The Academies Bill proposes to give new Academy schools considerably more operational freedom, including being able to opt out from teaching the National Curriculum. Significantly, it will also compel all faith schools that become an Academy school to have the legal status of an independent school with a religious character.

The Chair of the Accord Coalition, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said ‘we are incredibly worried by some aspects of the Bill. Independent schools with a religious character are able to discriminate against pupils and teachers on the basic of religion and conferring this legal status upon new Academy schools risks extending discriminatory practices to many more state funded schools.’

We are also concerned that some Academies will use their freedom over the curriculum to avoid teaching even the most basis Sex and Relationships Education (SRE). Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education, which includes SRE, improves children’s health and well being, and so we think Academy schools must be required to provide it’.

‘We therefore support amendments tabled by Baroness Massey and Lord Northbourne, which will help to significantly mitigate against these concerns, and urge members of the House of Lords to support them’.

The Government’s new Academies Bill, which enters its second reading in the House of Lords this Monday (June 7^th) proposes to allow new Academy schools to opt out from teaching the National Curriculum and will indirectly allow all schools with a religious character that become a new Academy to have wide ranging power to discriminate against all teaching staff and applicants on religious grounds.

Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, the chair of the Accord Coalition, said ‘in the Government’s eagerness to give schools far greater operational freedom, they appear to be also freeing them from regulations that help ensure the education they provide is properly balanced, broad and does not promote extreme views. For example, the National Curriculum currently requires maintained schools to provide basic sex education in biology and prevents them from teaching creationism in science. Allowing new Academies to opt out of the National Curriculum will mean they no longer have to abide by such safeguards’.

‘The Bill also gives any school with a religious character that becomes an Academy the same legal status as an independent school with a religious character.  It means they will be exempt from several aspects of equality legislation and allowed to discriminate against applicants and staff that teach in their schools on the grounds of religion. A more accurate name for these ‘exemptions’ is ‘discrimination’ – they should be done away with altogether, not extended further to a large number of state funded schools’.

‘Furthermore, the Government has said that schools rated as “outstanding” will be “pre-approved” to become Academies and will never have to face an automatic Ofsted inspection ever again. In 2007 a legal duty was placed on all maintained schools in England to promote community cohesion.  It was introduced specifically to mitigate the damage that sectarian schools can have on community cohesion. Compliance with the duty is assessed by Ofsted and so it is very worrying that new Academy schools will no longer be required to show that they are improving community cohesion’.

‘However good a school is now, it is ludicrous that it should be permanently exempt from Ofsted inspection. No school should be afraid of inspection, and the promise of being free from supervision is a reckless invitation to drop standards’.

‘The Government urgently needs to amend its own legislation and provide an insurance that the creation of new Academy schools will not allow more discrimination on basis of religion in our schools, and that the education they provide, including the Religious Education, is truly broad and balanced’.

Notes

The Accord Coalition was launched in September 2008 to bring together religious and non religious organisations campaigning for an end to religious discrimination in school staffing and admissions. The coalition also campaigns for a fair and balanced RE curriculum, for pupils to receive Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education, the removal of the requirement for compulsory collective worship, but does not take a position for or against faith schools in principle. Its growing list of members and supporters include the British Humanist Association, the Christian think tank Ekklesia, the British Muslims for Secular Democracy, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and members from all three of the largest parties in parliament.

To view information about the implications and unpopularity of discriminatory and exclusive practices employed in state education system, including in faith schools, please see our databank of independent evidence.

For further comment, contact Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain on 07770 722 893.

For further information, contact Paul Pettinger on 020 7462 4990.

Loreto College decided to suspend Jack Easton because it believed that the Green Party policy of seeking to stop religious organisations from running state schools could be incompatible with his role at the school.
Mr Easton explained that while he is not religious, his wife is a Catholic and his children have been brought up as believers. Defending the policy on which he is running for parliament Mr Easton said:

“The Green Party’s underlying vision is that every child and young person should be entitled to attend their local community school and for their needs to be met on an inclusive basis.”

“The Greens believe that education should include a celebration and recognition of religious and cultural diversity and spirituality and Green Party policies include requiring schools to provide prayer space for those who wish to practice their religion.”

“Schools could choose to hold acts of worship but would be expected to provide alternative activity for pupils that do not wish to take part.”

The Accord Coalition also campaigns for major reform to laws governing school admissions, religious discrimination against teachers and the current requirement for a daily act of worship, although unlike the Greens the campaign does not take a position on the principle of faith schools. Polls suggest that the Green Party may win its first MP in the election next week.

” [We will] allow parents to continue to choose faith-based schools within the state-funded sector and allow the establishment of new faith schools. We will ensure that all faith schools develop an inclusive admissions policy and end unfair discrimination on grounds of faith when recruiting staff, except for those principally responsible for optional religious instruction.”

Although there has not been space to explain all of the details of the policy, the party is also committed topreventing new schools from selecting children on the grounds of belief; to allowing children of sufficient maturity to withdraw themselves from collective worship; and to putting in place:

“Broad guidance on religious education at a national level and ensure that religious education in state funded schools educates young people about people’s beliefs and practise in terms of the main religious belief systems. It should not specify what pupils themselves should believe and practise.”

Labour

• Allowed the creation of academy schools, many of which have been governed by religious bodies. Generally academy schools have been more inclusive in their admissions than many existing voluntary aided and voluntary controlled schools, but it is not clear how far (if at all) the is as a consequence of government action. Academy schools are allowed by law to discriminate in their admissions requirements by religion. While some religious academy schools follow the locally agreed syllabus, others have been criticised for excessive evangelism.

• There has been no major change to the statutory basis of Religious Education, which is compulsory in all schools but does not form part of the National Curriculum and need not be balanced or broad.

• The government fought to protect employment exemptions which mean that teachers can be discriminated against to a greater degree than employees in other organisations with a religious ethos. They also changed the law in 2006 to allow faith schools to discriminate against non-teaching staff by religion and against the head teachers of voluntary controlled schools with a religious character.

• The passing of the School Admissions Code in 2002 and its subsequent tightening has significantly improved the fairness of school admissions. In spring 2008 Ed Balls took the unusual step of incurring the ire of the faith schools lobby by criticising schools that broke the admissions code through practices such as interview and charges for applicants.

• Attempted to make Sex and Relationship Education part of the National Curriculum but late in the day gave a partial exemption to faith schools.

Conservative

• The Conservatives are planning radical reforms to the education system and the detail of how these changes will apply to faith schools is not fully known.

• They plan to facilitate the creation of free schools, which would be government funded but independently run. It is envisaged that faith groups would be among those interested in running free schools and the terms on which they would be allowed to do so could greatly affect the consequences of the policy.

• Accord is pleased to hear that free schools will not be allowed to select pupils according to religion. It is not yet known whether they will be able to discriminate against teachers.

• The party is in favour of reducing the level of central control over the curriculum, but it is not yet know how this would be applied to Religious Education which is complusory in all schools thought not part of the National Curriculum.

• It is not expected that the Conservatives would prioritise changing the admissions rules of existing faith schools.

• The party did not support moves to end the special exemption of teachers in faith schools from laws against discrimination in employment.

• Michael Gove blocked the passing of legislation to make Sex and Relationship Education part of the National Curriculum because of plans to allow 15 year olds to attend the lessons against their parents’ wishes.

Liberal Democrat

• The party is against the opening of new schools that discriminate on religious grounds. It would require existing schools to demonstrate within five years that their admissions are inclusive at risk of losing state funding, although more detail on how this would work would be helpful.

• The Liberal Democrats oppose religious employment conditions against all non teaching staff and against all teachers except those responsible for religious instruction in faith schools.

• The party supports allowing children of a sufficient maturity to withdraw themselves from collective worship.

• The party supports broad guidance at national level ensure “that religious education in state funded schools educates young people about people’s beliefs and practise in terms of the main religious belief systems. It should not specify what pupils themselves should believe and practise.”

• The Liberal Democrats argued for the strengthening of provisions on Sex and Relationship Education and against special treatment for faith schools.

On teachers

The report argues that faith schools “may be in breach of” European employment law for the way that they discriminate against teachers. This is because – unlike other employers with a religious ethos – faith schools are able to restrict posts to coreligionists without needing to justify doing so on a case-by-case basis.

The report also questions whether changes made to the law in 2006 that extended the scope of religious discrimination permissible in certain posts in faith schools were legal under European law.

On school admissions

The report says that the current law allowing schools with a religious character to have religious admissions requirements “may be overdrawn” and that the government’s defence of this exemption is misguided. While the report does not argue that the whole principle of allowing schools to select by religion is wrong in law, it questions whether it is legal to allow faith schools to discriminate irrespective of whether doing so helps protect their religious character in reality.

The report makes the point that many Church of England schools already do not have religious admissions requirements and, in the opinion of the Church, this has not undermined their religious character. If this is the case, then perhaps it is right to ask questions of those schools that persist in keeping religious admissions criteria?

This week Mr Cameron told gay magazine Attitude that you can prevent a rise in homophobia in faith schools by:

“having some good ground rules about the teaching of things like sex education”

Only last week, Mr Cameron said that although the style and content of sex and relationship education should not be dictated to schools:

Indeed the school prioritises practising Hindu families, and uses a definition of Hinduism disputed by some in the community. Unlike community schools, voluntary aided schools also do not have to teach the locally agreed RE syllabus. While Krishna Avanti claims that its RE lessons will be balanced, the school is under no requirement to make sure that they are.

Accord Chair Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“The best way of being fair to those of different religions—as well as those who are not religious–is not to give a separate school to each group that wants one. It is to make sure that all schools are inclusive of children from different backgrounds.

There was an inevitability about the first Hindu faith school opening, but it is still a shame. This school will mean fewer Hindu families sending their children to the other local schools, and that families who have different beliefs won’t be able to attend a school on their doorstep.”

Baroness Turner of Camden (Labour) has tabled amendments with the aim of addressing this situation. By removing the exemption it will be possible to make sure that any religious discrimination against teachers has to be justified in the context of the particular role.

This would mean give teachers in faith schools the same protections against religious discrimination as other employees in organisations with a religious character.

In principle, Accord is opposed to all discrimination against staff in state funded schools on the grounds of their beliefs, religious or otherwise. However, we believe that many people would be horrified to discover the fact that teachers in state funded schools have fewer rights than those working in religious charities when it comes to religious discrimination.

Whereas almost all other employers have to show that discrimination is an “occupational requirement” of a particular post, faith schools can impose a blanket requirement that all teachers be co-religionists, or that believers are “preferred”. This extends not only to recruitment, but to pay and promotion – meaning that teachers may see their career options limited because of their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

Worse still, any teacher at a voluntary aided faith school—which are the majority of state-funded religious schools—can be dismissed for “conduct…incompatible with the precepts, or with the upholding of the tenets of the religion” of the school.

The report analysed the compliance of schools with the duty to promote community cohesion, which the government passed after making a u-turn on a proposal to open up faith school admissions. The analysis of the first year since compliance with the duty has been inspected shows that while primary faith schools do no better than their non-denominational counterparts, at secondary level more faith schools are rated “outstanding” on cohesion. However, Accord has argued that the inspection criteria used by Ofsted leave much to be desired.

Commenting on the report, Accord Chair Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“Building community cohesion is vitally important and we congratulate all those schools that have been working hard to meet the duty”

“The most pressing issue is whether the criteria used by Ofsted are sufficient.

“While school linking projects and classroom discussions of diversity are commendable, inspectors should also consider the impact on cohesion of discriminatory admissions and biased RE lessons.

“Occasional meetings with other groups have little merit if the children move in closeted circles most of the time and do not receive a broad education in class.”

By law, the religious foundations of voluntary aided schools should be contributing 10% to the cost of building work, but new figures show that they actually cover just 7.5%, with the £18.4 million shortfall being met by the taxpayer.

Campaigners from the Accord Coalition also argue that when compared to the total costs of education, the financial contribution from religious groups is insignificant. The £56 million given by the religious foundations of faith schools in 2008/9 is equivalent to just 0.15% of the total schools budget, even when pensions are excluded.

Accord Coalition Chair, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain said:

“Perhaps the government has recognised the financial reality that religious groups can no longer afford to pay as much as they once did, but not the social reality that religious discrimination is unacceptable in the 21st century. Taxpayer funded public services should be for the public, not one segment of it. It is vital for the long-term health of society that children of different traditions grow up together and learn to interact on a daily basis.”

Andrew Copson, Director of Education and Public Affairs for the British Humanist Association said:

“The requirement for a contribution to capital costs from the religious foundations of voluntary aided schools dates back to the 1944 Education Act. But given that capital funding from religious groups has fallen from 50% in 1944 to just 7.5% today, it is high time that the government legislates to stop religious discrimination in schools”.

Simon Barrow, Co-Director of thinktank Ekklesia commented:

“We have long argued that the legal and funding arrangements that give particular advantages to faith schools and limit the choice and freedom of belief of parents and children need to be changed – not just on general grounds of fairness, but because they contradict the claims of justice, equality and compassion which the religions themselves lay claim to. The latest TES findings are another example of the need for reform.”