COMPULSORY WORSHIP IS WHAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Compulsory worship is what we are opposed to

The Bishop of Leicester writes that "No-one is forced to worship against their own conscience" ("This is not the time to build a secular state", First Person, February 18).

He appears to overlook the fact that the Church of England lobbied for (and continues to oppose any changes to) the current law requiring acts of collective worship in state schools, the majority of which, in any given school term, should be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".

The law gives parents the right to have a child excused from worship, but no such rights are recognised for school pupils, even those above school-leaving age.

Leicester Secular Society has been campaigning against this meaningless concept of "compulsory worship" for decades, but to date the Bishop, and his colleagues in the House of Lords, have strongly opposed allowing children to follow their conscience. I hope the Bishop's words mark a change of policy by the Church of England.At present the requirement for Christian worship is divisive, making it more difficult for schools to promote a cohesive community.

As to "it raises the question, what would a secular culture look like?", I would suggest that he looks at a the secular government of the USA where all forms of religion are much stronger than in the UK.

Secularists can be of all faiths and none, and some work to help preserve local churches. Secularists don't want to demolish places of worship any more than they would want to demolish golf club houses.

Secularists want to protect the freedom to practise religion (or not) and to pray, including in public. What we do object to is prayer being involved with the process of government, which should be completely agnostic with regard to religion.

John Catt, Loughborough

WHAT MAKES A GOOD SACRE MEMBER?

Going through the papers for the last SACRE meeting (at Uplands Primary, Tuesday 27 September), I come upon this set of questions fort a workshop activity. I thought it would be interesting to post it on the blog in its own right, rather than risk it being buried in a report on the last SACRE meeting . Those attending that meeting were asked to rank our top five from the list. None of us got anywhere near that in the time allowed.

What makes a good SACRE member?

In your pairs or groups consider how you would rate each of these characteristics of a good SACRE member and agree on a ranking for them, the most important first and the least significant last, discarding any that you think are inappropriate.

Our group got no farther than attempting to take out those points that would work for being a good member of just about anything - and trying to find what would be distinctive to SACRE. I wonder how you'd fare if you did the same, faithful reader - or if you'd have your own effective approach to the task.

1. A good SACRE member is open to all views and ideas
2. A good SACRE member seeks to understand the views of other members, rather than simply promoting his / her own agenda
3. A good SACRE member is willing to contribute to discussions
4. A good SACRE member has a clear understanding of his or her SACRE role
5. A good SACRE member is committed to SCRE meetings
6. A good SACRE member is well informed
7. A good SACRE member can work harmoniously with other members
8. A good SACRE member has time to spend in school
9. A good SACRE member listens more than he or she speaks
10. A good SACRE member is keen and able to communicate with teachers and pupils
11. A good SACRE member takes an active participative approach, following lines of enquiry of personal interest
12. A good SACRE member supports and encourages local schools to aspire to high standards in RE and collective worship
13. A good SACRE member is someone who has faith in her or himself
14. A good SACRE member shows dedication to pupils’ learning
15. A good SACRE member is confident about everything to do with RE and Collective Worship in schools
16. A good SACRE member takes an active part in the meeting
17. A good SACRE member is able to offer relevant experiences
18. A good SACRE member understands the positive value of RE and Collective Worship in schools
19. A good SACRE member has a sound knowledge of the relevant law
20. A good SACRE member is aware of local faith communities
21. A good SACRE member has the ability and confidence to question perceived wisdom (I think that should be “received wisdom”)
22. A good SACRE member is aware of the key RE and Collective Worship issues facing schools
23. A good SACRE member is a bridge between SACRE and local school

COLLECTIVE WORSHIP IN LEICESTER SCHOOLS: STATEMENT FROM SACRE

The Leicester City SACRE and Leicester City RE Consultant recognise that part of their role is to provide guidance and support for schools of effective provision for Collective Worship and support for determinations following the requirements set out in 1944 (and amended in 1988). Daily collective worship is a duty on schools and our council’s view would always be to meet the legal requirements.

The requirements for collective worship as a school activity are both different and distinct from the requirements regarding RE in the curriculum.

The Leicester SACRE is aware that the requirements for collective worship are not now being followed in all our schools, especially secondary schools, for a variety of reasons, including lack of suitable spaces and/or leaders for collective worship. Many of our secondary schools hold weekly collective worship and on the other days have a “Thought for the Day” with an opportunity for short, quiet time of reflection. This has been reported regularly by Ofsted over the years. However, this does not mean that schools have not provided opportunities for the spiritual and moral development of young people, many good examples of which Ofsted have also reported in the past year:

“Pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is outstanding. Pupils make excellent contributions to the school and wider community, for example taking responsibility for helping teachers to identify in assemblies those pupils who demonstrate good listening skills.” (Abbey Primary school)

At Sparkenhoe Junior school the effective development of spirituality was commended:

“There is a suitably strong emphasis on developing pupils’ personal, social, emotional and moral development which results in Year 6 pupils being thoughtful, mature and responsible young people whose spiritual, moral, social and cultural understanding is excellent.”

Judgemeadow Community College was praised to the excellent spiritual development which was integrated into every subject:

“Students; spiritual, moral, social and cultural development is outstanding. There are very good opportunities for students to develop their creativity, celebrate their cultural heritage and broaden their cultural experience through contact with artists, musicians and writers.”

The SACRE has only one statutory duty with regard to collective worship. It is to grant a determination to a community school where it is felt collective worship of “a broadly Christian character” is not appropriate for all or some pupils. The application comes from the head teacher after proper consultation with staff, governors and parents. It must be accompanied by alternative plans for collective worship. Currently 21 primary schools and 4 secondary schools hold determinations in Leicester City.

Leicester City determinations: Primary schools

• Abbey Primary School
• Bridge Junior
• Charnwood Primary School
• Catherine Infant
• Coleman Primary School
• Evington Valley Primary School
• Green Lane Infants
• Herrick Primary School
• Highfields primary School
• King Richard III Infant School
• Linden Primary School
• Mayflower primary School
• Medway Primary School
• Rusheymead Primary School
• Sandfield Primary School
• Shenton Primary School
• Sparkenhoe Primary School
• Spinney Hill Primary School
• Uplands Infants
• Uplands Junior School
• Wyvern Primary School

Leicester City determinations: Secondary schools

• Crown Hills Community College
• Judgemeadow community College
• Rusheymead School
• Moat Community College

WE NEED LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR THIS VITAL DEBATE

Allan Hayes's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

We need level playing field for this vital debate

Allan Hayes considers the merits of the Archbishop of Canterbury's criticism of the Government

The article by the Archbishop of Canterbury in last Friday's New Statesman raises important and fundamental issues for our society: it deserves to be considered carefully. The Archbishop's sometimes allusive style can make it difficult to see what he is getting at, but the implications of phrases like "managerial politics, attempting with shrinking success to negotiate life in the shadow of big finance", "an increasingly audible plea for some basic thinking about democracy itself", "things that cannot be left to chance" and "confusion about the means", are absolutely clear – we must join together in thinking deeply and seriously about where we are going.

His call for an open probing of the current reworking of our education system is particularly relevant to schooling in our city, and I join him in asking whether we are forgetting our duty to educate our children as carriers of our humanity and not just as contributors to our economy.

He lists things that we must take seriously at a national level and cannot be left to localism: child poverty, youth services, access to good education and sustainable infrastructure. The first of these has just been brought home to us recently in the television programme "Poor Kids", and the more general problem of unequal distribution of wealth is increasingly being recognised as maiming society, besides being morally unacceptable.

He is concerned about cultural fragmentation and Balkanisation. These too are important issues for our city. His idea of a "community of communities" should be looked at, but with proper emphasis on the overarching culture and community that we all belong to.

He takes "ironic satisfaction" from the way several politicians are "quarrying theological traditions". It would be surprising if several thousand years of religion had not produced something worthwhile. We have a common heritage of humanity that we can share and draw on independently of belief.

The Archbishop ends with a call for "a democracy capable of real argument about shared needs and hopes and real generosity" and asks "Any takers?" The answer from all people of goodwill, and certainly from secularists and humanists, will surely be "Yes", but then we may ask "what terms and conditions apply?" 

Is he willing for his church to contribute without seeking to control? It may seem churlish, but what sort of "real argument", what encouragement to hopes and generosity is it when the Church is seeking more state schools than the quarter it has, when it has privileged access to government, and bishops in the House of Lords, when non-religious beliefs are all but excluded from religious education and a daily act of worship is imposed on schools?

Allan Hayes is director of the Leicester Secular Society