Memorandum submitted by the Education
division of Tile Archbishops' Council of the Church of England
(ST 31)
The Church of England strongly supports the
principal aims of the Bill. It is timely to look at good quality,
safe, flexible, cost effective and environmentally sensitive alternatives
to children being brought to school by private car.
However, it is important that LEAs should continue
to provide targeted support to ensure that distance is not a barrier
to appropriate education for the poor and also that exercising
choice does not become the prerogative of the well off. While
the autonomy of LEAs is an important principle, it is also desirable
that no "post-code lottery" should exist through major
differences in provision between one Authority and another.
We support the view that an LEA should provide
and fund transport to Welsh medium schools where this is appropriate,
but take the view that transport to an English medium school might
also be necessary in certain parts of (mainly north) Wales.
In respect of Church of England schools, we
take the view that there is a difference of category between support
for transport to Church schools and support for transport to schools
of other kinds which might be preferred by parents. That difference
of category is called "The Dual System". Those religious
bodies which are providers of Voluntary Schools do so within a
network of legal and customary procedures which owe their origin
to the 1944 Education Act and to the massive capital contribution
which the Churches made to education for "the poor"
in the l9th and early 20th centuries. Denominational transport
is not on the same footing as transport to (for example) the nearest
Sports College or Performing Arts College. If it were, equality
of treatment would of course be the right way forward. But there
is (we suggest) a proper difference between those faith groups
which committed and still commit enormous funding, time and energy
to working in partnership with the state within the dual system
and those bodies which are either external pressure groups or
simply a part of main-stream LEA provision. We believe that this
Bill should strengthen and clarify the dual system relationship.
As drafted, it has the capacity to undermine it.
The Church of England is committed (for reasons
it believes to be important) to some important policies in respect
of its schools. We wish them to be both distinctive (clearly Church
of England schools) and yet inclusive (offering a home to young
people from widely differing backgrounds). We also wish them to
be local (acting as the educational focus for their neighbourhood)
but yet not socially divisive (not excluding children from the
"wrong side of the tracks"). We fear that achieving
the balance necessary to deliver these important aims (aims which
we believe are indeed currently delivered by many of our schools—
though with plenty of room for improvement) may be made more difficult
if denominational transport becomes less common. We fear that
a reduction in transport provision would make our schools more
uncontrollably "middle class" and would impede the mission
which many of our schools have to the less privileged areas of
our communities.
Since this is an issue which becomes more contentious
at Secondary level, we draw attention to the current policy of
the Church of England to increase the number (and therefore the
accessibility) of its Secondary schools. The Dearing Report "The
Way Ahead" challenged the Church of England to add a further
100 secondary schools to its stock. This would still provide far
below the number of places offered by our 4,500 Primary schools,
but it was accepted by the Church as an significant and achievable
target. It is pleasing to report that (at the time of writing)
some 20 VA secondary schools (or C of E Academies) have opened,
22 more are agreed (opening this year or next) and 35 further
are under serious discussion around the country. This has been
achieved because of commitment on our part, strong support and
partnership from many (though not all) LEAs and the popularity
of our schools with parents. We are thus committed to reducing
the transport bill by providing more accessible schools.
What about parents who wish positively to avoid
a church school for their children? Perhaps we need to remind
ourselves that there are no secular maintained schools in England—RE
and worship, as well as Spiritual Development are a part of the
entitlement of young people in all maintained schools. Parents
have the right of withdrawal in all schools (including church
one). What is some source of pleasure to us is how very few parents
ever avail themselves of this right. The Church of England is
committed to living the faith sensitively with young people from
other world-faith homes or from homes of no faith at all. We believe
that we can show you many of our schools (eg with 80% or above
Muslim youngsters) which succeed in delivering this openness and
care in the name of God and out of love for young people.
While this radical inclusiveness is a powerful
part of the Church of England ethos, we are sensitive too to the
needs of other Christian and other Faith communities. For them
the balance between being distinctive and inclusive may be very
different from that which is appropriate for us. We hope that
this Bill can be so drafted as to remain generous to their needs
and not merely be matched to ours—still less to some notion
of "secularism".
Finally we should be glad to participate in
pilots. We wonder indeed whether there might not be a couple of
specifically church school pilots (perhaps in partnership with
interested LEAs)— one rural and one urban. We would certainly
be willing participants if this were possible.
We wish all concerned every blessing in coming
to a common mind in this important area of policy.
12 May 2003
| 
