The Catholic Education Service: an essay in error

As usual, Caroline has offered a reasoned and extensive commentary: The Catholic Education Service: an essay in error. I have added italics to her concluding paragraph, as I do think the CES/St Mary's document has completely misunderstood the need that Catholic school leaders have, and may have expressed. The guidance they needed was not with respect to managing homophobic bullying - one might hope that school leaders are already up to speed as far as responding to bullying of all types in their schools is concerned. What was needed was guidance as to how they can present and live Catholic teaching on the disordered nature of LGBT sexual activity without falling foul of equalities legislation, and this both in terms of curriculum and pastoral systems, and in terms of how they might manage situations should LGBT activism have a presence in their school. I feel sure that this is entirely possible, and reflects that second aspect of Catholic teaching on this question, namely that people who identify as LGBT should not be subject in any way to unjust discrimination. But it does require an acute intelligence and considerable care.

This need does not seem to me merely incidental to the mission of a Catholic school, particularly at secondary level. That mission is characterised by the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education as promoting two connected syntheses, those between "faith and culture" and between "faith and life" on the part of the members of the school community.

Homophobic bullying in our schools should be identified a source of shame, but so too are all other forms of bullying which undermine the dignity of the person. What Catholic schools really need is guidance and support in terms of how to remain faithful to Church teaching at a time when it is in opposition to the current zeitgeist. Sadly, this document is not that and has proved to be a wasted opportunity as well as a potential source of scandal and confusion. Very serious questions remain about the content, authorship and funding for distribution of this document and whether or not the CES may actually have overstepped it’s remit, which is after all, to serve the cause of Catholic education and educators rather than override and undermine the basic truths of Christ.

This and that: mostly about Catholic schools ...

Whilst in some quarters, the Westminster Diocese's education service is making headlines over its handling of Cardinal Vaughan school, in Twickenham it is the plans to build a new secondary school that are causing quite a different stir: here and here. The exact motivations of the lobby group opposing this proposed school cannot be determined from the media coverage, but there were protest activities against the Papal visit in the same area in 2010. In the context of both of these situations, there is an interesting account on the Catholic Education Service website about Catholic Schools: Mission and Governance. Whilst it notes that

For Catholic schools under the trusteeship of the diocese the Trusts under which Catholic schools are established contain within their objects a requirement to provide education for Catholic children.

it also points out that the Catholic character of such schools is supported in a number of other ways.

And, in a completely different context, another story about Catholic schools: Cardinal ‘fasts’ over court ruling and Hundreds of young people supported Cardinal Joseph Zen on third day of Hunger strike in Hong Kong.

A point made in discussion during yesterday's London event of Aid to the Church in Need was that, since the fall of dictatorial regimes in north Africa and the Middle East, the situation of Christians in those countries has deteriorated. There is a real concern that the new governments that will succeed the dictators will embrace an Islamic fundamentalism that will discriminate against Christians in those countries. Reference was also made to the experience of Christians in Iraq. There is a tempting prudential judgement that it would have been better for Christians had the dictators remained in power. But it really is damaging to Christian testimony when those communities appear as being "sheltered" by regimes whose actions with regard to other citizens are contrary to Christian teaching on the dignity of the human person and the freedom due to each and every person. There is a more authentic witness when Christians are persecuted. I think it is Hans Urs von Balthasar who wrote somewhere that it is the normal condition of the Christian that he or she should be subject to discrimination or persecution and, in consequence, the absence of such persecution should be a cause for an examination of conscience with regard to the quality of Christian witness being given.

PS. The Richmond Inclusive Schools Campaign website is here. It is interesting to look at the list of supporters at the foot of the page, as this, and the content of the page itself, gives some context to the "set up and backed by local people" lead.

"Allegedly"

Allegedly (as at July 2008):

Nowadays in Britain and elsewhere, the Government is "imposing" the use of birth control, including abortion, on families; and the Catholic Church authorities in England and Wales are co-operating with the government in imposing it in England - by welcoming into its schools Connexions whose job it is to make abortion and contraception available to children, without parental knowledge or consent..

Now, if one looks at the reader co-written by the Catholic Education Service which appears to have been available in 2004 and can currently be accessed from the Catholic Education Service website, commissioned by Connexions, one will find the following paragraph on page 27:

Section C 15 – Working within School Policies

In a Catholic school or college there are likely to be the same number of policies as in other schools and colleges but they will be significantly different because of the very nature of the school. All policy statements are rooted in the mission statement and ethos statement which is incorporated in the Instrument of Government. It specifies that:

‘The school/college is to be conducted as a Catholic school in accordance with canon law and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, and in accordance with the Trust Deed.


The Headteacher and Foundation Governors have responsibilities for the Catholic character of the school. Accordingly, Governors have greater responsibilities in law for the curriculum in Catholic schools’.

There may be occasions when external agencies (including the Connexions service) will need to take account of the unique policy framework when working within the Catholic sector. For example materials or activities may need to be modified before Governors may adopt them for use in a school; or the normal follow-up activities may not be possible because of the catchment area served by the school as defined in the admissions policy.

Whilst one might have hoped that the cautions expressed in this paragraph on page 27 were highlighted in the introduction or an executive summary -

We warmly commend to you this reader, which has been produced by the DfES in collaboration with the Catholic Education Service and the Catholic Youth Service. The joint working which has produced this reader reflects the close collaboration which we hope to see grow increasingly between the Connexions service and Catholic schools, colleges and youth organisations. This collaboration should be based on the common view we hold of the inherent dignity and worth of every young person and our wish to support them in fulfilling their potential.

 - the cautions are nevertheless present in the document, and could not really be stated much more clearly. The caution that they indicate to governors and staff in Catholic schools is very clear - any arrangements with Connexions must be undertaken in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The idea of joint working/collaboration expressed in the introduction to the reader can be seen, at least in principle, as an attempt at the dialogue between "secular rationality" and "religious belief" of which Pope Benedict XVI spoke in Westminster Hall; there is not, prima facie, any reason why the Catholic Education Service should not have collaborated with other agencies, including government, in this sort of way. The allegation that Church authorities are co-operating in the imposition of contraception and abortion by welcoming Connexions into its schools is not justified on the basis of this evidence.

Of course, at the level of each school, it all depends on what the governors and staff, and representatives of other agencies, make of the guidance offered in this "reader". All the episcopal direction in the world will not replace that part in the living of Catholic life that is the responsibility of the lay faithful in their particular place in the world, an observation that I think I made in the context of the closure or transfer out of Catholic trusteeship of formerly Catholic adoption agencies.

 

There is a saying about not believing everything you read in the newspapers. A modern version might be about not believing everything you read in the blogosphere. The problem of the "domino effect", though, is much more pronounced with the blogosphere than it is with the print media. A blog that is seen by some to be above criticism is always taken as a reliable source, it's material is uncritically reproduced or linked by others, the first blog repeats the story again and again, the other blogs run it again and again, and, from one first domino of doubtful perspicacity,  a story runs round in its own circle gaining a quite unjustified volume as it goes.

Which is by way of explanation as to why I do not link to some blogs that, previously, I used to link to.

As I said at the Manchester conference ....

The lack of posting over the last few days is because I was in Manchester, taking part in my trade union's annual conference.

I spotted resolution 15 only the week before conference, and rather misunderstood the on-line version of the agenda as putting it low down in the running order for one of the sessions. Therefore, I read it as not being likely to be taken. On Monday morning, I read the agenda properly - and realised it was almost certain to be debated during the session on Monday afternoon. The speech below was therefore put together in the conference hall just before the Monday morning session, and tidied up during a coffee break.

In the end, there was a procedural motion to "move to next business" after my speech, so no vote took place on the resolution as such.

The motion's proposer had received critical calls from members about ATL's policy on faith schools, which claimed things for ATL's policy that were not reflected in the debate at the Conference in 2007. The confusion resulting was her basis for asking for a review. The speaker before me in the debate, who had been the convener of the task group that drafted ATL's policy statement, said that the pressure on ATL over their policy statement had come about as a result of a campaign by the Catholic Education Service (see the downloads from this page), and that correspondents had been satisfied with the replies received from ATL explaining the policy properly. I prefaced my speech by pointing out to her that I was an ATL member who was alienated by ATL policy on faith schools. You will also see that I still feel able to draw attention to contact between the National Secular Society or British Humanist Association and ATL. The General Secretary's denial of contact is confined to paid officers, and leaves open the possibility of contact with ATL members leading on the issue. Since ATL's policy statement is pretty much the policy of such secularist organisations, I am still of the view that there was such contact.

Resolution 15: Faith Schools


INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS

THAT Conference calls upon the Executive Committee to establish a review into the current ATL policy on faith schools and report back to Conference no later than Conference 2011.

Proposer: Niamh Sweeney, Cambridge Regional College, Cambridgeshire
Seconder: Richard G Martin, Unattached member, Leeds

Written text of speech by Joseph Sowerby, Barking and Dagenham Branch, in support of the resolution.

I would like to suggest three elements that should form a part of a review.

1. A consideration of the idea of “ownership” in the educational enterprise, and the relationship between state funding and the idea of “ownership”, an idea of “ownership” that is wider than that of just the ownership of the physical assets. What is the correct relationship between government, the elements of civil society (which includes religious bodies) and parents, children, families in a state funded education system? I suspect that in the conversation about faith schools, and indeed about schools in general, we can too readily, and inadvertently, consider “state funding” to be equivalent to “state ownership” of the whole educational enterprise, an ownership in which others do have a rightful share.

2. I think we need to have a reflection on religions that respects their religious character, treats them as religious, and doesn’t simply treat them according to a secularist idea of what religion is. This asks us to re-examine our concepts of equality and diversity in this context, recognising that religion, precisely as religious, is a diversity to be respected; and not respecting that diversity constitutes a discrimination.

3. The member-led nature of our policy making on this subject needs to be transparent. The Specialist Task Group process that drafted our present policy, for example, - and I use a diplomatic choice of words here - lacked transparency (in the way its members were chosen). At the time our policy was produced - I can’t recall whether it was the website of the National Secular Society or that of the British Humanist Association - but the website of one of those organisations claimed to have been in touch with ATL during the time that our position paper was being drafted. In a member led policy making process, the influence of such external contacts needs to be transparent and visible to the membership, it needs to be a “declared interest”.

Cardinal Vaughan School: some thoughts after the determination of the Adjudicator

The Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School is a voluntary aided Roman Catholic school, in the trusteeship of the Archdiocese of Westminster. The admissions policy of this school has been the subject of some discussion between the school and the authorities of the Archdiocese, culminating in a referral by the Archdiocese of the arrangements for September 2010 to the Schools Adjudicator. The Catholic Education Service have issued a press release following the determination of the Adjudicator in December.

Voluntary aided schools are covered by legislation that requires them to adhere to an Admissions Code of Practice determined by the government. For schools of a religious character, this Code expects school governing bodies to have regard to the guidance of the relevant religious body in deciding their admissions arrangements. For Catholic schools, this expects the school to defer to the policy of the diocese in which the school is located on admissions criteria, though there is some "wriggle room" in the wording of the legislation. This means that Catholic schools can still include provisions that give preference to the admission of Catholic pupils. The purpose underlying this legislation was to remove concerns being expressed by some politicians that some schools, and not only schools with a religious designation, were adopting covertly selective admissions policies; it was intended to ensure that, with the compromises to selection for pupil aptitude based on a schools specialism, admissions to all schools were transparently fair and non-selective.

A number of interesting questions are raised by the determination of the Schools Adjudicator.

1. There is the question of the relationship between the individual school and the local Bishop, as expressed in the school's relationship to the educational policy of the diocese. This is a matter of legislation in terms of the Admissions Code. But it is also, in a sense, a "theological" question. From the point of view of the Catholic community, it is about unity with the Bishop as a measure of catholicity. It is about whether this unity is lived just "in the letter" or in a full sense.

2. The central objection of the Diocese is expressed in the press release:

The determination upheld the Diocese of Westminster's central objection that the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School’s complex points system and criteria "inappropriately give priority according to the applicant’s, or his parent’s, involvement in church related activities." (Paragraph 92 of the Schools Adjudicator's Determination) This was contrary to the Admissions Code and the Diocesan Bishop’s Guidance, and the Adjudicator said: "In order to have proper regard to diocesan guidance the points system should be dropped in favour of the determination of membership and practice of the Catholic faith as defined by the diocese." (Paragraph 99 of the Schools Adjudicator's Determination)

The diocese has defined that a person is a practising Catholic if they attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and does not expect its schools to apply any further test as to the practise of prospective pupils or their families. Anecdotally, the sort of points system referred to in the press release has not been unique to Cardinal Vaughan School, being familiar from experience of other now-comprehensive, frequently former-grammar, Catholic schools. My anecdotal evidence suggests that other schools have been more ready to phase out such points system than has been the case at Cardinal Vaughan.

[But see here for the admissions criteria of a Catholic school that still proposes, in part, to use a points system for 2010-2011 admissions.]


3. But the underlying issue raised by point 2 above is about what - or who - the school is for.

 Is it the purpose of the school to act to maintain and promote its own status? And therefore to adopt an admissions policy that will achieve that?

Is the school only for those pupils whose families are, not only practising Catholics, but what one might describe as "committed and active Catholics"?

Is the school for all Catholics, including those whose practise is minimal?

How far is the school for non-Catholics?

To reflect effectively on these questions, the Catholic school has to be seen within the context of the Church's mission of evangelisation. The General Directory for Catechesis recognises the possibility of schools where most students attending are Catholics, and others where most pupils attending do so because of the educational provision rather than out of religious belief (cf n.260). Different approaches to religious education, and indeed to the work of the whole school, apply in these different situations. The Directory suggests that it is opportune that the bishop specify the type of catechetical activity to be undertaken in their schools. This is clearly related to the admissions policies of those schools.

In the case of schools where most pupils attending are Catholics, the cited paragraph of the Directory accepts that evangelisation can be undertaken in its "multiple forms": primary proclamation, religious instruction, catechesis, homily. This seems to me to recognise that, within the population of such a school, pupils will be at differing points in the journey of evangelisation - and so, as far as admissions policies are concerned, there should be no discrimination in favour of those who are "committed/active" in their Catholicism over those who are "practising". Indeed, one might feel that those who are less committed and active are those who are more in need of the evangelising mission of this type of Catholic school.

4. Are the parents who concentrate their efforts on the good upbringing and care of their family, or, perhaps on the conscientious engagement of their Catholic faith with their professional employment; and therefore do not have the time to be parish catechists or extraordinary ministers, any less Catholic than those who are busy in their parishes? This is the kind of issue which can lead the points systems to be discriminatory. It can potentially discriminate against those parents who live most fully the lay character of their mission in the Church.

5. In this country, the historical development of Catholic schooling has meant that they are primarily seen as "Catholic schools for Catholic pupils". Their general failure to produce young people who leave the school as practising Catholics is often related to inadequacy in the catechetical/teaching schemes used for RE teaching in the school. There is some truth in this. But I suspect that our schools have needed to undertake a degree of transition that has not really happened. Whilst at the time of their initial founding a Catholic school might have been able to fulfil its Catholic specificity through teaching the Catechism, for many years now that has not been sufficient. A much greater degree of engagement between faith and culture in the work of the school has been needed, and I suspect that we have been in a weak position to achieve this because we do not have a wide experience in England of those Catholic schools where many of the pupils are not Catholics. The kind of Catholic-cultural dialogue that such schools encourage is actually badly needed in schools where the pupils are mostly Catholics.
 
Which brings us back to Admissions Policies ...

Catholic Education Service: some thoughts

The Catholic Education Service (CES) comes in for some serious criticism. This is extending now to its engagement with the UK governments recent enquiry and announcement with regard to sex education in schools. As a general principle, and not just in the education sector, I believe that Catholics should engage with the professional environments in which they work, with the difficulties and political judgements that that involves. This is the faith-culture boundary.

In this context, I do think there is something to be said in defence of the CES. Even this week, within my role as a trade union branch secretary, I have seen situations in the context of consultations between trade unions and management where trade union colleagues have simply pulled up the draw bridge and dug their heels in rather than engaging with the issues at stake for the consultation. The result has been a failure on their part to influence on behalf of their members - and, in consequence, they have made it difficult for me to influence on behalf of the members I represent.

As far as the sex education issue goes, thinking from the political point of view: if the engagement of the CES with those discussions means that they can establish in the DCSF provisions for sex education the freedom for Catholic schools to teach sex education in accordance with the teaching of the Church, that is a useful political gain. The media coverage of the recent announcement also suggests that the language of parental consultation and involvement is present.

I am also aware of the robust defence of religious schools that has been undertaken by the CES in response to teacher union attacks on such schools. Again, the CES has a position in this political environment that is useful, as politics. That defence might well focus on the social mix of many Catholic schools, compliance with the schools admissions code, contribution to social cohesion. But the fact that the CES are there to do it is politically useful.

There are perhaps questions that can be asked about the role of the CES.

1. A lot of the work that they do provides administrative/practical policy support to Catholic schools and dioceses (eg on contractual matters). So far as I can see, their activity is largely focussed in this sort of area. Should they be stronger in promoting to the Catholic education sector a fully Catholic vision of education, and in particular, of religious education?

2. If the CES acts to represent the Bishops and their dioceses on educational matters, how far should that involve a stronger public stance with regard to a fully Catholic vision of education? Clearly, there is an element of political judgement here, but the CES's critics are clearly looking for a stronger public stance. How far is that a reasonable expectation?

To exemplify these questions, I am looking as a write this post at the "Levels of attainment in Religious Education in Catholic Schools and Colleges" published by the Bishop's Conference Department for Catholic Education and Formation. This can clearly be seen in relation to the structure and levels of attainment of the non-statutory framework for Religious Education, widely used in preparing syllabuses for non-denominational schools and familiar from discussions among RE professionals from the time before the framework. Fine, engagement with the surrounding professional environment, a good and sensible thing for Catholic schooling to be doing. But this document does not explicitly relate attainment levels - ie assessment - to the content of the 1996 Curriculum Directory for Catholic Schools (a strong document setting out the content of Catholic RE across the key stages, relating it to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican II). Okay, some Catholic schools have significant numbers of non-Catholic pupils and it is appropriate to have an assessment framework that can be used with such pupils; but for Catholic pupils, should not the assessment framework be better focussed to assess the Catholic RE curriculum? In practice, is the RE department meant to take the Curriculum Directory (ie a Catholic perspective) or the Levels of Attainment (which can be a non-Catholic framework) as the determining factor for its curriculum planning?

There seems to me to be an unresolved tension here. And it touches on an area of evaluation of Catholic schools which may be rather sensitive. Are these schools succeeding in handing on the Catholic faith to their Catholic pupils? Why should these schools not try to assess this in some way? This should not, and need not, involve an inquistion into the faith practice of the pupils, but why should it not involve an assessment of their knowledge of Catholic teaching and some very basic indicators of their response to it (assessing "learning from" religion and pupil responses to beauty etc are recognised in the wider RE world)?