FSA staff

“The irony is that faith schools pride themselves on encouraging pupils spiritual and emotional development, and yet to declare homosexuality a sin not only directly subjects LGBT pupils to discrimination, it explicitly hinders their development.” A potential opt out in the law could allow faith schools to get away with not teaching accurate and evidence-based Relationship and Sex Education (RSE). In March 2017, the Government introduced amendments to the Children and Social Work Bill that proposed to make RSE compulsory in all schools. A step in the right direction one might assume? Yes, but within these amendments, lies a section stating that any RSE taught in schools must be ‘appropriate having regard to… the religious background of pupils’. This was announced in conjunction with a written ministerial statement from Lord Nash, stating that ‘faith schools will continue to be able to teach in accordance with the tenets of their faith.’ At first glance this statement appears innocuous, and almost more inclusive of different world views, more liberal, and more tolerant. It’s not. It’s insidiously dangerous, less liberal, and less tolerant, and could engender a culture of prejudice and discrimination in faith schools. Time and time again, we have reported that faith schools are teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage can never be equated, or they are avoiding discussion of LGBT issues altogether, failing to promote equality and respect for LGBT people and relationships. And it was only recently in 2013 that Humanists UK uncovered 45 schools across the UK with RSE policies reflecting the same or similar views to Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited the ‘promotion of homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material’, even though this law was repealed in 2003. ‘The Equality Act 2010 is actually very clear in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’ So even before the opt out to the new compulsory RSE provisions emerged, faith schoolsRead More

Are faith schools getting away with homophobic teaching?

“The irony is that faith schools pride themselves on encouraging pupils spiritual and emotional development, and yet to declare homosexuality a sin not only directly subjects LGBT pupils to discrimination, it explicitly hinders their development.”

A potential opt out in the law could allow faith schools to get away with not teaching accurate and evidence-based Relationship and Sex Education (RSE). In March 2017, the Government introduced amendments to the Children and Social Work Bill that proposed to make RSE compulsory in all schools. A step in the right direction one might assume?

Yes, but within these amendments, lies a section stating that any RSE taught in schools must be ‘appropriate having regard to… the religious background of pupils’. This was announced in conjunction with a written ministerial statement from Lord Nash, stating that ‘faith schools will continue to be able to teach in accordance with the tenets of their faith.’ At first glance this statement appears innocuous, and almost more inclusive of different world views, more liberal, and more tolerant. It’s not. It’s insidiously dangerous, less liberal, and less tolerant, and could engender a culture of prejudice and discrimination in faith schools.

Time and time again, we have reported that faith schools are teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage can never be equated, or they are avoiding discussion of LGBT issues altogether, failing to promote equality and respect for LGBT people and relationships. And it was only recently in 2013 that Humanists UK uncovered 45 schools across the UK with RSE policies reflecting the same or similar views to Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which prohibited the ‘promotion of homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material’, even though this law was repealed in 2003.

‘The Equality Act 2010 is actually very clear in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’

So even before the opt out to the new compulsory RSE provisions emerged, faith schools have long felt entitled to teach this damaging brand of RSE. The reason for this is that despite the fact that the Equality Act 2010 is very clear in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, many faith schools seem to feel able to get away with teaching a divisive and discriminatory type of RSE due to a perceived grey area in the Act.  Or rather, a perceived loophole that some claim legally permits discrimination and prejudice in ‘connection with the content of the curriculum’. You might ask, what exactly does this mean? In 2012, Michael Gove, the former Education Secretary, was asked just this. In a written response, Gove outlined that:

‘The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions act.’

So far, so unclear.  The grey area is as follows. Section 85 of the Education Act 2010 states that a school must not discriminate, harass or victimise pupils, specifically ‘in the way it provides education for the pupil’. And as above the Equality Act 2010 has broad anti-discrimination provisions. However, section 89(2) of the Equality Act 2010 states that, ‘nothing in this chapter applies to anything done in connection with the content of the curriculum’.

However, after a closer inspection of the Act, the ‘explanatory notes’ (a section of the Act written in layman’s terms), reveals that:

‘the prohibitions [against discrimination]… do not apply to anything done in relation to the content of the school curriculum. This ensures that the Act does not inhibit the ability of schools to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their syllabus and to expose pupils to thoughts and ideas of all kinds.’

‘The way in which the curriculum is taught is, however, covered by the reference to education in section 85(2)(a), so as to ensure issues are taught in a way which does not subject pupils to discrimination.’

So for clarity, a school under the Act is permitted to teach pupils from a wide range of sources and on a wide range of issues, including, in this instance, controversial and divisive views on homosexuality and issues affecting the LGBT community. However, the school must ensure that such issues are taught in a way that does not subject pupils to discrimination.

The irony is that faith schools pride themselves on encouraging pupils spiritual and emotional development, and yet to declare homosexuality a sin not only directly subjects LGBT pupils to discrimination, it does explicitly hinders their development. Contrary to what some faith schools believe, or what they choose to ignore, presenting discriminatory and biased information in RSE can cause serious emotional and psychological problems, inflicting unnecessary suffering and hurt to individuals all over the world. If such schools feel bound to these views, however, what might be more appropriate, and more in keeping with the Equality Act, would be teach pupils in RSE that different groups of people subscribe to different ideas on LGBT issues. They might teach that some people believe same sex relationships are sinful, but others see them as an expression of love like any other, and as a matter exclusively for the people involved in any case. And they should also teach that the law in this country does not differentiate between same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage.

“Time and time again, we have reported that faith schools are teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage can never be equated, or they are avoiding discussion of LGBT issues altogether”

At this point, you’d be right to ask the question, who exactly is policing what is being taught in our schools, so as to ensure pupils are not be being subjected to discrimination? After all, Ofsted turns up once every few years and even then, they can get it wrong. Given the cases that we have considered above, examining the monumental failings of some faith schools to provide accurate and evidence-based information on same-sex relationships, how can the government continue to put its faith in faith schools to teach an unprejudiced, tolerant, and inclusive RSE, that doesn’t subject their pupils to discrimination, harassment, and victimisation? In short, it can’t – and as the old idiom goes, faith schools are getting off scot-free.

All schools, regardless of their religious character, have a duty to create a safe environment for their pupils to learn in, including safeguarding pupils from abuse. Faith schools that continue to teach inflammatory views on LGBT issues in RSE are breaking a code of ethics enshrined in the profession of teaching. We are hearing all too often about young people, educated in faith schools, experiencing mental-health and self-esteem issues because the school openly criticises those who identify as LGBT and their relationships. With this in mind, the Government must clarify what is and what is not acceptable when it comes to teaching RSE, making clear that when it comes to LGBT discrimination, there are no grey areas in the Equality Act.

Jessica Perera

No room at the inn: the exclusive approach of the CES to its schools knows no bounds

“Rather than defending this appalling record of disproportionately turning away poorer children at the gate, wouldn’t the Archbishop be better off doing something about it?”

This morning (2 May 2017), the Education Guardian published a probing (and excellent) interview by Peter Wilby with Malcolm McMahon, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool and chair of the Catholic Education Service (CES). The Archbishop’s views on the role and ethos of the CES’ schools should trouble us all. Some examples.

Wilby rightly notes that the CES’ model approach to teaching relationships and sex education to children contains no mention of ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ at any stage, and when asked whether or not Catholic schools teach about gay relationships, the Archbishop limply replies that ‘Christian teaching “is at the centre of our schools”’. So far, so worrying. And it doesn’t get any better.

Asked if some pupils at Catholic schools have same-sex parents, the Archbishop gives the quite remarkable response: ‘Why would same-sex parents want to send their children to a Catholic school?’ Well, if the views of the Archbishop are the same as those espoused by his schools, why indeed.

This response may not be that surprising, but it is no less scandalous for it. This is a man responsible for overseeing the education of more than 800,000 children, and he is openly admitting that the 2,000 publicly funded schools in his charge are not necessarily appropriate for same-sex parents and their children. The Archbishop claims that Catholic schools would nonetheless treat ‘them’ with respect, but one wonders how much respect these schools can really be showing to people whose existence is ignored in everyday teaching or whose sexuality is described as sinful.

Moving on, the Archbishop appeared more than a little defensive when asked about the record of Catholic schools on serving the most needy in their communities. After McMahon misleadingly claimed that ‘the proportion of pupils in Catholic schools from deprived areas…[is] above average’, Wilby puts it to him that given the location of many Catholic schools in poor urban areas, they should actually be admitting far more poorer pupils than they do. The Archbishop responds: ‘You do this for a living, do you? You ask questions based on inaccurate information?’ A nerve struck.

Far from being ‘based on inaccurate information’, Wilby’s questioning is precisely right. The evidence consistently reveals that Catholic schools admit far fewer poor children than they should given their areas. For instance, research conducted by the Fair Admissions Campaign using official government data found that Catholic schools admit a staggering 28% fewer children eligible for Free School Meals than they should given their local areas, while the Sutton Trust reported earlier this year that ‘faith’ schools (with Catholic schools among the worst offenders) are ‘three times as socially selective compared to their catchment area than non-faith schools’.

And we must be careful not to get sucked in by the CES’ consistently misleading language on this. As Wilby suggests, whilst Catholic schools are more likely to be situated in more deprived areas, this is not the same thing as being more likely to admit deprived pupils. In fact, analysis clearly shows that Catholic schools are even more likely to be in deprived areas than their pupils are. Situated in deprived areas they may be, but welcoming of deprived families they are not.

Rather than defending this appalling record of disproportionately turning away poorer children at the gate, not to mention children from certain ethnic minorities, wouldn’t the Archbishop be better off doing something about it? He doesn’t seem to think so.

Nor, indeed, is he ready to give up on the transparently false assertion that ‘by canon law, schools are forbidden to turn away Catholic parents in favour of non-Catholics’. This was the claim that ultimately led the Government to announce that it will be dropping the 50% cap on religious selection and no longer requiring new religious schools to keep at least half of their places open to all local children, irrespective of religion or belief. No matter that the CES’ canon-law claim has absolutely no basis in fact (see the British Humanist Association’s excellent briefing on this for details). And no matter that the 50% cap was a demonstrable success, significantly boosting both integration and the access of local families to their local schools, contrary to the Government’s own false assertions. 

Wilby’s parting advice in his article is that if one is to find themselves speaking with the Archbishop, ‘it’s perhaps best to avoid the subject of who is allowed to go to Catholic schools, or what goes on behind their walls.’  Unfortunately, this is advice that the Government already seem to be acting upon.

FSA team

Faith schools and gender segregation: a worrying trend

“It is not just gender segregation policies that can foster a hostile environment for female pupils. Ofsted has also been vocal about widespread sexism and misogyny within ‘faith’ schools.”

Last week, an Islamic school in Birmingham was caught advertising for a male-only science teacher. The advert, since removed from their Twitter page, made it clear that the school would only be hiring for a male teacher.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has since stated that gender specific job adverts are ‘discriminatory and unlawful, unless an occupational requirement applies’.  In other words, in order to justify this discrimination, the school would have needed to prove that there was a clear link between the specific job and the need for the teacher to be male. It is hard to see how this could be applied for the role as a science teacher. The headmaster of the Salafi Independent School has claimed that the decision was made because of ‘religious observance reasons’.

The event can be seen as part of a wider issue of gender inequalities faced by both teachers and students in ‘faith’ schools across the UK. And this is not confined merely to the initial hiring of teachers. Once hired, male and female staff members may continue to face unequal treatment in a variety of ways.

“The sexist policies of these ‘faith’ schools do nothing to challenge these damaging stereotypes.”

For instance, in 2015 Ofsted reported that the Rabia School in Luton was segregating male and female members of staff during training programs, and expecting the women to watch the broadcasted sessions from a separate room. A dividing screen was even erected during an initial meeting with Ofsted.

Pupils are also frequent targets of these gender segregating policies. Ofsted has found cases of segregation in Islamic, Jewish, and Christian ‘faith’ schools. FSA has previously reported on a madrassa where girls were taught by a male teacher from an adjacent room. Books were passed through a hole in the wall to ensure there was no contact.

The Rabia School was also condemned in the same Ofsted report for practising ‘unequal treatment of girls and boys’. For example, as part of the design and technology curriculum, girls were denied access to the boy’s laboratory, and limited to ‘knitting and sewing’. These actions not only signal a lack of respect for gender equality and tolerance, but are also clearly unlawful. Ofsted has argued in a number of cases that gender segregation policies of ‘faith’ schools can be considered discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 as the policies tend to place women at an inferior level to men.

“One mother reported her daughter being told that her knee length dress was ‘disgusting’.”

It is not just gender segregation policies that can foster a hostile environment for female pupils. Ofsted has also been vocal about widespread sexism and misogyny within ‘faith’ schools. Grindon Hall Christian School and Durham Free School were both criticised by inspectors for not discouraging a sexist and homophobic culture. Accelerated Christian Education schools have been reported as teaching that women are to be subservient to their husbands, their pastor, and other male figures. And other Christian ‘faith’ schools have also been criticised for not teaching pupils a full Relationships and Sex Education curriculum, avoiding topics related to women’s reproductive rights and sexuality.

Gender segregation policies often go hand in hand with strict uniform policies for female pupils. FSA has previously reported on a Modern Orthodox Jewish School, with split campuses for boys and girls, where girls faced teachers who had an ‘obsession with dress code and skirt length’. One mother reported her daughter being told that her knee length dress was ‘disgusting’. Another Jewish school was banned from admitting new pupils in 2016 in part because it was teaching pupil that ‘women showing bare arms and legs are impure.’

Numerous other ‘faith’ schools have been accused of not promoting British values, too. A Jewish Independent school was failed by Ofsted in 2016 in part for inadequately preparing pupils for ‘life in modern Britain’ – including reporting that pupils demonstrated ‘stereotypical views on the roles of men and women, with men “going to work” and women “cooking and cleaning”.’ In January last year, a Muslim school in Tower Hamlets was found to have books in its library that promoted the inequality of men and women, and which also included details about punishments such as ‘stoning to death’.

The opportunity for children to learn and socialise together is part of their preparation for life after school. Schools are also places where children pick up a huge amount of the information on gender roles and gender stereotypes. Tragically, a recent study found that by the age of six, girls already believe that being smart, and being brilliant, are male traits. The sexist policies of these ‘faith’ schools do nothing to challenge these damaging stereotypes.

FSA team