For the National
Society online magazine
“But you can teach Christianity as true” said Father Leonard, “ it was the considered and widely held view, understood and accepted by both believers and unbelievers, that the provisions [of the 1988 Education Reform Act] allowed for and were intended to create, a situation where Christianity could be taught in the classroom as true”.
So read the notes of my interview with Father Graham Leonard, ex Bishop of London, on 16th November, 1998. I could hardly believe what I was hearing. I had taught RE for the whole of the period between 1988 and 1998 and I had never heard anyone say that Christianity could be taught as true; indeed I had been led to believe that the opposite was the case; that the law required a neutral approach. So began my search for what the law really says about RE.
I read Hansard to get an idea of what those passing the law
intended. Kenneth Baker, Minister of
State for Education, believed that RE should open up the spiritual dimension
and that it was difficult for an agnostic or atheist to ‘instruct children in
religious education as an atheist does not believe in any kind of theistic
philosophy’. While one might smile at the need to explain the word atheist to
honourable members, it shows that the Minister believed that RE was instruction
in some kind of theism. In fact he,
like Leonard believed that the teaching given would normally, but not always,
be based on Christianity. The phrase
signalling this was Section 8, 3 which reads as follows: ‘an agreed syllabus
shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in
the main Christian, whilst taking account of the teachings and practices of the
other principal religious traditions in Great Britain’. This was explained by
the Bishop of London in the Lords: ‘It does not mean that there will be a percentage of Christian teaching
spread throughout the country with a proportion of other faiths. …The norm will
be Christian if one likes to put it that way.
But there will be exceptions because of local areas and what is proper
to them in the educational setting.
That is what we mean by “mainly” - not “mainly” in the sense of
two-thirds rice and one third tapioca or something like that.’[1]
When pressed in the House on what this meant he replied: ‘It is the
purpose of that package (the amendments now in Law) that Christian children
should receive teaching in the Christian faith. Secondly, it is the purpose
that children of other faiths should be taught their own faiths.’
I found that this was backed up in
other parts of the legislation. The
syllabus conferences which write the syllabuses were to be made up of
representatives from religions present in the area and in proportion to their
numbers. Where there were no Muslims (or Methodists for that matter) in an
area, there could be no representation on the syllabus conference. In this way the conference was structured in
order to take account of those religions present in an area. To give maximum
flexibility explicit provision was made for a conference to agree more than one
syllabus. On the other hand no
co-options may be made onto the conference. All this means that only those
living in the area may determine what is to be taught. The provisions for worship go to great
lengths to provide for worship that is appropriate for the children receiving
it. This fits in with the syllabus
conference being structured to provide a religious education tailored to the
pupils receiving it and indeed is the main reason for having local
determination of RE. As Kenneth Baker
said: ‘Nor would we presume to require that religious education should be the
same in county schools in Devon as in schools in Bradford’.
The press reported the outcome
accurately. The Independent for example reported that the ‘package of measures
proposed a new basis for religious education in schools, expressing the
centrality of Christianity but acknowledging and providing for the valid
concerns of other religions. Agreed syllabuses should in the main be Christian
but there was room for flexibility in areas where the vast majority of pupils
were from another faith. So a school
predominantly Muslim could draw on the traditions of that faith.’ 22nd
June 1988.
What happened next? The law was essentially subverted. This has been achieved so successfully that
few today have any idea of its original intention. How was this done? This
is a long and interesting story, a story which I tell in the book that I am
working on. A new interpretation was conceived and promoted within the
profession. This interpretation said
that ‘in the main’ meant mainly and referred to a percentage of time to be
given to the Christian traditions (the tapioca and rice mixture specifically
stated to be incorrect) and that ‘taking account of’ meant that the other
principal religions must be taught in every syllabus. This meaning was never raised in either House and ran counter to
all the debates. This is because
Parliament legislated for proper religious education to be given to those of
other faiths alongside those being taught by means of the Christian
traditions. Clearly a small section on
a syllabus which majored on Christianity could never deliver that.
It took time for this
interpretation to become established and indeed had the Circular issued by the
Government in January 1989 taken a view on the matter it is possible that it
might have been strangled at birth. But
Circular 3/89 simply quoted the words of section 8,3 without explanation. This left the way open for those who were
uncomfortable with the law to promote a different interpretation. One of the
most influential interpretations was that of Professor John Hull who published The
Act Unpacked soon after the Act was passed. This piece of writing (it has been dubbed the Act Unpicked) was a
word for word exegesis of Section 8,3 which ignored the careful explanations
given less than six months earlier in Parliament and gave an entirely different
reading. In any interpretation it is
important that the whole of statute is taken into account yet Hull did not
consider the legislation which restricted the syllabus conference to
representation from religious communities present in an area. This is a major problem for this
interpretation since if the law required the principal religions to be taught
it would surely have provided for the conference to have experts or adherents
appointed as members.
The effect of this interpretation
has been to stifle debate within syllabus conferences about what is appropriate
for children in their area since conferences have assumed that they must
provide for the teaching of both Christianity and five other religions. In some cases the law has been broken and
representatives from outside the local authority area appointed or experts
co-opted. This is entirely
understandable but it shows how the law has been misunderstood. The latest QCA survey of agreed syllabuses
states that most syllabuses prescribe compulsory study of six religions
although Birmingham requires only two religions to be studied in addition to
Christianity.
Clearly there is an ambiguity in
the wording, as indeed was pointed out by some peers in the debates. An interesting precedent occurred in the
case of Pepper vs Hart in 1993. This
case concerned an ambiguity in the wording of a law relating to the payment of
tax by teachers whose children were receiving subsidised education at the
private school where they were employed.
The matter hinged on the admissibility or otherwise of the explanations
of the law to be found in Hansard. The
Law Lords judged that where an ambiguous wording was given a clear explanation
by a promoter of the Bill that explanation should be accepted as the true
meaning. What this means is that
although the wording of Section 8,3 is ambiguous there is every reason for an
agreed syllabus conference to accept the explanation given in Parliament. It is in fact because the wording is
ambiguous that conferences should abide by the explanation given by the
legislators.
Why is it important? Firstly because in a democracy the will of
Parliament should be paramount and it appears that the will of Parliament has
been thwarted. Secondly as the Chief
Rabbi said: ‘in trying to teach all
faiths it is possible that we succeed in teaching none’. A syllabus which attempts to ‘teach’ six or
more faiths simply cannot be giving proper provision in any one. Was Parliament wrong to want pupils to
concentrate on one religious tradition? A religious tradition opens up its
treasures gradually. Just as understanding a musical tradition takes time,
effort and practice before a pupil is able to both appreciate and pursue it, so
it is with religion. The spiritual ear needs to be trained and this takes
time. Is it wrong to want children to
be inspired and formed by the religion that is nearest to them? As in teaching music one is inviting pupils
to appreciate and join in the further shaping of a tradition so it is with a
religion. No pupil is compelled to come in, nor is the tradition presented as a
static entity. One might want to enquire why it is that we introduce religion
at all if something like this is not the aim. Of course this does not mean that
nothing is taught of other religious traditions, particularly where insights
are shared, but the purpose of the exercise is always clearly defined as
introduction to a particular religious tradition because that tradition is
believed to convey truth and offer what is held to be of great worth.
