and prayers in school assemblies. State schools are those that are maintained out of public funds under the control of Local Education Authorities.

A new National Framework for RE in state schools, published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) in 2004, for the first time recommends the inclusion of Humanism as one of the belief systems that should be taught about in RE.

We want to assist the six Local Authorities and their schools in our area to revise and then implement their RE syllabuses to include Humanism. To that end we seek Humanist representation on their Standing Advisory Councils for RE (SACRE’s).

We have access to the extensive educational resources of the British Humanist Association. In addition to teaching materials we have members who can visit schools to talk about Humanism.

We would like to see the end of prayers in school assembly at the start of the school day. This act of corporate worship is still required by law although it has become impracticable in many schools and the requirement often ignored. In any case, most pupils don’t take it seriously.

Parents are legally entitled to have their children withdrawn from either RE , school prayers or both. We think this is unsatisfactory. It would be far better to remove the problem rather than the children.

National Strategy for RE

BHA welcomes National Strategy for Religious Education which if implemented by Department for Education and Skills will replace the current local arrangements administered via SACRE

Humanists: stand up and be counted

June 18, 2007 10:35 AM - reposted from The Guardian

Atheists: stand up and be counted

Recently on these very pages, Theo Hobson called me pretentious and cowardly. It was not directed personally, but to all atheists, and particularly to those he describes as "militant".

One of those so-called "militants", AC Grayling, a BHA Vice President dealt quite adequately with Hobson's muddled and unnecessarily straw-clutching logic, and I need not add to Grayling's reply or the staggering 971 responses that the original comment generated.

But Hobson's rhetoric exemplifies a cultural position of mistrust towards atheism, that this default and rational position has negative connotations, associated with amorality and pessimism. This, of course, is nonsense. Wanting to live a life free of superstition is not cowardly, but increasingly brave under the government's burgeoning endorsement of faith. Realism is inherent in atheism, in contrast to the false promises of life eternal, and if morality simply follows a divine command, it is not moral at all.

Mercifully, although many of our politicians may be openly religious, Britain's political landscape is such that candidates do not have to be overtly religious to even stand a chance of election. There is even a cross-party Humanist Group. Compare that to the US, where in 2006 atheists were not represented in Congress at all. Perversely, the US has secularity protected by the constitution, whereas we Brits are subjects of the Defender of the Faith. But as Andrew Copson (BHA Education and Public Affairs) pointed out, the UK is moving at a menacingly creeping pace towards a government that is in thrall to religion.

The indoctrination that occurs at the ever-increasing faith schools can only promote the mistrust of atheists, and move us towards the deplorable situation in North America, where a 2006 survey revealed that atheists rank lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society'."

I recently gave a talk to science students at a secondary school about the risible promotion of intelligent design and creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution in science lessons. One of my biggest worries before delivering this lecture was not the validity of my arguments, or whether I might offend any of the faithful, but is a bunch of 17-year-olds really going to give a shit?

I was pleased and relieved to find that they did. In conversation with some of them afterwards, they revealed that creationism was indeed a topic in science and religion classes, and the (admittedly self-selecting) audience was largely opposed not only to ID, but also all forms of Biblical literalism. I made a point of asking students what they think of Richard Dawkins, and to my horror, the vast majority had not heard of him.

Now, I support Richard Dawkins in his words and his manner, which while forthright, is also polite and thoughtful, as this video of him chatting to the Bishop of Oxford shows. It is a very rare occasion for me to disagree with anything he says. But it is shocking to think that in schools atheism's most vocal defender is unknown. I can only assume that Professor Grayling and Christopher Hitchens are similarly unheard of. While this debate bats back and forth in the pages of Comment is free and in the grand halls of the Royal Society, schoolchildren are being fed government-endorsed indoctrination into religion, and conversely are not exposed to the intellectual freedom that is inherent in atheism.

I call upon atheists everywhere to stand up and be counted. Take pride in being rational. I'm a humanist and a Darwinist, but not all atheists are. There is a positive message in atheism, which is that it is a position of intellectual curiosity, and our children should not be subjected to the bullying negativity of faith schools towards the atheist. I live a full and moral life. It is untroubled by fear or deference of supernature, and I am proud of that.

Call for 'post-9/11' RE teaching by Ofsted

By Robert Pigott - BBC Religious Affairs correspondent

In many schools, religion is linked with contemporary religious and moral issues

RE teachers must provide children with a more sophisticated understanding of the subject in a post-11 September world, Ofsted says.

After a five-year inspection of RE classes which began in the year of the attacks on the US, Ofsted says rote learning of RE is no longer adequate.

It says teachers should include ways in which religion is not always a force for good.

Increasingly pupils have been opting to study RE for GCSE and A-level exams.

Ofsted says that in England, which it covers, RE is being taught better.

'Standard responses'

In many schools, religion is linked with contemporary religious and moral issues, such as whether the war in Iraq was morally justified.

But all too often, say the inspectors, the exam system encourages "standard, mechanistic responses" running the risk of "trivialising significant religious issues".

It says students are often denied the profound understanding they need of the impact of religion on society.

This has raised people's awareness of religion and raised the importance of considering religion's role in society Miriam Rosen, Ofsted

"Religion is much more in the media than it has been in recent years" says Ofsted's Director of Education, Miriam Rosen, "and this is, of course, because of events like the bombings in London in July 2005 and the New York incident back in 2001.

"This has raised people's awareness of religion and raised the importance of considering religion's role in society, and the impact of it."

One of the most radical suggestions in Ofsted's report is that religion should be taught warts and all. The inspectors called on teachers not to shy away from controversy, but to accept in their classes that religion could be a force for bad as well as for good.

"Pupils should be taught that religion is complex," says the report, "and should be given the opportunity to explore that ambiguity."

'Solve issues themselves'

Angus Dawson, RE teacher at Royal Manor Arts College in Portland, has long found that pupils enjoy the ambiguity of religion, enjoying the "struggle between ideas" where there are often no right answers.

"We embrace the idea that religious ideas lead to conflict," said Mr Dawson. "The skills we teach (pupils) allow them to unpack the ambiguity and tension between ideas in a clear and straightforward way and to solve the issues for themselves."

But that level of achievement is too rare says Ofsted.

Miriam Rosen said: "They're not really concentrating on teaching about the role of religion in society and its contribution towards community cohesion. The very best are, but this is not consistently done."

Ofsted says attempts to raise standards are hindered by no curriculum

Schools minister Andrew Adonis said RE can help educate children about issues surrounding community, diversity and tolerance.

He said: "Religious education is an important academic subject in its own right but it can also make a positive contribution to pupils' broad personal development and well-being, as well as bringing in issues of community cohesion, diversity, tolerance and respect.

"We agree that the potential of RE to contribute to children's education and understanding in these areas should be fully realised."

RE has long suffered a lack of specialist teachers, but Ofsted focuses on weakness in how progress is assessed, and the way the curriculum is planned, for the inadequacies in the subject.

It says that lessons often fail to build on prior learning. There is no national curriculum in RE.

Instead, all 151 local authorities are responsible for developing their own locally agreed syllabus (SACRE). Ofsted says that hinders attempts to raise standards in RE, and consistency, across the country.

And those improvements are overdue. Ofsted says only a quarter of schools - albeit on its fairly small sample - were recorded as producing "good" achievement or better in pupils. One in eight were failing to produce even "adequate" achievement.

Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education - SACRE

Dorset Humanists serve on a number of local SACREs (Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education) to promote the inclusion of Humanism in religious education.

Humanism is now included in the National Framework for Religious Education. Dorset Humanists have succeeded in getting Humanism included in the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset syllabuses.

Dorset Humanists have visited local schools to speak to sixth formers about Humanism and to deliver Humanist assemblies. Dorset Humanists have spoken in the Bournemouth Council Chamber against discriminatory subsidies for transport to faith schools.