Legislative Scrutiny: Equality Bill - Human Rights Joint Committee Contents


Memorandum submitted by the Christian Schools' Trust

  The Christian Schools' Trust represents just fewer than 50 independent Christian schools across the UK. Each school is autonomous but they have come together for mutual support and benefit and to further and develop the aims of Christian education. These schools have been started by churches or parent groups over the past 30 years or so, with the intention of providing an education for their own children from the perspective of an evangelical, Christian worldview. Currently CST schools educate in the region of 3,000 pupils between the ages of three and 16.

Selection is not based on academic ability and many schools have a high number of children from families who do not profess the Christian faith (up to 40% in some cases) as well as significant proportions of children with learning difficulties. As there is no central funding, except for some nursery aged children and a handful of individuals with statements of educational need, the schools are maintained by parental contributions, typically 1/3 of the average independent school fee. Many schools have systems to ensure that families of limited income are not unduly penalised.

  Academic results from these schools are consistently above the national average, Ofsted reports are good and current research suggests that the all-round wellbeing of pupils surpasses average national trends. CST together with The Association of Muslim Schools UK has recently established the Bridge Schools Inspectorate, which now conducts inspections for some independent faith schools on behalf of DCSF and Ofsted.

  Whilst CST does not represent maintained faith schools to any degree, it is hoped that the following observations will aid the Committee in its deliberations.

  The evidence for the efficacy of maintained faith schools seems incontrovertible and the general public perception, as evidenced by the existence of over-subscription, would appear to reinforce this. It seems clear that the core of the issue is this: to what extent can a secular government responsibly allow and fund faith schools to operate within their own faith criteria and maintain the ethos which lies behind their effectiveness?

  Those who lead, manage or teach in faith schools will recognise that the struggle to develop and maintain a credible and distinctive ethos concomitant with their beliefs and practices is not an easy one; particularly in a largely secular society. The very concept of distinctiveness requires that schools operate counter to the flow of the prevailing culture. Despite this difficulty, faith communities continue to show a commitment to engage in education in order to allow their children and young people the fullest opportunity to discover faith for themselves.

  A school admissions policy is of very significant importance in establishing, developing and maintaining the ethos of any school community; no less so for faith schools. If such schools are to have freedom to continue to be effectively distinctive, they should have the opportunity to maximise attendance possibilities for those in the faith community. In addition families who do not share the same conviction of faith should clearly demonstrate a long-term willingness to work closely with the principles on which the school is built. To do otherwise would be counter-productive for both school and family. The current arrangements allow for this to be possible. Any significant interference with these regulations is likely to further erode any overall benefit that these schools give to the community.

  Similarly with the curriculum, faith schools should retain the freedom to develop creative ways of showing the relevance of their beliefs to contemporary society. It is commonly believed that education, particularly in religious matters, can best take place from a position of neutrality. The implication of this premise for the school curriculum is that any approach which does not aim to treat all views as equally plausible, especially religious views, is philosophically and morally corrupt. The flaw in such reasoning is that a truly neutral position is impossible to attain. Every curriculum, every teacher, every educational institution has an underlying worldview which colours the truth that it seeks to convey. Is it not a more honest approach to be completely clear and open about the bias that any curriculum material has in order to help develop discernment with regard to matters of faith and morality? Those involved with faith schools would argue strongly that respect for other beliefs comes very readily from a position of firm belief. Far from being threatened, those of different faiths are safe in an environment where faith is valued. Furthermore, there are surely sufficient checks and safeguards already in place to ensure that schools do not abuse the privilege of such a freedom in the curriculum?

  Once again, the current arrangements give not only a fair and common sense approach but allow faith schools to operate with integrity and honesty in matters of belief.

  Opponents of this situation may raise objections based on the belief that there is the potential for an individual's right to the education of their choice to be infringed. The fact is that complete freedom of educational choice is not universally available; it is impracticable to act otherwise. Some freedoms have to trump others. If indeed an individual's rights appear to be disregarded, should the assertion of those rights be allowed to override the freedom for a whole community of faith adherents to provide sound education for their own children according to the tenets of their faith? Is not the logical extension of enforcing the absolute freedom of all individuals with regard to education a gradual dilution of distinctive schools of any character? All schools descending to the lowest common denominator in matters of belief.

  Other objections focus on the concern that faith schools promote sectarianism and militate against community cohesion in the UK. The argument being that public money is being misused in a manner that works against the general interests of society. This fear seems unfounded. There is no evidence, hard or anecdotal, to add credence to such concerns. In fact the opposite would appear to be the case. The Committee will be aware that something like 25% of the nation's children are educated in faith or church schools. If sectarian indoctrination is taking place to the degree that it is purported to, would it not be evident across the community to a much higher degree? In addition, if faith schools, particularly Christian ones, were as successful in the cause of such indoctrination, intentionally or otherwise, surely church attendance would be higher and Christian militancy a more obvious force in the nation as a whole. Clearly, the Christian faith is not the influence that it once was and so the charge of promoting sectarianism seems somewhat empty.

  Perhaps this discussion is an opportunity to consider what the real influence of faith in education is? Perhaps the members of the Committee would like to examine the extent to which community cohesion is being strengthened by schools with no clear faith basis? Faith schools have become popular scapegoats for some of the nation's social difficulties but they are rarely given the opportunity to demonstrate or have public acknowledgment for any good that they do. CST has for some years been studying the attitudes of its former pupils to attempt to gauge what difference they may be making to their communities. Early indications are very positive and encouraging. The Emmanuel Foundation, based in the north east of England is due to open a new school in the next year or so. They are taking the risk of commissioning an ongoing study of the area in which the school is placed so as to be able to assess the impact over a number of years. Studies such as these should be welcomed and the results brought into the public arena to aid those involved in decision making.

  In conclusion there is no need to change the system as it currently operates. To do so would threaten any beneficial contribution that is made to the community by faith schools.

January 2009





 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 12 November 2009