I am a rabbi and so perhaps an unlikely contributor to New Humanist. However, while I value faith – both my own and that of others – I am also conscious that, while it can be enormously enriching, it can also be a source of division.
For that reason I have always been wary of faith schools, which effectively segregate children according to their religious identity and prevent children from different traditions from mixing with each other.
To my mind this is doubly pernicious: first, it leads to a society in which children of different backgrounds can grow up as strangers – at best ignorant of each other, at worst suspicious and hostile – and therefore threatens the social cohesion of society at large.
Second, it is a religious own goal: for if we are to take seriously the injunction to “love your neighbour as yourself”, then we have to know our neighbours, interact with them and see their commonality with us.
For many years I felt I was a lone voice, certainly within the religious world. Even if I was able to make it heard every now and then on the radio or in articles, there was no structure through which to link up with others or to press for change.
It was with great delight, therefore, that I came across Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association and heard of his plans to form a group that would bring together people troubled with the current practices of faith schools and worried about their impact on children.
This eventually coalesced into Accord – a broad coalition of organisations and individuals who are both religious and non-religious. Accord is not anti-faith schools, but concerned about the way they operate. It seeks to get away from “ya-boo” debates of those who are pro- or anti-faith schools. Instead it takes a much more nuanced approach, the main question being: what is best for the children?
Accord was born on 1 September 2008. Before the day was out, a body that links faith schools of all religious denominations – united in their separateness! – had produced a three-page press release that not only condemned us but deliberately tried to stereotype us as yet another anti-faith-school pressure group.
This, along with the avalanche of vitriolic criticism in the religious papers – from the Church Times to the Jewish Chronicle – served to give us a prominence that was both painful and welcome. The following week there was more coverage when Accord’s views were widely sought by the media on the opening of the first Hindu school in Britain.
Our response was simple. By dividing Hindu children from those of other faiths, there was an enormous responsibility upon the school to work hard to overcome the social barriers this could cause.
This in turn begs specific questions that apply to all faith schools, and that form the four key concerns of Accord.
Admissions: will state-funded schools operate admissions policies that take no account of a pupil’s religious belief? This is the litmus test as to whether they are serving the local community or serving themselves.
Employment: do they operate recruitment and employment policies that do not discriminate on grounds of religion? It may be reasonable for the RE teacher to be of a particular faith, but not the maths teacher, French assistant, kitchen staff or caretaker.
Syllabus: as there is no National Curriculum for RE (why not?) and as faith schools can opt out of the locally agreed SACRE syllabus (how come?), how can we ensure they follow an objective, fair and balanced syllabus for education about religious and non-religious beliefs?
Accountability: is it wise to have a system of inspection whereby special arrangements are made for faith schools that other schools do not have, which permits exemptions from the normal OFSTED regulation? Why should this be the case and why are they not monitored like every other school?
Now that this initial glare of publicity is over, the hard work of campaigning for these reforms begins. It is hard, but not impossible. There is definitely a new mood in the air. The rapid expansion of faith schools in the last decade without much public attention is now being challenged by people who are uncomfortable with what has happened while they were looking the other way.
In addition, independent evidence has recently emerged that admissions procedures are being abused and some state-funded faith schools are acting unethically: either by covertly charging parents or by selection procedures that discriminate against children from less academic backgrounds.
Accord has the disadvantage of operating on a shoestring against powerful vested interests, but we passionately believe in children growing up in harmony, and this messianic streak (religious for some, secular for others) is our strongest asset.
