Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
MR SIMON
GOULDEN, DR
MOHAMMED MUKADAM,
MR NICK
MCKEMEY
AND MS
OONA STANNARD
22 MAY 2006
Q280 Chairman: Most of the state
schools I visit, the good ones, have a pretty clear code of what
a good citizen is and that is not only taught in citizenship classes;
it imbues the behaviour and activity of the school. Is that not
the case?
Mr Goulden: I am sure you are
right but I am here representing Jewish faith schools and I cannot
talk for the others.
Q281 Chairman: There was just a little
bit of, "We are all right but we are worried about the rest
of the world".
Ms Stannard: May I step out of
my Catholic role for a moment and look back to my time as an HMI
and also the time when I acted as a consultant to the National
Healthy Schools standard? I have no doubt that there are other
schools that do citizenship very well too based on good human
values which, of course, people will say come from good Christian
values. I am not knocking other schools and saying we do everything
supremely well by any means. I think we can find some jolly good
examples if we look at things like the National Healthy Schools
standard and work in community schools too.
Q282 Chairman: The British Humanists
have given evidence to us on this: some people might argue that
faith schools are the problem, that the last 1,000 or 2,000 years
has been a history of different religions fighting each other
in the most unpleasant way, whether they be Catholics, Protestants,
Jews or Muslims. The faith is the problem, not the answer.
Ms Stannard: Mr Sheerman, I could
not possibly agree with you on that one. What we might be hearing
about is tribalism at times rather than religion and I think also
the different faiths have an amazing history of providing education
to people who become well developed and assimilated citizens serving
very well the wide diversity of the society in which they live.
Dr Mukadam: I think it is about
how schools and the education institutes teach citizenship through
a faith perspective; that is the important thing. Done properly
I think it will show and it does indeed show that young people
can become very good citizens because they have a solid base,
their own faith. All faiths teach a belief in God and to treat
every human being as they would themselves like to be treated.
It is how it is taught which is important and in my opinion in
our comprehensive schools we employ a very reductionist approach
because we do not provide a full faith perspective in developing
good citizenship. As a person coming from a faith background I
feel that we are denying an opportunity to our young people to
develop an inquiring mind to search for the eternal truth and
then to find universal values that will help throughout life's
struggles to become good citizens. From a faith perspective I
do feel that there needs to be a good debate on how good citizenship
can be taught but taught from a faith perspective. That is a debate
that I would welcome, not just for faith schools but also across
different schools, those schools of no faith, simply because it
is important to give young people a holistic approach in education
rather than the one that exists in many of our schools which I
term a reductionist approach.
Q283 Mr Chaytor: Can I pursue that
line of argument and ask each of our witnesses are you confident
that, in the schools you represent, within the citizenship component
of the curriculum the school could manage an objective discussion
of the issues surrounding the war in Iraq? I would like to hear
from each of you. How would the faith perspective come into that
discussion?
Mr McKemey: I think the best answer
I can give there is that we would expect that that discussion
would be freely undertaken and that all the issues could be discussed
openly and freely. In our case we talk about Christian values
driving the school and two of them are openness and honesty. Over
the last two years I have been involved in developing a new section
48 system for our schools and somebody in one particular diocese
said, "But it is not really very Christian to criticise,
is it?", and we said, "Actually, we think that is the
essence of our belief, that we are open, we are honest, but we
can do that in a loving and supporting way, so we would expect
that any issue can be dealt with". Obviously, you have an
enormous range of approaches you need to bring to that, depending
on the age, the size of the school, the kinds of pupils you have
got, if you have pupils in the school who are particularly associated
with that. For instance, that of a school full of service families
who are in Iraq and this was very much part of the open agenda
in that school. That is what we would expect. I could not possibly
sign for every single Church of England school to say they do
but that is an expectation which I think they would share.
Q284 Mr Chaytor: Had the Archbishop
of Canterbury made a statement about the moral issues involved
in that war or another war would that influence the way in which
the issue was discussed within Anglican faith schools?
Mr McKemey: I think it could do
if it was a particular headline issue and the teachers had noticed
and it had been taken on board. I think anything the Archbishop
of Canterbury said would probably be broadly reflected across
other areas of the church anyway, but others would differ, so
there would be a range of views on that which would equally be
explored.
Chairman: I think we had better contrast
the last Archbishop with this one. We will not go into that! David?
Q285 Mr Chaytor: I am just interested
in our witnesses commenting on this question.
Ms Stannard: We are educating
pupils in citizenship; we are not indoctrinating them, so the
importance of being able to hear evidence and listen respectfully
to one another's views and discern from that would in my view
be one of the most critical aspects of good citizenship education,
so I would hope that that which you are asking would in fact be
done well in our schools, whether it is directly under the title
of citizenship or there would be other areas of the curriculum
it could come into as well. In fact, I was interested when I was
getting feedback from some of our schools in advance of today
to hear from one school in an area close to Army bases where the
Army has been in and working with senior pupils to do simulations
of the issues facing the peacekeeping force, in this case in Bosnia
and the problem-solving and so on that goes with that. Giving
people the space to share their views, to share opinions and to
delve down further I think is one of the positives in this.
Q286 Mr Chaytor: Had there been again
a statement from the Vatican would that influence the nature of
the discussion and the amount of space that a Catholic school
could provide for that discussion?
Ms Stannard: Certainly it could
influence the manner in which the work was introduced and the
material that would be covered and perhaps where it would be covered.
In our schools we expect that 10% of curriculum time will be given
to religious education, so something coming up from the Vatican
in that way may well find a very quick home there and plenty of
time for it, but even coming from the Vatican does not mean that
it does not get discussed and even possibly tossed around and
questioned by some people.
Q287 Chairman: Are there any questions
in your Catholic schools that you would evade because they are
too difficult; they are uncomfortable?
Ms Stannard: I certainly hope
not, Chairman, because to evade such questions would run counter
to good education. I think what I would not in any type of school
be dwelling upon is where there is a prying into the particular
lifestyle, relationships and so on of the members of staff in
that school. Whether that is more likely to happen in citizenship
is not something I am suggesting.
Q288 Chairman: Or it might be Catholic
teaching on contraception that you were discussing, the high rate
of teenage pregnancy, say, or the attitude to contraception in
Africa where HIV/AIDS is such a problem.
Ms Stannard: I do not think the
discussion would be avoided.
Q289 Chairman: It is a difficult
area, is it not?
Ms Stannard: It is a difficult
area but it would be very likely to come up and it would not be
evaded. It would be discussed as is appropriate to the age range
of those pupils. In fact, it is important that it does come up
when they are reading about it in the media and so on.
Mr Goulden: On the war in Iraq,
I have no doubt that there have been a number of lively debates,
particularly in Key Stage 4, discussing the morality of war as
an overarching subject. There is a religious imperative and there
are certainly Jewish religious attitudes towards war and whether
there is such a thing as a just war and who can wage war and why
and a whole range of things and what you can do and what our texts
teach us about what happens when a war is waged, what you do with
prisoners of war and the like. There are texts going back 3,500
years to teach us that. Whether specifically the rights and wrongs
of the war in Iraq have been discussed I could not say.
Q290 Mr Chaytor: Should they be?
Mr Goulden: As opposed to any
other war, Chairman? Just the war in Iraq or every other war?
Q291 Chairman: The difficult ones;
the crisis in the Middle East, Palestine and Israel. They must
be difficult.
Mr Goulden: Undoubtedly there
are many lively discussions on the subject of the situation in
the Middle East and it is inevitable in a Jewish school that that
would happen. It is inevitable when you find that in many of the
schools the pupils will be taking trips, either on their own or
in school groups, to Israel. It is undoubtedly a question that
is raised and discussed in enormous detail. The subject would
not be shirked. I do not think the Chief Rabbi has come out about
the war in Iraq though.
Q292 Mr Chaytor: On the question
of the discussion, each of you is saying that the discussion would
take place, but the question is would the framework for discussion
be objective and balanced? That is the issue, is it not? Could
a Jewish school have an objective and balanced discussion about
the election victory of Hamas, for example?
Mr Goulden: Of course.
Q293 Mr Chaytor: And you would expect
that to be a principle of the teaching of citizenship within a
Jewish school?
Mr Goulden: Of course, it is not
British citizenship but we have strayed a little bit into international
politics, which is a fine discussion. I have no doubt that a whole
range of subjects could be dealt with within history, within citizenship,
indeed through literature and all of these different things. The
subject would not be swept under the carpet; that is an absolute
certainty. The phrase "two Jews, three opinions" is
one which should always be remembered.
Mr McKemey: We would see the purpose
of citizenship as being to equip young people to be able to undertake
those discussions and to be able to work over a range of topics,
and probably also to be able to cope within what we would like
to think is a Christian learning community with a range of possibly
violently different opinions and views and still remain a cohesive
community. That is part of the skill base that we would be looking
to develop in the sense that you may have rather extreme views
about somebody else's opinion but that is not tantamount to the
view that you have about the individual. We would want to put
it in that context. The other point I would make is that I do
not think any faith school could be hermetically sealed from the
outside world and those discussions will occur whether the school
is consciously engaged or not.
Dr Mukadam: The straight answer
is yes, we would not only allow it; we would encourage discussion
on difficult issues, and in principle that can be done in an objective
fashion because the highest object is the truth within a faith
school regardless of your affiliation to a political party or
this party or that party. The highest object is the truth. In
that sense in principle there is no objection at all and it would
pose no problems to have an objective discussion on issues such
as the war in Iraq or, for that matter, any other thing. I believe
it is important that these discussions take place in school. The
only problem is that we need to make sure that it is the right
teacher who has a good knowledge about Islam and also a broad
approach in seeking to establish that young people are thinking
things through in a way that will benefit society, always bearing
in mind that object, the truth.
Q294 Helen Jones: Following on from
what David asked you, what do you think the advantages and the
disadvantages are of trying to teach citizenship in faith-based
schools? You have outlined the advantages for us of a very clear
religious framework. Are there not also disadvantages in a multi-faith,
multi-ethnic society of having to try to teach citizenship in
a school where your pupils perhaps come from very similar backgrounds
and, if so, how do you overcome those disadvantages? How do you
engage not simply with your own community but also with the wider
community?
Mr Goulden: I think it is a mistake
to think that a faith-based school, even a school where 100% of
the children are of the same faith, is necessarily a homogeneous
school. All of our schools are comprehensive in their intake.
Many of them will have children from homes where English is an
additional language and many of them are first or second generation
in this country, so to think that they are homogeneous in the
way that perhaps a school in Cornwall or Cumbria might be is perhaps
something that needs to be reflected on. How one teaches in a
single faith school about other faiths is by engaging with other
schools. I certainly know of Jewish schools which have joint programmes
and meetings with pupils from other faith schools and other state
schools. A number of schools have programmes where they bring
in experts, imams or others from Christian denominations, to talk
about their religion and what it is like to be a black West Indian
in London or Britain today, and going out into other schools,
having inter-school football competitions and chess competitions
and debating societies. It means that the schools are not hermetically
sealed, nor indeed should they be. That is very important. I hope
I have answered your question.
Q295 Helen Jones: You have partly
answered it. What I am trying to get at is this. You can teach
citizenship within Islamic schools, Jewish schools, Muslim schools,
I understand that absolutely; my own background is all in Catholic
education, but the difficulty, it seems to me, when you are doing
that, and perhaps another member of the panel might try and answer
that, is that what children miss out on is daily interaction with
people from different backgrounds, different faiths and so on.
How do you promote the kind of respect, tolerance, acceptance,
which I think was a word that Simon used earlier, which we want
our children to grow up with in a very mixed society?
Dr Mukadam: That is a very important
question you have raised and one which is quite often put to us
by many different people. I would point to the evidence which
is around us. If you see young people who have gone through faith
schools, we need to follow them through to further education colleges,
which tend to be comprehensive, the universities and, of course,
into their own careers, and then look at the evidence to see whether
there has been a failure or a success in terms of promoting good
citizenship. We can make judgments on whether or not these young
people find it easy to integrate with members of different communities
and whether or not these people hold deep respect for their fellow
citizens, regardless of their faith or no faith and so forth.
There are factors there and empirical evidence which needs to
be looked at and so forth. In so far as the Association of Muslim
Schools, and of course I am sure my other colleagues would say
so as well, we have had some evidence which shows that young people
who come from faith backgrounds do not have the facilities to
be able to interact, in their foundation years and secondary years,
with people of different faiths on the whole within the school.
However, I would like to say that the values we teach, nurture
and develop within them, such as having deep respect for fellow
human beings, the skills to communicate and so forth, are so profound
that when they do go into colleges and universities and take up
their rightful place in our wider society, you will find that
there is no problem, they are good citizens and, in a sense, they
find it quite easy to integrate, to play their rightful role in
society. I would also like to point to the evidence which exists
regarding those disturbances in our northern cities and, indeed,
the atrocities which we all know about. To the best of my knowledge,
I have not seen a single person who was caught, let alone convicted,
who went to a faith school. If we separate our preconceived understandings
and notions from the empirical data that is around we will find
that generally speaking there is not a problem or a disadvantage
so long as the teaching within those faith schools promotes the
universal values which are, of course, to treat any other human
being, regardless of his or her faith or background, the same
as you would like to be treated yourself. These fundamental values
ensure that although they do not have the practical opportunity
to interact within schools, but let us face it school is only
part of their lives, there are other areas where they can put
that into practice. The data which is available clearly shows
that if we use different approaches it does not necessarily disadvantage
these young people in the way that we are talking.
Q296 Helen Jones: Can I ask about
some of the practicalities before we go on. I appreciate what
you are saying, Dr Mukadam. If there is any evidence that you
would like to give us later that would be very helpful. When we
look at citizenship, we are also looking at active citizenship,
about people becoming engaged within communities. What steps do
faith schools take, in your experience, to ensure that when we
talk about community engagement, for instance, it is not simply
their own faith community? We can all stay within our own comfort
zones, can we not? How do we overcome that?
Mr McKemey: If I can add a little
footnote to the previous question. 38.4% of all children in Church
of England schools are in rural schools and a lot of those are
very small schools and are mono-cultural. We think the issue of
developing notions of broader citizenship across British society
in those contexts is extremely important. Very often the local
perspectives are, "Why do we need to know about other cultures
and faiths because they are not here?" Equally, those children
are probably going to grow up and go and work in Birmingham or
London or somewhere else and make their way in the world, so we
think there is a duty there to them, and I just wanted to put
that down.
Ms Stannard: I am pleased that
you have asked that question. When I was preparing for this I
was delighted at the number of examples that came through which
show citizenship as a catalyst for young people working in many
activities beyond their own school. I think that is important
if we are talking about faith schools or community schools. I
would certainly refute any idea of faith schools being insular
and not seeking all sorts of opportunities to work with others.
For example, I am getting heads and others telling me about local
youth forum, things like the Young Essex Assembly, shared mock
magistrate trials, youth parliaments, running Make Poverty History
campaigns together, Amnesty International campaigns across schools,
and hearing about some schools in Bradford where the Catholic
school had been working with a school where there were many Muslim
pupils to offer a lunch club to the women of the area to get them
meeting and talking together. I think things like that show where
citizenship education is doing a lot to prompt working across
communities rather than seeing citizenship in faith schools as
necessarily being any more separatist.
Q297 Mr Marsden: In your opening
statements all four of you talked about the importance of citizenship
being absolutely interlinked with what you are trying to do as
faith schools and therefore, I think, if I remember rightly, all
four of you said it was so closely interlinked with everything
that those schools should be doing. Interestingly enough, as we
drill down with some of the questions from my colleagues, particularly
the questions which David Chaytor asked, what appears to me to
come out very strongly is that some of the most striking ways
in which you address those issues are through looking at specific
subjects. I hesitate in present company to say the devil is in
the detail, but is there not some case—I will start off
with you, Nick, because you were the one who talked about the
immense breadth of the sorts of schools you represent, and as
a fellow Anglican I well understand it—for saying that perhaps
you should take a closer look and see whether in fact some of
these citizenship issues should not be more ring-fenced in order
to provide the very valuable opportunities which you have all
given specific examples of?
Mr McKemey: Do you mean there
should be a specific focus on a particular point?
Q298 Mr Marsden: What I think I am
saying is you gave some indication—if I am misconstruing
it, forgive me—of the preference for the idea that citizenship
should go through the whole ethos with the school rather than
saying, "This is citizenship half hour, and this week we
are going to discuss Iraq or contraception" or whatever it
might be. The point I am putting to you is given the enormous
variety, particularly of Anglican schools, would it not make more
sense not to assume that all schools will do what the best schools
will do, which is to do both, and look more specifically at ring-fencing
sometime to discuss the sorts of issues which you have all agreed
are valuable?
Mr McKemey: I think to some extent
within the curriculum it is going to be about the quality of the
broad curriculum, including areas where you might identify something
like opportunities for social service, which is something that
a lot of their schools, for instance, were keen on, or areas for
developing the ability to discuss, debate and weigh arguments
and so on. In that sense, we would agree with that approach and
that is why I think we would like to support not just a notion
of citizenship but some more clearly defined ideas as to what
we are looking at there. When I talked about shallow tolerance,
in a sense that is a rather lazy concept, it is about going beyond
those things. Broadly, whether it is delivered through the subject
curriculum or in other ways—and in small schools these things,
by and large, are delivered as cross-curricula holistic topics,
so that can be done—it is more complicated in large secondary
schools. I think there are bigger dangers in large secondary schools
of getting inept pockets of something, because it is there they
are going to do it. I think it is very much about the quality
with which you deliver it. I would agree that we need to pick
out certain areas. I think it comes back to the point I was making
that we have a focus in this inspection forum that we have got
which is about how does the distinctive Christian character of
the school meet the needs of all learners, and within that there
is the focus on developing the whole child in every aspect, and
we would see citizenship within that. What you are saying is you
need particular things to make it work and, yes, we would agree
with that.
Q299 Mr Marsden: Again, speaking
earlier you talked about—I think you mentioned it more than
once—some of the feedback you have had from your heads about
the pressure on the time on the curriculum and so on and so forth.
Again, given the vast range of schools that you are representing,
is there not a danger that if there is not some quite specific
ring-fencing the good schools will always do the mixture of working
across the curriculum, doing the specific stuff and indeed picking
up the volunteering and community service which you referred to
and my colleague Helen Jones asked about? Is there not a danger
that the coasting schools will just either say, "Oh well,
we are a Catholic school and this is not viewed in our ethos.
We will either not do it at all specifically or possibly it will
get shoehorned into the tail ends of PSHE lessons"?
Ms Stannard: I think one might
describe our education system as a bit of a stick and carrot system
at the moment with the inspection and monitoring and so on. My
experience has been that our schools operate within a mixed economy,
and there is evidence of some ring-fencing, particularly years
where time is devoted throughout the curriculum on a weekly basis
to citizenship and other examples of discrete packages alongside
what is also being provided for cross-curricula. I would also
say it is going to be very important for any type of school that
we have Ofsted monitoring what is happening in citizenship and
its provision so that the very thing you fear does not happen
and we know what the state of the nation is in terms of the provision
and quality. Maybe I have not interpreted your question correctly?
|
