Our new government has now published its coalition agreement document with the tagline “Freedom, fairness, responsibility”. The most interesting part of that document, in terms of religion, is how the education buzzword of the last decade – “inclusion” – has been interpreted. The agreement states: “We will work with faith groups to enable more faith schools and facilitate inclusive admissions policies.” So, should faith schools be made to accept the children of families who do not support the school’s religious ethos? Surely this would just make them like other state schools. Or do they need to become more inclusive to stop discrimination on religious grounds taking place in schools?
Prime Minister David Cameron, who sends his daughter to a Church of England primary school, has said: “I think that faith schools are a really important part of our education system and they often have a culture and ethos which helps to drive up standards.” This means that the families of the children who attend that school need to support its view, otherwise that collective religious outlook is lost. The Church of England’s Chief Education Officer, Revd Janina Ainsworth, stated in 2009 that: “Proposals to strip faith schools of the right to use any faith-based admissions criteria would dilute a key ingredient that can help to make these schools distinctive, popular and successful.”
There are many who are concerned about the existence of faith schools and so have welcomed the new proposals as a step in the right direction. Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, has warned: “[The coalition government] must ensure that their admissions and employment policies will not discriminate on religious grounds. It must also ensure that … new Academies will not be able to teach creationism, unbalanced religious education, and flawed sex and relationships education.” Humanists have a valid concern that “greater freedom over the curriculum,” will mean granting license to faith schools to teach students ‘inaccuracies’ or ‘untruths’, though of course the schools will still be subject to regulation.
Faith schools, of course, are not alone in establishing selection criteria for their students – grammar schools, for example, select on the basis of academic achievement. This can be seen as divisive by some, but in fact they give their students the best opportunity to fulfil their academic potential: this is mainly down to the environment for learning they create. This same environment is often said to be created in faith schools, although in a supportive, communal rather than a competitive, academic way.
Lastly, what about choice? If we can choose to believe in whatever we like and to practice whatever we like (within reason of course) – and are protected in our beliefs by law – then why can we not choose to send our children to whichever school we want to? That is, after all, the point of the new Education and Children’s Bill, which enables parents, businesses and charitable groups to set up and run their own state-funded schools. This is supposed to, "put fairness at the heart of the education system," Vince Cable tells us, by allowing all parents to have a choice in how their children are educated – even if they do not have the money for private education. ‘Choice’ between state schools has become extremely important for many parents, and the opportunity to choose to send your child to a faith school (even if for reasons other than its religious character) is a right that parents should be entitled to in this modern age of diversity of education.
Whilst discrimination on religious grounds seems strangely old-fashioned in this modern, multi-cultural society, if this new government really wants to bring inclusion to the school system, surely they are in fact working directly against their own commitment to the policy of educational choice?
Melinda Mabbutt is a theology graduate. She recently completed an internship at Theos.
