The Big Question: should faith be allowed in schools

BBC’s The Big Questions isn’t my sort of programme, but because I very nearly made it onto this week’s show (I was dropped in the final editorial cut) I thought I’d better watch it, just to see what I might have said.

The question was whether faith should be allowed in schools. As I expected, the debate was woefully free of evidence, except where said evidence could be manipulated into the frame to support a particular point. It was full of shouty sectarian opinion delivered by people who spoke with assumed authority, little knowledge and the unambiguous agenda of sending faith schools to the naughty step.

First up was an education researcher who appeared to base his authority to advocate the abandonment of faith schools on the fact that he had read the complete Trojan Horse review and was therefore in the know. Well, I read it all, too, and came to a very different conclusion. What the report actually concluded was that the DfE, Ofsted and the Local Authority all failed to heed warnings of a problem which was twenty years in the making. Hardly evidence of a national crisis in faith education.

Next came the well-worn and weary indoctrination argument, lobbed in by Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain of the Fair Admissions Campaign and the Accord Coalition although it wasn’t clear whether he was accusing just his own community of this, or all schools. This often seems like an easy win – the charge of indoctrination sounds serious and so emotes without the need for evidence. It was, however, neatly despatched by Marie Fahy of Catholic Voices and herself a teacher, with ‘Have you tried to stand in front of 14 year olds and bang your beliefs into them?’ Sadly, her invitation to go and actually see what happens in faith schools seemed to fall on deaf ears.

There was, in fairness, a passing nod to the historic role of both the Catholic and Anglican churches in providing education long before the government cottoned on to the concept of free universal schooling. But it was delivered very much in the ‘Thank those religious people nicely, then tell them to go away’ mode, because we are, apparently, so much better informed these days.

There were a few other points: ‘I don’t want faith education for my children or grandchildren’. Fair enough. Two thirds of our schools are non-denominational, so send them to one of those. Don’t impose your wishes for your children on everyone, particularly the many thousands of parents who do want faith schooling for their children. ‘Faith schools don’t teach critical thinking’. Really? You need to get out more. Go visit some and stop talking from an uninformed position.

Then finally, late in the day, came the ideology that underpins the debate – secular very good: religion very bad. It’s the idea that secularism isn’t a belief system, just a means of everyone having a fair go. It’s the idea that you can impose neutrality in the public square, like some kind of moral and ethical Mao suit. You can’t. To do so would be to impose a very undemocratic democracy.

There were, in the midst of the opinionated rhetoric, two still, small voices of calm. They weren’t people ranting about an agenda. They were two people of obvious faith, and their demeanour was in marked contrast with everyone else who spoke.  One was Marie Fahy, who, refusing to be shouted down, made the point that faith schools promote the common good in society, and that Ofsted and DfE studies show that faith schools increase social cohesion more effectively than non-denominational schools.  The other voice was Telegraph journalist Tim Stanley, who actually presented accurate facts about faith school admissions and practices. He also made the point, not touched on anywhere else in the programme, that teaching children about faith enriches their lives and leads to increased understanding. The issue in the education arena is less about whether children embrace faith as adults, and more about the religious literacy which they will take into adult life with them.

There was a supreme irony about this programme. It started by discussing whether we should negotiate with terrorists – the prevailing view appeared to be that we should engage in dialogue as the solution to terrorism, particularly ISIS (good luck with that). Yet these same liberal secular thinkers want to mandate belief out of the public square, and sweep away faith schools without even bothering to visit them, leave alone talk to the significant section of society that wants them.  A very illiberal liberalism.

Oh, and it’s time that lobby got some new arguments. We’ve refuted the same ones over and over again and, frankly, it’s getting tedious. We live in a pluralistic, diverse and democratic society, but a society in which, as this programme demonstrated, religious illiteracy is increasing. So here’s the deal: faith isn’t going anywhere any time soon, so engage in dialogue – with an open mind. Visit our schools – with an open mind.  Examine the evidence – with an open mind.  And above all, aim to be informed, not just opinionated. It’s the route to the sort of mature democracy which supports human flourishing.

If I’d made it onto the programme, that’s pretty much what I would have said.