Agenda item

(A report by Wendy Harrison, RE Adviser and Gillian Georgiou, Diocese and Cathedral Religious Adviser, in connection with the paper launched by the Rt Hon Charles Clarke and Professor Linda Woodhead on 15^th June 2015 as part of the Westminster Faith Debates. The paper focuses on three issues: Collective worship, Religious Education and Faith Schools)

SACRE received a report summarising the paper launched by the Rt Hon Charles Clarke and Professor Linda Woodhead on 15 June 2015, as part of the Westminster Faith Debates. SACRE was informed that the National Association of SACRES (NASACRE) had asked local SACREs to discuss the recommendations, with a focus on collective worship and RE. SACRE was informed that while this was not a government paper it was possible that it could be considered by the government when forming its education policy.

Wendy Harrison stated that her presentation only addressed the main recommendations in the paper. Gillian Georgiou said that while Parliamentary briefings on RE had been issued before it was unusual that they should follow so soon after an independent report on RE and therefore showed that the Government might be listening.

Wendy Harrison tabled a questionnaire on the main recommendations detailed in the paper and members split into four groups to address each question.

Comments on each question were noted as follows:-

Question 1 – Should the current requirements for a daily act of collective worship be abolished? If so, what (if anything) should replace it?

Collective worship should not be abolished but it was accepted that change was required. There was a need for whatever replaced collective worship to be relevant to pupils and governors should be involved in deciding what was included in collective worship, or assemblies. The main difficulty arose because of the word "worship".

Other comments included:-

1. It appears that many schools were not meeting statutory requirements regarding collective worship.

2. There had been many changes in society since the 1944 Act and abolishing the statutory duty to have collective worship would let schools make their own decisions about what kind of assemblies or events should replace it.

3. Even if autonomy was given to schools the withdrawal of pupils might still be an issue.

4. If statutory requirements were abolished, some schools might not have have any kind of assemblies.

5. The ethos of the school depended on the head teacher and staff, not just governors.

Question 2 – Should locally agreed RE syllabuses be replaced by a national curriculum for RE? If it was, what might the advantages and disadvantages be?

The move towards the provision of a nationally agreed syllabus might make more sense now that so many syllabuses resemble each other. At the time of the 1944 Act there was less diversity in the country. Areas like Lincolnshire were now more diverse than in the past and RE had to include teaching about a range of religions, beliefs and cultures. A national curriculum for RE would address the problems pupils faced at present when moving from one local authority area to another. However, the introduction of a non-statutory local element into the national syllabus would be useful.

Other comments included:-

1. The QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, no longer in existence) was advisory only but many schools thought that the programmes of study for RE they produced was actually statutory guidance.

2. The identification of experts to work on the national curriculum for RE would be difficult as so many viewpoints would have to be taken into account.

Question 3 – How might the role of SACREs be transformed if a national curriculum for RE was put in place?

There would still be a role for SACRE but in a different format. Questions were raised about how a national body could support local SACREs. Local SACREs had the opportunity to reflect on local issues. The work undertaken by local authority RE Advisers was important – how would this change if there was a national curriculum for RE? It might be possible for some local SACREs to secure funding over and above that provided nationally. One member commented that grants had been applied for in the past and this was an area which should be examined.

Question 4 – Should the right of withdrawal (from RE and acts of collective worship) be abolished?

Overall, the feeling was that the right of withdrawal should be abolished. Why was there a need to withdraw a pupil in the first place if there was nothing offensive or threatening being taught? There had been many changes in society since the 1944 Act and RE and collective worship was far more inclusive and tolerant. If RE was truly educational (not instructional, as previously) there should not be a need for withdrawal.

Other comments included:-

1. Young people were a lot more tolerant today.

2. There was a need to educate parents –often they withdrew their children due to a misunderstanding about the purpose of RE, e.g. from visits to places of worship.

3. There might be a need for RE and collective worship to be rebranded.

4. Parents should be informed of a school's expectations, e.g. academic and pastoral.

5. There was a need to continue to keep RE separate from collective worship.

6. The idea of change for just a small number of pupils was unnecessary.

7. It might be the case that most schools were not following collective worship as defined in the 1944 Act and Circular 1/94 but there was a lack of hard evidence for this.

RESOLVED

That the comments of SACRE be forwarded to NASACRE by Wendy Harrison.