Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 296)
WEDNESDAY 12 MAY 2004
MR KEITH
PORTEOUS WOOD,
MS MARILYN
MASON, MR
IAN ABBOTT,
MS OONA
STANNARD, MR
MARTIN BRADSHAW
AND REV
CANON DAVID
WHITTINGTON OBE
Q280 Mr Turner: What is it exactly
that parents are being asked to respond to that is in the Bill
that the schools are unable to offer or the parents are unable
to respond to without the Bill?
Rev Canon Whittington: I suspect
nothing, I am afraid. I do not think the Bill offers new opportunities.
What it offers, surely, is a new structure and new encouragement
and leans on the LEAs to try to facilitate that—poor old
LEAS, they always get leaned on—but what could happen is
largely what could happen now.
Q281 Mr Turner: Could I ask Ms Stannard
and Canon Whittington another question, and Mr Abbott or one of
the other witnesses may wish to respond at the end of this series
of questions? What is the church's responsibility to a child who
is prevented from hearing Christ's message?
Rev Canon Whittington: To make
that message available. In the Church of England at the moment
we are moving forward, as I think you all know, quite markedly
in terms of providing extra secondary schools particularly. We
are also, in parallel to that, developing, for someone of my kind
of age, almost incredibly positive new relationships with community
schools. When I was a young curate some heads in community schools
were happy to have you as part of what was going on there; others
were very definitely not. The number that are not welcoming to
their local clergy now is very small indeed, and so there is a
very strong push there too. So to be fair and even-handed in answer
to that, I have to say that from the Church of England's perspective
we are both trying to increase the availability of church schools
in order to not just deliver a message but deliver a style of
life and of thought, but also to work in partnership with schools
right across the range, and, as has been rightly said, there are
not any secular schools as such. We have good relationships generally
right across the range.
Ms Stannard: The same observations
as David made at the start: that where we are not able to have
a Catholic child in a Catholic school we certainly make the message
of Christ available to them in other ways.
Q282 Mr Turner: I am not just talking
about the Catholic Church, I am talking of children. All children,
I assume you believe, have an immortal soul.
Ms Stannard: Indeed.
Q283 Mr Turner: If you have a duty
to that child's immortal soul whether they are Catholic or not,
what is your duty?
Ms Stannard: I would suggest that
our duty is partly in supporting the thriving world, being the
community schools, and the fact that, as Helen was talking about
earlier, there is no such thing as a secular school and that community
schools too carry in their way the message of Christ to children
in those schools. It is a great disappointment for us where those
who want a religious education in a Catholic school cannot have
it because, whatever else we try to offer, as we do, for instance,
additional Saturday provision and so on, experienced religious
education is not the same as being part of an educational faith
community. That is, indeed, what a Catholic school is.
Mr Turner: Where a child does not get
nourishment, we all, I think, believe we should step in and do
something about it. Where a child does not get intellectual nourishment,
the state has the power to require that that child receives an
education. What is the position with spiritual nourishment?
Q284 Chairman: We are getting to
the stage of short answers and short questions. There will be
a temptation to get into deeply philosophical water here. So Ian
Abbott and then Marilyn.
Mr Abbott: Can I paraphrase what
Oona just said? It may be a disappointment to her, but as an atheist
it is a great disappointment to me that a parent wanting a secular
education cannot get a secular education, and it is outrageous
to be asked. I feel right from the beginning that I have had to
justify why I want a secular education for my daughter. If I was
any other faith, nobody would ask me that question. If I was a
Muslim, a Jew, a Sikh, a Catholic, nobody would ask me to justify
why I do not want to go to a Church of England school, and that
is what offends me more than anything, that I feel I have to justify
my philosophical stance. One more point. My daughter is an enthusiastic
student, always has been, and I knew she would thrive at any school
she went to, but she would have been disadvantaged going to a
Church of England school in one simple way, and I can evidence
that. When she went to Hodgsons School she became Head Girl, a
reflection of her enthusiasm and commitment to education. I cannot
envisage any circumstances at all where, had she gone to a Church
of England school, an atheist child would be a Head Girl. So in
one real sense I feel my decision was justified. But, going back
to the earlier point of having to justify why I want a secular
education, it is not a question you would ask anybody else, and
if the Human Rights Act says that "people of all faiths and
none must be given equal choice", then why am I being asked
that question and other faiths not?
Ms Mason: I suspect the three
people at this end of the table would all agree when I say that
it is perfectly possible to have a moral life, a spiritual life,
a good life without religion. We do not necessarily want to have
our children hearing Christ's message or religious messages of
various kinds. Learning about religion is fine, but being proselytised
in a sort of confessional way is not what we want for our children.
I do not think it is the business of schools to be doing that,
and I do not think it is the business of the state to be doing
that, it is the business of the faith community and parents at
home.
Q285 Mr Pollard: We ought to get
children out of cars and cars off the road—that is what
the whole thing is about. In my area we have a consortium of three
schools where they are going to do distance learning and learning
new technology so that kids do not have to travel from one school
to another. Could the Catholic and Church of England schools not
do exactly the same? So why can you not just teach the religion
where children who were Catholic would go to their local school
and could be taught remotely using video-links, whatever it might
be, and take care of the situation in that manner.
Ms Stannard: I welcome the question
and in a sense Marilyn has already partly contributed to the answer
by saying that church schools do a lot more than teach religious
education. I want to be unequivocal in saying that we are actually
participating enthusiastically in all sorts of new electronic
opportunities for distance learning, and so on, in particular
areas, and, if it would help the Committee, at some stage I can
certainly cite hard examples of really good work. I was up in
Wakefield recently where they were benefiting enormously from
being a cutting-edge school in relation to modern language teaching
with video facilities, distance learning and so on, and we will
continue to heavily promote and support that, but there is still
a difference between that and actually experiencing nothing but
that, because what is still distinctive is being part of a living
worshipping community—that is what a school is. So the distance
learning, electronic opportunities, yes, but if it is still a
church school it will continue to be a lot more than a series
of electronic experiences, it will be an experience where the
faith values of that school are evident in the policies of the
school, how the school lives its life, how the community members
and the school relate to one another. It is the corporateness
of the activities; it is being a community; so I am afraid I do
not think it is ever going to result in a sort of virtual denominational
school.
Rev Canon Whittington: I entirely
agree with the point about community, it is not just about learning,
it is about community, but also open communities, and, in particular,
within Church of England schools, I draw your attention to the
large number of other faiths within our schools. I may say that
a school, a set of schools, denomination schools, that has now
a couple of Muslim head teachers would have no difficulty whatsoever
with an atheist Head Girl. I cannot imagine that being a problem
because our communities are very varied, our school communities
are very varied and very open; and just to note too, international
IT links, as you can imagine, are very much a part of the curriculum
in schools these days and we have a number of schools that are
very involved in that; so I stress the openness of those communities.
Q286 Mr Pollard: As much as we know
the 1944 Education Act, and faith schools coughing up 15% originally,
now reduced to 10%, is it a possibility that if the 10% was taken
away altogether that you would lose the argument that you have
been putting forward about the necessity for faith schools? If
somebody came along and said, "Take away the 10%. You are
not to put anything in at all", would that not blow your
argument out of the water that you have put a good whack into
faith education over the years?
Ms Stannard: There is a statement,
is there not, an old saying, "Nowt for nowt", and I
think that is how we view our 10% contribution. It shows how culturally
diverse we are, Chairman, even in the Catholic record, but I would
want to put on record that we are culturally and ethnically diverse
communities in our schools too. Sometimes people particularly
make the mistake of thinking that Catholic always means white
and Anglo-Saxon, which is far from the truth.
Q287 Paul Holmes: To pick up on a
couple of things I have said earlier on, Martin, you were talking
about the fact that if as a result of the Draft Transport Bill,
for example, more LEAS started charging for children to go to
faith schools, it might well therefore skew the intake to the
middle-class who could afford to send the kids 15 miles away or
whatever. Would you accept that exactly the same thing works the
other way? For example, the school that Mr Abbott chose to send
his daughter to, the Abbotts could afford or did afford £2,000
to pay for that, but somebody else living in the same village
who was poorer but objected to sending their child to the local
school, they would not have had the choice; so it cuts both ways?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes, I accept that
one of my principal objections with the Bill is a reduction in
choice across the board. Okay; fine. In submissions we put to
the Committee, obviously they were taken from a Catholic perspective,
Catholic schools' perspective, and looking at it and saying, "I
consider that this reduces choice or has the capacity to reduce
choice." If it reduces choice for Catholic children, it must
reduce choice for other parents as well.
Q288 Mr Pollard: The second question
is exactly on that, the question of choice. Oona, for example,
said that she was here to defend the position of Catholic schools,
which is her belief and it is what is she is paid to do, and David
was defending the position of the 1944 Education Act that was
passed over half a century ago when far more people went to church
than the 8% who do so regularly at the moment. Do you see any
general principle or equity of choice here? Are you happy that
you have this privileged position that you are defending on transport
grounds, whereas parents like the Abbotts, or indeed myself, who
would never want to send their children to a faith school, do
not have that choice, they have a disadvantaged position compared
to you?
Ms Stannard: One remark I would
make to that, Paul, is that in a sense it never quite equates
to that, does it, because there are so many more community schools
that will always be closer, more accessible community schools
in the figures than there would be for Catholic schools. So there
is a very particular issue of distance and access for us. I would
also want to say that whilst you make the remark about the 1944
Act, and comments have been noted about levels of worship, I think
there is also much in society that still tells us that whilst
worship in church and derrie"res on pews may have
diminished, that does not equate with people necessarily having
no faith or a lack of spirituality, and I think that those things,
as we have heard the statistic of 70, are still Christians and
actually their beliefs and their spirituality are still held very
dear; so I am slightly anxious about any debasing of the importance
of religion in human rights and people's lives based on if they
are in church on a Sunday or not.
Q289 Paul Holmes: Keith Porteous
Wood touched on that; he said that even if you accept the 70-72%
who said in the census that they were Christian, that still left
the second largest group of the population who were saying that
they had no religious belief at all. Are you happy that there
is a privileged position from the 1944 Education Act and the 1988
Education Act for those who do have some religious spiritual approach
and they have a privileged position whereas for people who do
not accept that, as you said, by law, there are no secular schools
in this country? Do you think that is fair? Would you rather see
equity on both sides of the coin or are you happy with the privileged
position for those who do have what you call spirituality?
Rev Canon Whittington: It is not
a privileged position, not from our perspective. It is not a privileged
position, it is a position of service because it derives precisely
from the dual system in which we are in partnership with the state
and other VA providers. So, it is not a privileged position at
all. If you are asking me in a way, would I be happy to see the
establishment of VA secular schools, yes, why not? I could see
the fairness in that, but what we are talking about now is not
a matter of fairness, it is not a matter of privilege, it is a
matter of a system in which there is a mutual service and a partnership
in service between the churches, the VA providers and the state.
Ms Stannard: I have nothing to
add to what David said.
Ms Mason: There are several points
that I would like to pick up. One is that the church may be offering
a service that some people do not want to accept and they should
not be. There is an issue of equity and fairness here between
provision for people like Catholics and Anglicans and provision
for people like us. Secondly, there is not always a community
school; your nearest school is not always a community school and
that is exactly the problem that Ian had in Lancashire; his nearest
school was a church school and he was expected to send his child
there contrary to his philosophy. Thirdly, everyone keeps referring
to the 1944 Education Act—and this is a question to which
I do not know the answer—but surely that has been overridden
by the Human Rights Act and that takes precedence now. Laws made
50 years ago when nobody was thinking about human rights or religious
discrimination surely have to give way to better laws.
Q290 Mr Gibb: Are you going to put
your money where your mouth is and set up a VA in a secular school?
Ms Mason: We do not have any money!
Q291 Chairman: That is not a bad
question. If there were a great demand, people would help establish
such schools.
Ms Mason: Our primary policy at
the moment and our desire would be for good community schools
where children of all faiths and none were educated together and
that is what we campaigned for. We cannot at the same time campaign
for separate humanist or secular schools but that might be something
we have to consider in the future if there are only choices for
religious people and none for people like us.
Mr Porteous Wood: There is a survey
which has just been published by Lindisfarne Books of 30,000 children
which showed that 33% of them were agnostic and 25% of them defined
themselves as atheist. So, I think we have quite a market and
I think that really the education system should be more responsive.
Marilyn is absolutely right, there are huge swathes of the country
where about the only school you can go to, particularly at primary
level, is actually a religious school. There are several counties
where there are more C of E primary schools than all the rest
put together including Catholic ones and there are big places
in areas of Norfolk and other counties where that is actually
the only place you can go. You say that there is no privilege
in this but I think—
Q292 Chairman: Some of our witnesses
said there was no privilege.
Mr Porteous Wood: I beg your pardon
and I take that correction. In fact, what the Catholic and the
Anglican Church are getting is for 10% of the capital cost of
these schools, and often far less than that because they get it
from other sponsors, they get a lifetime's commitment from the
state of all of the running costs including transport costs and,
if that is not a privileged arrangement, I really do not know
what is. What I would really like—and I would be very
grateful if the Committee could give consideration to this—is
to make sure that these 58% of children and those who happen to
be of the "wrong" faith for denominational schools are
actually specifically protected from discrimination on grounds
of religion or no religion (certainly as far as transport
is concerned) by regulation or legislation. This would obviate
them having to go to court to obtain their rights.
Chairman: It is an irony that the published
house was Lindisfarne!
Q293 Mr Chaytor: Of all the parents
who currently benefit from free transport to Anglican or Catholic
schools, what is your assessment of the proportion of parents
who are genuinely active Catholics or Anglicans and that was the
basis for their preference of school and the proportion who simply
are impressed by the school's place in the league tables? I accept
that this is not a scientific answer but you must have a broad
estimate of whereabouts the balance is.
Ms Stannard: In our oversubscribed
schools, which are many, those attending will be generally committed.
We come down to definitions of commitment and some would argue
that, if they are a baptised Catholic, which is the basic criterion
for entry, and a parent is pursing a place at a Catholic school
for that child, then that is a sign of commitment, but we all
know that there are further questions asked in references and
so on about the level of commitment demonstrated in worship and
so on. So, I would contend that there is a very high level of
commitment to the distinctiveness of that Catholic education but
I am not so foolish as to say that, for the Catholic sector as
with others, you will not always find some people who are far
more alert to their faith at the point where they are exploring
admissions than at another stage. That is the reality, is it not?
Equally, we have schools where we might have up to 30% who are
not of the Catholic denomination within the school.
Q294 Mr Chaytor: They would not get
free transport.
Ms Stannard: They would not get
free transport but our evidence is that they are there because
they are committed to a whole plethora of what they believe that
school is offering from good standards to the living of their
values.
Rev Canon Whittington: Within
Church of England schools, you rightly need to separate admissions
criteria from transport criteria because they are different in
practice.
Q295 Chairman: They are related.
Rev Canon Whittington: They are
related but the transport criteria are usually higher than the
admissions criteria. To take a typical example, a local authority
might be willing to fund the cost of transport where, for example,
one of the parents were a confirmed member of the Church of England,
(that is pretty common), rather than that the parents just go
to church, or the child being baptised, and rarely in terms of
practice. Admissions are often in terms of practice. Strangely,
decisions that LEAs make about transport are rarely in terms of
practice. They much more go for qualifications, baptism or confirmation.
We have had many an argument with LEAs about that because we would
happily go for practice, happily go for practice, and, within
schools, that is the predominant criterion for church places.
Q296 Mr Chaytor: Ms Stannard, would
the Catholic Church happily go for practice as the main criterion
rather than simply the baptism of the child for transport purposes,
free transport?
Ms Stannard: That would be a factor
that certainly I think would be quite reasonable.
Chairman: Thank you very much. It has
been a most enlightening session and we value it a great deal
and we have learnt a great deal from all of you. I thank all of
you for being such good witnesses. We certainly know that that
will help our deliberations.
|
