Jubilee of the World of Education

The Jubilee of the world of education will take place in the days 27th October - 1st November, with the declaration of St John Henry Newman as a doctor of the Church to take place during the concluding Mass celebrated by Pope Leo XIV. A wide range of events are organised for the days of this Jubilee, as can be seen by following the link above. Perhaps of particular note is an International Congress that marks the 60th anniversary of the Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum Educationis.

The then Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education issued a document Catholic Schools in March 1977.  That document suggests a two fold integration as the intention of the work of a Catholic school, an integration of faith and culture and an integration of faith and life:

n.49 (cf n.38-39, 44). The specific mission of the school, then, is a critical systematic transmission of culture in the light of faith and the bringing forth of the power of Christian virtue by the integration of culture with faith and faith with living.

In his Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope St John Paul II described the identity of the Catholic university, as both university and as Catholic:

12. Every Catholic University, as a university, is an academic community which, in a rigorous and critical fashion, assists in the protection and advancement of human dignity and of a cultural heritage through research, teaching and various services offered to the local, national and international communities. It possesses that institutional autonomy necessary to perform its functions effectively and guarantees its members academic freedom, so long as the rights of the individual person and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.

13. Since the objective of a Catholic University is to assure in an institutional manner a Christian presence in the university world confronting the great problems of society and culture, every Catholic University, as Catholic, must have the following essential characteristics:

"1. a Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;

2. a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own research;

3. fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;

4. an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life".

Together, schools and universities are perhaps the main, though not exclusive, ways in which the Church is present in the world of education.

St John Henry Newman, to be declared a Doctor of the Church on the closing day of this Jubilee, perhaps summarised all of this for his own times in a sermon entitled "Intellect, the Instrument of Religious Training":

Here, then, I conceive, is the object of the Holy See and the Catholic Church in setting up universities; it is to re-unite things which were in the beginning joined together by God, and have been put asunder by man. ... I wish the intellect to range with the utmost freedom, and religion to enjoy an equal freedom; but what I am stipulating for is that they should be found in one and the same place, and exemplified in the same persons. ... It will not satisfy me if religion is here, and science there, and young men converse with science all day, and lodge with religion in the evening.  ...I want the same roof to contain both the intellectual and moral discipline. 

Amoris Laetitia: the right of parents in educating their children

In speaking of parents' responsibilities with regard to the education of children, Amoris Laetitia n.85, referring to parents, reads in part: 

.... by their reception of the sacrament of marriage they become ministers of their children's education. In educating them, they build up the Church, and in so doing, they accept a God-given vocation.

 Whilst this paragraph presents the responsibility of parents in the education of their children in the realm of a religious office received in the grace of sacramental life, the preceding paragraph, n.84, argues for the same responsibility in a way that applies to all (though still with a reference to Canon Law):

... I feel it important to reiterate that the overall education of children is a "most serious duty" and at the same time a "primary right" of parents. This is not just a task or a burden, but an essential and inalienable right that parents are called to defend and of which no one may claim to deprive them.

What Pope Francis goes on to say about a correct understanding of the part played by the State in the provision of education equally applies to other contributors in the field of education, be they providers of schools themselves, providers of curriculum materials or providers of academic qualifications used in schools. 

The State offers educational programmes in a subsidiary way, supporting the parents in their indeclinable role; parents themselves enjoy the right to choose freely the kind of education - accessible and of good quality - which they wish to give their children in accordance with their convictions. Schools do not replace parents, but complement them. This is a basic principle: "all other participants in the process of education are only able to carry out their responsibilities in the name of the parents, with their consent and, to a certain degree, with their authorisation".

 Most fundamentally, in the context of the United Kingdom, with its well established state funding of primary and secondary schooling, Pope Francis' remarks have application to how the funding and regulation of education are understood. It is all too easy to feel that, because the school receives its funding from government, the government therefore has some kind of ownership of the educational work of the school. According to Pope Francis, that funding enables the school to play its subsidiary part in supporting parents in fulfilling their "primary right". And likewise, the regulation of the work of schools supports parents by trying to ensure that the education offered in the school is of sufficient quality that parents will be fulfilling their responsibility in entrusting their children to the care of the school.

If funding and regulation are used instead to enforce a uniformity of education in each and every school, the "primary right" of parents is undermined. A pluralism of school provision and of curriculum is essential to allowing parents to exercise their right with regard to the education of their children, and funding/regulation should not discriminate against, for example, schools with a religious designation which wish to adopt a curriculum consistent with that designation.

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.

Inquiry into sexual violence in schools: my observations, and Pope Francis on the content of school sex education

The Women and Equalities Committee of the UK Parliament recently announced an inquiry into sexual harassment and violence in schools. At the time of the launch of the inquiry, much of the talk in the media coverage was about the need for enhanced sex education to address the issues raised, along with a renewal of the calls to make sex education a statutory requirement in the curriculum of all schools.

1. It is difficult, from the media coverage, to understand exactly the extent of the problem of sexual harassment and assault in schools, particularly incidents that are perpetrated by pupils on other pupils. Police data reported by the BBC after a Freedom of Information Request gave a headline figure of 4 000 alleged assaults and over 600 rape allegations in schools over a three year period, but suggested that only about one fifth of these incidents alleged an offence committed by a pupil. Maria Miller, the Women and Equalities minister was quoted by the BBC as saying that:

.... the evidence [the Women and  Equalities Committee] had heard exposed a "really concerning problem" of "widespread sexual harassment on a regular basis", particularly among young women.

The evidence compiled by the organisation Fixers, at the request of the Committee, in order to support the call for evidence by the Committee, indicated:

Some 18% [of young people in schools] reported being sexually harassed once or more than once and 34% did not feel safe walking to and from school. Some 12% stated they had been sexually assaulted.

Whilst recognising that sexual harassment experienced by young people represents a real issue to which schools should make an appropriate response, I am nevertheless put in mind of the way in which statistics with regard to bullying of LGBT pupils have been cited as justification for programmes that, in effect, give a preferential profile to that form of bullying in schools policy making when other triggers might well be behind many more instances of bullying in schools.  There will clearly be those who will use the data, with a political intent, to deliberately promote the notion of a particular type of statutory sex education curriculum in schools.

2. This report of comments by the General Secretary of the NAHT seems to me to have some potentially sinister implications:

Mr Hobby said: "We don't need you need to make PSHE statutory to make teachers do it, but to protect teachers when they do it, because otherwise they are vulnerable to accusations that they are pursuing a personal agenda.

"We've seen really difficult situations where parents who disagree with the philosophies that are being promoted are saying, 'You're doing this, you're brainwashing our children.'

"It's really helpful for professionals on the ground to be able to say, 'No, this is a duty, it's government regulation, and I am doing this as every school in the country is.'

"By not making statutory, the government is making teachers absorb the controversy when it really should be the government that's strong enough to absorb that."

Should the PSHE curriculum be used to promote "philosophies" that are not those that accord with the parents' wishes? And should the making of PSHE a statutory part of the curriculum be used to defend teachers in promoting such "philosophies"?  

3. It is interesting to read the Fixers report in full, so that you can make of it what it actually is rather than selectively using it to promote a particular notion of sex education. What is interesting to try and judge is whether, anywhere in the report, there is any consistent thread that there are sexual behaviours that can be considered morally wrong. I spotted a couple of points at which a hint of this occurred - but it seems to be something completely outside of the experience of the young people whose views were sought. A second interesting point is that a picture is portrayed in which the focus of concern is not "safe sex" and the like, but the personal and emotional consequences of the young people's sexual culture. It is almost as if the debate has moved on a step. I would also observe that the adoption of the language of "relationship", of "pleasure" from sex, of "consent" as if consent is the only moral determinant in the articulation of proposed actions by the young people already betrays an implicit acceptance of presuppositions that sit behind some of the problems identified by them.

4. In this context, Pope Francis' words on sex education in his recent Exhortation Amoris Laetitia are strikingly prescient (nn.280-286). I quote some parts of this section of the Exhortation below, but do read the whole section. Firstly, the paragraph in which Pope Francis discusses modesty - surely the principle that provides a response to the problem of the sharing of sexualised images highlighted by young people in the Fixers report and more generally:

A sexual education that fosters a healthy sense of modesty has immense value, however much some people nowadays consider modesty a relic of a bygone era. Modesty is a natural means whereby we defend our personal privacy and prevent ourselves from being turned into objects to be used. Without a sense of modesty, affection and sexuality can be reduced to an obsession with genitality and unhealthy behaviours that distort our capacity for love, and with forms of sexual violence that lead to inhuman treatment or cause hurt to others.

Comparing to the Italian translation, which reflects the French in this paragraph, and conveys slightly different nuances, including a stronger sense of objectivity in the way in which modesty protects the interiority of the person:

.....È una difesa naturale della persona che protegge la propria interiorità ed evita di trasformarsi in un puro oggetto. Senza il pudore, possiamo ridurre l’affetto e la sessualità a ossessioni che ci concentrano solo sulla genitalità, su morbosità che deformano la nostra capacità di amare e su diverse forme di violenza sessuale che ci portano ad essere trattati in modo inumano o a danneggiare gli altri.  [... It is a natural defence of the person that protects ones personal interior being and avoids ones becoming a pure object. Without modesty, we can reduce affection and sexuality to obsessions that concentrate only on genitality, on unhealthy behaviours that distort our capacity to love and on different forms of sexual violence that lead us to be treated in an inhuman way or to harm others].

And a second quotation:

Frequently, sex education deals primarily with "protection" through the practice of "safe sex". Such expressions convey a negative attitude towards the natural procreative finality of sexuality, as if an eventual child were an enemy to be protected against. This way of thinking promotes narcissism and aggressivity in place of acceptance. It is always irresponsible to invite adolescents to toy with their bodies and their desires, as if they possessed the maturity, values, mutual commitment and goals proper to marriage. They end up being blithely encouraged to use other persons as an means of fulfilling their needs or limitations. The important thing is to teach them sensitivity to different expressions of love, mutual concern and care, loving respect and deeply meaningful communication. All of these prepare them for an integral and generous gift of self that will be expressed, following a public commitment, in the gift of their bodies. Sexual union in marriage will thus appear as a sign of an all-inclusive commitment, enriched by everything that has preceded it.

And a third:

....Beyond the understandable difficulties which individuals may experience, the young need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created, for “thinking that we enjoy absolute power over our own bodies turns, often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy absolute power over creation… An appreciation of our body as male or female is also necessary for our own self-awareness in an encounter with others different from ourselves. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment”. Only by losing the fear of being different, can we be freed of self-centredness and self-absorption. Sex education should help young people to accept their own bodies and to avoid the pretension “to cancel out sexual difference because one no longer knows how to deal with it".

 Again the French and Italian convey a nuance at a key point that the English does not quite capture:...."pouvoir se reconnaître soi-même dans la rencontre avec celui qui est different" ...."poter riconoscere se stessi nell’incontro con l’altro diverso da sé" ...... to be able to know oneself in the encounter with the one/the other who is different than ourself. The difference being referred to is clearly that between the male sex and the female sex.

Patriarch Fouad Twal speaking about the situation of Christians in the Holy Land

The Bishops' Conference website has published the text of an address to the Bishops' Conference by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. The address presents the position of Christians in the Holy Land, and is worth reading. His Beatitude Fouad Twal is realistic in his assessment of the situation, without taking a stance that is "purely political".

The difficulties created by the policies of the Israeli government with regard to new settlements are referred to:

In recent weeks, much attention has been focused on the Israeli government’s plans to wrest Arab East Jerusalem from its Palestinian residents. House demolition, expropriation and new plans to unilaterally define much Jerusalem territory as "national park land" are threatening not only the peace of Jerusalem but also its multi-confessional identity. An important segment of this land belongs to different Churches. Alongside this, the government continues to sponsor settling Jews in Arab East Jerusalem, building neighborhoods and enlarging the existing ones. Most worrying is the fact that the Haram al-Sharif, also known as the Temple Mount, is again becoming a locus of tension as radical Jews do not hide their intention to remove the Muslim shrines there in order to reconstruct the Third Temple.

I noticed particularly His Beatitude's remarks about the part played by Catholic educational institutions sponsored by the Latin Patriarchate. Unlike Catholic schools in the UK, where the premise generally is that they exist to educate Catholic children, this is a context where many of the students will not be Catholics.

Another significant sign of the vitality of our Church is the ongoing development of the planned university linked to the Latin Patriarchate in Madaba. We are convinced that our large, established and respected Catholic school system has had a significant and positive effect upon the life and culture of Jordan, and has been no small factor in Jordan’s role, as a force of moderation and tolerance in the Middle East. We wish to expand that effect by opening this university, which we expect will attract students from the entire region, and not just from Jordan. I urge you to take this new initiative to heart and be involved. ‘Involvement’ does not only mean financial support but help to make strong connections with English and Welsh universities.

In this connection, I might mention the excellent work of our Latin Patriarchate schools throughout the diocese. These schools that are of a high standard and promote Christian values need your support too. We truly believe that through these schools we are making a difference in our region.

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)?

UK: compulsory sex education ages 5-16

The BBC News website report of today's announcement that Sex and Relationships Education is to be made compulsory in state schools from age 5 to age 16 can be found here. The reporting today suggests that, though a statutory programme of study will be prepared, schools with a religious character will be able to teach it in a way that accords with their faith beliefs. Parents' right to withdraw their children from the sex education provision looks as if it will remain, despite the statutory programme of study.

But, some questions remain:

1. How will the tension between a statutory programme of study (not yet determined or published) and talk of respecting each schools own ethos and parental context be resolved? This is particularly pertinent to schools with a religious character. Will the programme of study be sufficiently widely framed to allow such schools to teach it without contradicting the teaching of their faith?

2. Will non-statutory guidance that may well accompany the programme of study become the key determinant of what most schools actually do? And who will write such guidance? And will particular resources be supplied/promoted to schools in preference over others?

3. Will teachers who do not wish to teach the programme of study, or parts of the programme of study, out of conscientious objection have their conscientious objection respected?

4. How far will governors of schools actually exercise their responsibility for the curriculum in their schools, and resist a programme that does not accord with their ethos? Or will they just "toe the line" and follow "the guidance", which will not be statutory anyway?

5. And there is the problem of the word "relationships". Will schools that wish to do so be allowed to talk about marriage between one man and one woman as the appropriate context for sexual relationship? Or will the question of marriage be avoided?

At one time, I suspect that the world of education would have been horrified by the idea that central government should determine the curriculum of all state schools. The introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988, and the subsequent accomodation of teachers to that regime, seems to have broken down this taboo.

But it is quite a thought, isn't it. The Department for Children, Schools and Family is who will determine what is taught in state schools about sexuality.

Exams test schools, not pupils

I have found an interesting "sub-text" listening to Radio 4's PM programme this evening. This was providing prominent coverage of the announcement by the Secretary of State for Education, Ed Balls, that end of Key Stage tests for 14 year olds will be discontinued immediately. These tests, taken in maths, English and science, have been taken by pupils at a kind of mid-point between entry into secondary school and GCSE examinations taken at age 16.

Why not end the external tests taken by pupils at age 10 as the come to the end of their primary education, just before transfer to secondary school? No, they are here to stay, because they are a valuable tool that allows parents and the local community to see how well primary schools in their area are performing. We can remove the tests at Key Stage 3 because they are not seen as providing useful information about the performance of the schools - GCSE and GCE A-level results are regarded as providing that information. This the response of the Secretary of State.

This does of course have an interesting consequence for schools. They will want the best test/examination results regardless of consideration for their pupils. If "spoon feeding" ups the results, spoon feed and thereby largely do the learning for the pupils (even though students who then progress to AS and A-level courses end up lacking the independence in learning needed for success at that level, certainly in Physics). Set up extra compulsory teaching after school (sorry, provide revision classes), regardless of the increased pressure that creates for staff and the fact that this involves a transfer of responsibility for learning from pupils to teachers.

And I thought that assessment was meant to be for the benefit of the pupils ..... Silly me.

A "journey of sexual discovery" and shame

I have read the Telegraph today instead of the Times, and two items caught my attention.

Under the headline "Channel 4 teen sex series in morning", the newspaper reports on a sex education series to be broadcast by Channel 4 in November. Searching the schedules of Channel 4 Learning, this is going to be a series of short 5-10 minute programmes intended for use in PSHE teaching programmes in schools. The show is entitled KNTV Sex, and I believe it has/is being produced for Channel 4 Learning by a company called Tern TV.

Two things struck me about the Telegraph report and the (limited) information I could see about the programmes in a web search. One is the un-real nature of the presentation -cartoon figures Kierky and Nietsche (drawn from an earlier Tern TV series on philosophy - get it?) set in a fictional "last remaining communist state" of Slabovia, comedy footage from television shows. It looks as if human sexuality will be treated as a bit of a joke, communicating a certain gap between the messages the programme series is trying to get over and consequences in the real lives of young people.

The second is the description of the series as a "journey of sexual discovery" (quotation marks in the Telegraph report, so, presuming the professionalism of the journalist concerned, taken verbatim from Channel 4 or Tern TV's own blurb/news release - though I couldn't find anything directly to check this out), and the statement that the series will discuss different ways of having sex, bisexuality and "coming out". In other words, an intention, not just to communicate information and then leave young people to make up their own minds, but to develop and form a particular immoral view of sexual activity. I use the word "immoral" advisedly - the reporting of the programme gives no indication that there is any right or wrong at stake ... And given the participation of THT and SEF in preparing the materials, we aren't surprised.

In the comment section of the paper, Liz Hunt has a short piece entitled "Have we no shame?" The photo accompanying the piece illustrates precisely what shame (in the good sense) is not: it is not humiliation, and definitely not public humiliation. Liz Hunt's context is not that of human sexuality, but rather of situations where celebrities have found themselves undertaking community service orders for offences. One of the chapters of Pope John Paul II's book Love and Responsibility that I have always found very striking is that entitled "The Metaphysics of Shame". There is a perfectly correct and healthy way in which we should be ashamed - as a judgement of conscience when we do something wrong - and have a preference that what we have done does not become public knowledge. The seal of the confessional has always occured to me as a way of respecting this legitimate character of shame after sin. On the other hand, shame does have a public character in the sense that what is seen by society as shameful and to be frowned upon acts as an incentive towards moral behaviour, towards behaviour that will not lead to an experience of shame. [Aside: imagine how smokers feel these days!]

Now, have Channel 4 and Tern TV and their collaborators lost their sense of shame?

Canada: Alberta bishops statement on HPV vaccination in schools

I have found it interesting to read the statement of the Catholic Bishops of Alberta on the question of a HPV vaccination programme that is being offered in the schools of that province. (On a personal note, the list of Bishops includes one who I met, and spoke to over lunch, when in Quebec at the International Eucharistic Congress.) The programme in Alberta schools parallels closely that now being offered in schools in this country.

It clearly makes two points with regard to Catholic teaching: parents have the first responsibility for making decisions with regard to the welfare of their children, a responsibility prior to that of both the Alberta provincial government and of schools; and that Catholic teaching with regard to chastity outside marriage is part of a framework in which schools and government authorities should address wider questions of human relationships and the meaning of sexuality for young people.

The following paragraph interested me. Whilst it draws the attention of parents to their responsibility for the sexual education of their children, the age range indicated was something I found interesting.

Parents need to promote ongoing dialogue with their pre-teen and teenage offspring about relationships and sexuality. Through teaching, active monitoring of social and other activities, and giving overt guidance regarding appropriate and safe dating relationships, they need to protect their children from counterproductive influences and potential abuse.

I do not agree with this next paragraph from the statement as it is literally written. HPV vaccination may send the message that sexual intercourse is alright provided you are "protected". But a school could also provide the vaccinations in a context that overcomes this difficulty - though most secular schools are probably less likely to be successful in such an attempt than religious schools. However, the Bishops do quite rightly highlight a danger arising from the pogramme, and it might well be the case that the circumstances of schools in Alberta mean that this is serious danger.

Secondly, although school-based immunization delivery systems generally result in high numbers of students completing immunization, a school-based approach to vaccination sends a message that early sexual intercourse is allowed, as long as one uses "protection."

But perhaps most important is the Bishops' recognition of the voluntary nature of the Alberta government programme, and the need for parents to be fully informed of what is involved in giving - or withholding - consent for their girls to receive the vaccine. At the end of the day, it has not asked Catholic schools to decline to co-operate with the Alberta government programme - the message contains no directive; but it has clearly set moral and cultural parameters within which any such co-operation should take place.

And, comparing to the response of the hierarchy in England and Wales, the statement has been issued by the Bishops, not by their education service. The implication is not one for the nature of the teaching itself, but for how the Bishops involved see their ministry of teaching for the faithful.

This and that from the media

The Times newspaper yesterday published two letters highly critical of the decision of governors at St Monica's school in Prestwich, Manchester that their pupils should not receive the HPV vaccinations at the school. The Catholic Church was called upon to condemn this irresponsible action by one of their schools.

As Zero pointed out to me, would there have been half the fuss if the school had not been a Roman Catholic school? I think the media have taken the chance to "have a go". I post a copy of the governors letter to the parents of the school below, and I think you will see that it demonstrates a willingness of the school to fully co-operate with the Primary Care Trust in the Trust making arrangements for girls attending the school to recieve the vaccination in other settings. H/T to Catholic Mom of 10, where I first saw the text. I posted on this matter earlier; Fr Ray also had a post which addressed different aspects of the matter. Mulier Fortis has also posted, with the comments to her post developing other elements of the discussion.

[If you aren't able to open the image in such a way that you can read the text, follow the link to the post at Catholic Mom of 10, and you will be able to see and read the text.]

The Conservative shadow home affairs minister is reported today as criticising the idea of "multiculturalism" in favour of a greater sense of British culture. This seems to have become the accepted wisdom these days. However, he is also reported as advocating recognition of the role of Christianity in British culture. This according to the BBC news website:

Mr Grieve also said the part played by Christianity in Britain should not be ignored.
"The role of Christianity is really rather important. It can't just be magicked out of the script. It colours many of the fundamental viewpoints of British people, including many who've never been in a church."

I do have a caution about this advocacy in favour of Christianity. Yes, I think it is is important to recognise that many of Britain's laws and much of its societal practice can only be fully understood in the light of their Christian origins. But for this to carry any force in policy debate today, we must also recognise that Christianity is a religion that is still lived and practiced by many people in Britain today. The Christianity that is entitled to a stake in the public square is not the Christianity of yesterday, or the day before that, or the year before that ... it is a Christianity that is still a living, practiced religion of today, yes, in continuity with the past, but definitely lived and experienced today. Just arguing the place of Christianity in public life on the grounds of its historical contribution can only be part of the story, and has the danger of Christian practice being isolated to its own "corner" where it is not allowed to take part in the life of wider society as a whole; it must be accepted that Christianity will contribute to contemporary moral and political discourse, something that may challenge the assumptions of many of no religious belief.

Creationism in schools

The end of the week saw a discussion in the UK about creationism in schools, prompted by some remarks by the Director of Education at The Royal Society. The Royal Society is (I think) the oldest of the learned societies in the UK. Exactly what Professor Reiss said I have not been able to find, so I do not know whether the discussion was actually prompted by his remarks or by the media response to them.


The gist of the discussion was that creationism should be allowed to be discussed in science lessons in schools, and that science teachers should be able to manage such a discussion in their classroom. Such a discussion in the media nearly always ends up begging key questions, key questions that usually relate to defining exactly what your terms mean.


I take it that creationism is a teaching that the world was - literally - created in six days, in the form described in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis, and at a time determined by the calculations of the passage of time in the Biblical accounts. This teaching is problematical in a number of ways:

(1) in its understanding of the nature of Sacred Scripture, not just as a question of how different types of Scriptural literature are to be understood, but as to how Sacred Scripture needs to be integrated into a living tradition that engages with the surrounding culture;

(2) in its understanding of the nature of human reason and the ability of that reason to come to firm knowledge of the world around it, particularly in the physical sciences but also in other spheres of knowledge;

(3) its lack of precision in understanding creation as an act of "bringing into being" and "sustaining in being", which can be distinguished from physical processes of development in the material that is thereby created (what might be referred to in a kind of shorthand as "evolution"); and

(4) in its inability to be referred to an authoritative teaching authority that can define that this is or is not a correct Christian understanding.

All of these problems arise from the origin of the idea of "creationism" in non-denominationally oriented Pentecostal/Evangelical house or community churches.


Unfortunately, creationism also causes a problem in public debate for mainstream Christian denominations such as Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. This is because their doctrine of creation - in the sense of (3) above, and which is quite compatible with "evolution" understood as development and progress in the physical world - is confused by secularist thinkers (deliberately?) with "creationism". The presence of any teaching of a doctrine of creation in schools is therefore attacked, particularly if that teaching is suggested as being compatible with the teaching of science. Secularists will apply the word "unscientific" to any teaching of a doctrine of creation - fair enough, if by that they mean that it is not something arrived at by the methods of study appropriate of the physical sciences, but quite wrong if by that they mean that it is contrary to a right use of human reason. Mainstream Christian denominations need to wise up to this problem, perhaps by teaching anew and more vividly their understanding of creation in relation to science.

So, in terms of the media discussion of recent days: Should the discussion of creationism be banned from science lessons in schools? Well, no, in the sense that any direction to "ban a topic" does not relate to the reality of the wide range of things that just come into conversations in the classroom. Should creationism be taught in science lessons in schools? Tricky ... I see no reason why the methods of study of science should not be brought to bear on the idea of creationism. I do not think that creationism can stand up to the evidence of human reason as it has developed its understanding of science ("evolution"), but I think those are the terms in which it should be addressed in the classroom, not in terms of a doctrinaire opposition to it. As in the teaching of any topic in any subject area, this needs to be done in a way that is appropriate to the level and abilities of the pupils in the class, so would need to be handled very differently in Year 7 than in Year 13. Should a more mainstream doctrine of creation be taught in the science lesson? As above, but I think in this case the scientific evidence will need to recognise that the idea of creation needs human reason to engage in a wider way than just that appropriate to the physical sciences, and scientific reasoning will need to recognise its just boundaries.

I heard a most interesting side comment during the discussions which took place on the radio. This was during an interview, I forget now whether it was Today (ie a morning current affairs programme) or PM (the early evening current affairs programme). The speaker was opposing the idea that creationism should be discussed in science lessons, and, in passing, observed that "religion was itself an outcome of evolution". Now, I found this very interesting because, rather than this being something that would belittle the import of religion for the human person which is what I think the speaker intended, it opens up the possibility of man being of his nature religious. We then have to engage in a proper study of this phenomenon that is "religion" to find out exactly what it is, unless of course an anti-religious prejudice limits us to a sociological study that puts it all down to "social construct" or stops us from undertaking any study of the question at all. The realist phenomenology in the early years of the 20th century has a literature on the religious nature of the human being which would need to be included in any honest study of this subject.

Catholic renewal in Canada

As the International Eucharistic Congress in Quebec approaches (less than two weeks now!), ZENIT are carrying a report of Catholic renewal in Canada.

The report outlines how the Eucharistic Congress has come to be held in Quebec, suggesting an interesting openess of the civil authorities in Quebec to recognising the Catholic basis of the city's history and culture.

Another interesting aspect of the report is the reference to the annual gatherings of Canadian young people, which have been a key feature of the preparation for the Eucharistic Congress. This issued in the journey of the Ark of the New Covenant to which I referred here.

There is also an account of an interesting initiative in priestly formation, which involves seminarians living in community in a parish while they undertake their academic studies at a nearby seminary. It is based on a new community, established as a society of apostolic life of diocesan right.

And, if you read down the ZENIT report, you will find an account of how a group of homeschooling families came to establish a Catholic college to provide a Catholic alternative to the secularising influences of the education system.

More about Poppy

I have already posted about the film "Happy-go-Lucky". The current issue of my trade union's magazine Report carries a "Final Word" article by Mike Leigh, the producer of this film. This is what he says about the film:

"I've tried to reflect on education, from the points of view of both teaching and learning, in my new film "Happy-go-Lucky". Poppy, a Year 5 primary teacher, is relaxed and focused, with a positive outlook and a great sense of humour. Single, she loves life, and she loves the kids she teaches. She is a good teacher. She also experiences life on the other side, as a pupil, being taught to drive and also to Flamenco dance."

The film doesn't really show enough of Poppy's teaching to let us know how good she is in the classroom. Being confident is not always the same thing as being good! Relaxed and focused - or just completely scatty? She does care about the children she teaches, as demonstrated by her child protection referral for one her pupils. Any reflection on her experience as a pupil is completely buried under the characters of her two teachers, the Flamenco instructor and the driving instructor, and her own determination to behave with a "great sense of humour".

I indicated in my earlier post that I thought the film constituted a reflection on the nature of happiness in society today. I still think that is so, despite Mike Leigh's different suggestion in this article.

Mike Leigh's comment on his own experience of the education service is quite acidic. He is very critical of the education he received at RADA - "In short, no real education, other than how to stand up straight, speak proper and be heard in the gods" - but speaks highly of a foundation course at Camberwell Art School - "At this moment, I realised that actors could be artists, a belief that has informed my life". Talking about his own children, he summarises their experiences as "The boys flourished or floundered, depending on the quality of their teachers".

Mike Leigh ends his article as follows. Physics teachers, as a breed, seem to be much keener on their own subject area and less enthusiastic for having to teach bits of biology and chemistry. Hence my sympathy for this ending:

"Obviously, all education can only be as good as the teacher. But to be any good, the teacher must be allowed to work to his or her strengths, to teach from his or her passions. He or she must always be free from distractions and irrelevant responsibilities."

Joined up Catholicism in schools

The thoughts behind this post come from three different places. A recent comment here contained the observation that Tony Blair didn't really do "joined up government" when he was in office so it's not surprising that he doesn't do "joined up Catholicism" either. Another comment has described sex education being given in a school without it being placed in the proper context of Catholic teaching on marriage. I have just marked some assignments for Maryvale Institute's PGCE course. One assignment gave some very practical suggestions as to how religious education might connect with other subject areas in a Catholic school - the general idea of vocation as obedience to a call from God to a particular way of life, and the more specific idea of vocations to the priesthood or religious life, for example, could be taught within the school's careers delivery.

So here are some more suggestions for "joined up Catholicism" in schools (if you think of any more, please add them in the comments box):

1. Teaching the doctrine of creation (not to be understood in a fundamentalist sense as opposed to evolution) alongside teaching about evolution in science lessons.
2. Teaching Catholic doctrine on marriage in science classes, alongside teaching the biological aspects of human reproduction and contraception.
3. Teaching some medical ethics in science classes before studying topics related to IVF and stem cell research.
4. Using religous poetry in English classes.
5. Teaching Catholic social doctrine as part of citizenship.

I wonder how many schools do teach the appropriate Catholic doctrine in their RE lessons, but with a practical divorcing of that teaching from the teaching in other subject areas? In all of the areas suggested above, it should be possible to meet the requirements of the National Curriculum or examination specifications as well as teaching from a specifically Catholic point of view.

"Joined up Catholicism", though, requires the teachers of subjects other than RE in the school to have a good knowledge of and some sympathy towards Catholic teaching, something that can be problematical if the staff involved have no religious belief of their own.

Every Child Matters - a parent's comment

The following has come via a comment on the post "School bans girl's crisps". I publish it here as a discrete post. The comment is of interest as one thing I did not say in the post it responded to was... that the school involved was a Catholic primary school. I have also just amused myself by looking up its OFSTED report, published in January of this year. The school achieved an overall effectiveness grade 2 (good).

From the text of the report:

"Pupils have an excellent understanding of how to live healthy and safe lives. One said, 'I run up and down the stairs - it warms me up and gives me exercise!'"

And then from the list of judgements at the end of the report:

"The extent to which learners adopt healthy lifestyles grade 1 (outstanding)
The extent to which learners adopt safe practices grade 1 (outstanding)"

Well, there are circumstances where it may be quite safe to run up and down stairs (I can think of an experiment sometimes done in science lessons to work out the power of a person); but, as a general rule, for primary age pupils in their general movement around a building, it would be discouraged in favour of walking! Oh, wonderful, wonderful, OFSTED.

Though I know of the "All that I am" programme to which this comment refers, I am not familiar with the content of the programme and its materials. I would be happy to receive comments with other people's experiences of the programme. I am not sure that I would agree with characterising the ECM agenda as "evil" per se, but I can see that it is giving rise to serious difficulties. I suspect, as this comment seems to indicate, that Catholic schools need to be a bit more critical/assertive in the way in which they respond to the demands of ECM.

I did leave a comment earlier about my experiences of ECM, as a parent. It must have somehow got lost on the worldwide web. I shall try again.1.Collecting my children from school earlier this year, a question on the way home in the car from my son: "mum, what`s child pornography". The two 7 year olds in the back asked as well, as I tried not to steer the car off the road into a tree. They had a visit from the local policeman who, as it turns out, went into some detail about what child pornography is and why it gets on the internet and to please ring them on this number if they suspect they have seen any. It led to many questions from my children about why people would want to view this stuff or produce it in the first place. I was shaking by the time I got home. This part of the timetable came under something called "personal health and safety" and my enquiries showed that it is part of the Every Child Matters Agenda. We know every child matters. Show me anyone who actively believes "Only Some Children Matter". Those who don`t think any children matter will eventually be dealt with by the courts, as with Victoria Climbie's killer( which gave rise to this ECM stuff).It is complete nonsense and being used to enforce a secular/anything goes agenda in our Catholic schools. THEY are the ones affected by it, not the community schools. It is ONLY in a Catholic school that children will be taught that certain things are moral absolutes and wrong: abortion, pre-marital sex, divorce, to name the 3 obvious ones. What ECM is succeeding in doing (because teachers do not want to ignore a government directive - their jobs depend upon it)is under-mining parents' right to educate their Catholic children in matters of the faith. And these are literally matters of life and death. My childrens' dignity was assaulted by this health and safety lesson. They and I were violated. But parents have no recourse. Everyone in authority supports this ECM nonsense. NO-one wants to rock the boat for fear of being unable to pay their mortgage in 6 months' time..

2.My son in year 5 last year was put through a programme called " All that I Am". This is a sex education programme that has been approved by the Department of Health and funded by them, in co-operation with the Church for use in our schools. The last time I checked, the DOH didn`t share my values about sex education for chlidren. However, that aside, and trusting that it would be fine - this is a Catholic shcool, after all - I ticked the box agreeing to it. My son, at the end of the week relayed to me all that he had learned. I had also taken the trouble to read the programme myself. It is big on dignity, self-worth, God's love. Doesn`t mention chastity once. The teacher (non-catholic) taking them through the programme expanded onto teenage sex, and how many teenagers are getting STDs because they are becoming sexually active "too early". Sexuality was not taught within the context of the Sacrament of marriage. It was taught as an animal bodily function with a bit of spirituality thrown in. This was a real mistake on my part to have allowed my son to go through this. I should never have put his soul in this position, and it has caused enormous distress. I do not know how I could have been so utterly stupid. With hindsight, I should have removed him from school, for the week, and taken him through the teaching myself. I have since, with the help of Grace, ironed out the misunderstandings and filled in the teachings of the Church for him. I will not make the same mistake again.These are just 2 small examples, Joseph, of how ECM is being used to enforce, by stealth, (you can be sure most people aren`t even noticing)this government's anti-Christian agenda. They are not anti-faith, as such. We parents just have to put up with it, or take our own evasive/curative action. NO-one is listening to us -our priests (with notable vocal exceptions - Fr Tim Finegan understands this perfectly), our teachers or our governors. NO-one wants to speak out.And, the government has also brought a supplementary document to ECM called " Every Muslim Child Matters". When I rang the Schools Department to ask for a copy of "Every Catholic Child Matters", they told me that that was not one of their publications. We are not imagining this, Joseph. ECM is evil. MY children matter to me, and I will not have their dignity and my authority udnermined by ECM. I do believe I am not alone, but as you can appreciate, with so very little support, you have be robust to speak out.

I am glad you have raised ECM. Because it certainly matters to me, and many parents. I believe, from terrible experience, it is much more serious than low fat crisps.

Parents consultation evening; Ann Widdecombe et al at Methodist Central Hall

I spent three and half hours after school today taking part in a parents consultation meeting for our Year 12. I teach fifteen of them A-level Physics. Out of the fifteen, I met the parents of eleven, which I think was a good attendance. These evenings are enjoyable, but exhausting (even for me on a part-time timetable). Don't you just love the parent who gives you their mobile 'phone number and says, "Any problem, please phone at any time"!

My sister has just sent me the following report of the meeting at Methodist Central Hall last night:

Went to the meeting at Methodist Central Hall in Westminster last night and heard Ann Widdecombe, Lord Alton and others talking about the HFE Bill going through Parliament. We are being urged to write to Gordon Brown to ask him to remove the 3 line whip on MPs to vote for the Bill and allow a free vote. We also have to lobby MPs. It was quite exciting as there were protesters outside the building (not pleasant people at all) and they also tried to disrupt the meeting, heckling and chanting and being generally obnoxious. Eventually they were all removed by the stewards.

Nothing new there then.

Tomorrow sees a day trip to Birmingham for a meeting at Maryvale (a 310 mile round trip for those unfamiliar with UK geography). On Saturday morning, "second adolescence" kicks in with an ice skating trip.

School tips on anti-gay bullying

The UK news media is today profiling guidance for schools and teachers on tackling homophobic bullying. The relevant Government department, now called the Department for Children, Schools and Families, clearly in the interests of balance and fairness, commissioned a well known pro-gay organisation (sorry, I am not going to give them a name check, but you should not find it difficult to guess who) to prepare this advice.
My own trade union's news release on this ends with the following sentence: "We would like to see concerted and joined-up action between the DSCF [Department for Schools, Children and Families] and DIUS [Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills] to challenge and change our heterosexist culture. " My own opposition to my union's policy on this matter is well known among those who lead the union, and I am still at a complete loss as to how I can successfully remove a heterosexist assumption from teaching a reproduction topic in science at school.
Will the Government now commission the Catholic Bishop's Conference to prepare advice for publicly funded organisations on tackling anti-Catholic prejudice?