Catholic or Church of England Primary School?

[Honeywaffles1]

I don't practise either religion, but these are pretty much my only options within a two-mile radius.

There are many ”outstanding” Catholic schools, but I've heard that the Church of England takes a more lax approach to religion than the RC church, where converting to their religion is the top priority.

Note: I don't need to be told to find a school that is not religious because I don't want to have to take my son on two buses in the morning and two in the afternoon.

From the National Secular Society:

'Community schools are generally secular and inclusive, they may be referred to as non-religious or even secular schools. In theory religious groups have no special role in running them and they should be entirely free from religious discrimination.'

There you have it.

@CharliesFallenAngel even community schools have to have a daily act of Christian worship. They can get an exemption to have a daily act of worship of a different faith, but not a secular assembly. I saw in the local press a primary school in the neighbouring county had asked and was turned down, on the basis the law didn't allow it and that the interests of the one third of pupils from a Christian background had to be looked after. Even though the governors and parents supported the change. So there's not allowed to be such a thing as a secular state school in this country.

@Cockerdileteeth So are you saying that the National Secular Society is promulgating misinformation?

Interesting.

@CharliesFallenAngel I think the operative words there are probably "in theory" and "should"... I just looked at their website and their landing page for education highlights a campaign to abolish compulsory collective worship in schools and replace it with "inclusive assemblies with an ethical dimension" so looks like they're correctly informing people that collective worship currently remains compulsory.

@Cockerdileteeth Well, whoever wrote that was a consummate wordsmith 🙄

Yes, words are an interesting thing. So much confusion and ambiguity can flow from the language used around this, by all concerned. "Inclusive" is another interesting word. The CofE uses that one a lot too.

This is what our local Diocese says about being inclusive, to reassure non-Christian families:

"It was always intended that Church schools should be open to all of the children of the parish. The schools are not ‘faith schools’ in the sense of presuming that children are practising Christians or attempting to make converts of them." "Church of England schools welcome everyone – Christian families and families of all faiths and none. They strive to be inclusive."

And, regarding Christian worship: "Our schools aims to make collective worship distinctively Christian in character but also inclusive and ‘non-confessional’ in tone. As such we encourage everyone to attend worship and schools to make sure worship works for everyone in the school."

All sounds fine. This sort of language, plus memories of the very light touch CofE schools of our own childhoods, makes people like me think it's a non-issue when Year R applications roll around, especially when the church schools are also reminding you how the community schools have to have Christian daily collective worship too, and promising that they teach the same RE syllabus as the community schools.

DS's experience of his CofE primary is that as a non-believer, what we failed to understand is that "inclusive" here just means they most graciously allow kids like him to attend their school and to "encounter" their faith, not what we thought it meant ie an environment where everyone can feel comfortable and belong equally. He should not have to be made conscious of his outsider-ness in his own school on a daily basis, or be questioning his identity based on religious affiliation/non- affiliation at 5. He shouldn't be uncomfortable when he receives a certificate because it's being awarded for demonstrating "our Christian values" (they were "school values" when he started, but got a rebrand). He shouldn't be obliged to write and read out prayers to a God he doesn't believe in as a compulsory class activity. He shouldn't be made to feel he has to join in the prayers in assembly to "show respect" (sic) - standing politely and quietly should be enough. He should be learning the local authority's RE syllabus as advertised, with it's grounding in philosophical enquiry and exploration of what it means to live a religious life, not a different CofE-designed RE syllabus designed to drill them in Christian theology and Bible knowledge for the 2/3 of class RE time spent on Christianity while they blatantly ignore the toothless legal requirement to teach the local authority one.

I don't think it's being a victim as suggested upthread to say this isn't OK in taxpayer funded schools that on paper are for all. And I don't think the answer as suggested upthread is that non-believers should remove ourselves from church school catchments if we have school aged children and don't want them to be made to pray in assembly if they don't want to (that's be a third of the county we can't live in, and tens of thousands of pounds of moving costs and disruption to our families). I really don't think the answer is for the atheists to have to run ourselves out of town? I also don't that if we do live in a church school catchment, the solution should be for our kids to be further isolated and alienated by having to sit in the school office with a book during every daily assembly, missing all the notices, award presentations, music and drama performances, and participation in the communal life of their school. It's easy to say "withdraw them from collective worship then" but would you want your kids having to self-ostracise like that? Being sent to sit in the office is usually a punishment.

I don't know what the church hears, or fears(?), when non-believers [like me] use the word inclusive about schools. My sense is they fear not being able to show their own faith? So I'll put this here. My totally secular workplace recognises its employees are rounded human beings and for some of them, a faith is an important part of who they are. So the offices have a multi-faith prayer space. And on religious festivals in their faith, colleagues (pre-covid) often brought in food to share - in these days of hybrid working it tends to be an emailed recipe and some info about the festival - and we generally have a whip round for the food bank for anyone who wants to contribute, as a hat tip to the religious festival in a way that's common ground for all. People are free to be themselves but as a workplace, we don't have a religion. Seems to work OK for everyone.

@Cockerdileteeth The Equality Act 2010 protects employees from all kinds of discrimination (direct, indirect, harassment and victimisation) due to a specific religion or belief they hold, as this is a protected characteristic.

Provided a claim is brought within 3 months from the last act of discrimination, there is no minimum length of employment required for a claim to be made, just a belief that the employee was discriminated against because of their religious beliefs – job applicants, workers and employees are all protected.

When employers hire employees from different religious backgrounds, they should ensure they understand the relevant practices that may come along with this faith. This could be achieved by simply approaching an employee and asking if they have any specific requirements in the context of their faith and how may be best to cater to this.

My totally secular workplace recognises its employees are rounded human beings and for some of them, a faith is an important part of who they are. So the offices have a multi-faith prayer space.

Some religions have a duty/requirement/HolyDayofObligation etc when they are required to pray. Not accommodating employees with a place to pray or allowing breaks around prayer time means employers open up risk to liability and the utmost care must be undertaken in these circumstances.
Some religions require their members to leave before dusk on certain days (which may or may not be during working hours depending on the season) and this need should also be accommodated.

So your organisation isn't being as altruistic as you would have us believe - they are just being shrewd in avoiding the embarrassment of a discrimination action.

Also, having a place of worship on the premises avoids the need for employees to take time off to go to a place of worship, with the accompanying reduction in productivity it would cause.

Not quite sure what the point being made is. And I'm not sure if it matters whether a workplace culture comes from a place of legislative compliance, or from decent people - managers and staff - trying to do the right thing, or a mixture of the two. My point was that people of faith can be comfortable talking about and practising their faiths (well I hope they are) in a non-religious organisation .

If you're bringing up the Equality Act 2010, though, do remember the protected characteristic of "religion" as defined encompasses lack of religious belief/non-religious philosophical outlooks as well (atheism, humanism and so forth) and their protection from discrimination applies in education too.

My atheist son from time to time isn't feeling super comfortable in his church school, though. Nobody is saying his school's in breach of any actual legal obligations in this space (well, apart from playing fast and loose with the locally agreed RE syllabus but that's consequence free) but maybe there's some distance between "not discriminating/not breaking the law", and being a properly comfortable and truly inclusive environment?

Our Catholic school did a fair bit of god bothering but as we were both brought up with that we tuned it out and didn't force dd to do more than the minimum participation. She goes to non Catholic secondary now and sky has not fallen in. Prefer non religious schools myself but we had little choice for primary

@Cockerdileteeth If you're bringing up the Equality Act 2010, though, do remember the protected characteristic of "religion" as defined encompasses lack of religious belief/non-religious philosophical outlooks as well (atheism, humanism and so forth) and their protection from discrimination applies in education too.

That's interesting
So, have there been any cases of discrimination lodged against educational organisations concerning atheist children?

@DancingLeaves I understand for the sort of big ticket stuff that I guess people might bring claims over - admissions policy and teacher hiring decisions - faith schools have exemptions from equalities legislation that allow them to discriminate away.

For the day to day stuff, it's just discomfort/annoyance level, so you suck it up because you don't want to be a troublemaker or That Parent over it. Well we do. The only time I've queried anything regarding RE and worship , I was met with hurt upsetness and insinuations that I'm anti-religious and probably trying to stop them professing their faith (which I never gave cause to say, I just wanted some reciprocal respect for my son's beliefs, which don't feature any gods) and was very courteously insulted and patronised by the Diocesan officials brought in to do PR spin. I put my energy into advocating for DS's SEN provision now.

@Cockerdileteeth I am confused.

at 16.23 you said - If you're bringing up the Equality Act 2010, though, do remember the protected characteristic of "religion" as defined encompasses lack of religious belief/non-religious philosophical outlooks as well (atheism, humanism and so forth) and their protection from discrimination applies in education too.
(My italics for emphasis)

Then at 18.29 you said - faith schools have exemptions from equalities legislation that allow them to discriminate away.

So both can't be true ?

@DancingLeaves , wasn't me who brought up the EA2010 in the first place and I'm tempted to say, go read it yourself.

But here's a roadmap.

Protected characteristics are defined in Part 1 Chapter 1 - see clauses 4 and 10 in particular

Chapter 1
Protected characteristics
Section 4 The protected characteristics
The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

Section 10. Religion or belief
(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2)Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.

[I think people often forget to read in lack of belief/atheism to references to "religion" when talking about the Act, because it's not what "religion" means in common parlance]

Part 1 Chapter 2 of the Act explains what constitutes prohibited conduct in relation to the protected characteristics - discrimination, harassment and victimisation.

Part 6 Chapter 1 sets out how the Act applies in education, specifically schools (other chapters in this part deal with other education settings)

Section 85 Pupils: admission and treatment, etc.
(1)The responsible body of a school to which this section applies must not discriminate against a person—
(a)in the arrangements it makes for deciding who is offered admission as a pupil;
(b)as to the terms on which it offers to admit the person as a pupil;
(c)by not admitting the person as a pupil.
(2)The responsible body of such a school must not discriminate against a pupil—
(a)in the way it provides education for the pupil;
(b)in the way it affords the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service;
(c)by not providing education for the pupil;
(d)by not affording the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service;
(e)by excluding the pupil from the school;
(f)by subjecting the pupil to any other detriment.
(3)The responsible body of such a school must not harass—
(a)a pupil;
(b)a person who has applied for admission as a pupil.
(4)The responsible body of such a school must not victimise a person—
(a)in the arrangements it makes for deciding who is offered admission as a pupil;
(b)as to the terms on which it offers to admit the person as a pupil;
(c)by not admitting the person as a pupil.
(5)The responsible body of such a school must not victimise a pupil—
(a)in the way it provides education for the pupil;
(b)in the way it affords the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service;
(c)by not providing education for the pupil;
(d)by not affording the pupil access to a benefit, facility or service;
(e)by excluding the pupil from the school;
(f)by subjecting the pupil to any other detriment.
(6)A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to the responsible body of such a school.
(7)In relation to England and Wales, this section applies to—
(a)a school maintained by a local authority;
(b)an independent educational institution (other than a special school);
[F1(ba)an alternative provision Academy that is not an independent educational institution;]
(c)a special school (not maintained by a local authority).

Section 89 Interpretation and exceptions
(1)This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2)Nothing in this Chapter applies to anything done in connection with the content of the curriculum.
...
(12)Schedule 11 (exceptions) has effect.

If you turn to the Schedules to the Act, you will see there what exceptions are afforded to faith schools (Section 5) and all schools (Section 6).

Schedule 11 Part 2

Religious or belief-related discrimination

Section 5
Section 85(1) and (2)(a) to (d), so far as relating to religion or belief, does not apply in relation to—
(a)a school designated under section [F468A or] 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (foundation or voluntary school with religious character);
(b)a school [F5(other than an alternative provision Academy)] listed in the register of independent schools for England or for Wales, if the school's entry in the register records that the school has a religious ethos;
(c)a school transferred to an education authority under section 16 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (transfer of certain schools to education authorities) which is conducted in the interest of a church or denominational body;
(d)a school provided by an education authority under section 17(2) of that Act (denominational schools);
(e)a grant-aided school (within the meaning of that Act) which is conducted in the interest of a church or denominational body;
(f)a school registered in the register of independent schools for Scotland if the school admits only pupils who belong, or whose parents belong, to one or more particular denominations;
(g)a school registered in that register if the school is conducted in the interest of a church or denominational body.

Section 6
Section 85(2)(a) to (d), so far as relating to religion or belief, does not apply in relation to anything done in connection with acts of worship or other religious observance organised by or on behalf of a school (whether or not forming part of the curriculum).

The exceptions afford faith schools the ability to discriminate in relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief (defined as including non-belief) in admissions and the way education is delivered, and (in common with all schools) in connection with acts of worship, but leaves intact the school's duty not to discriminate on the basis of religion or belief (including non-belief) in relation to exclusions or by subjecting pupils to any other detriment.
The exceptions also leave intact the school's duty not to harass pupils on the basis of their religion or belief (including non-belief) - what constitutes harassment is set out in Part 1Chapter 2 section 26:

1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

Victimisation would be subjecting a person to a detriment because they make an allegation or claim (same chapter as above, clause 27).

If you've made it this far, I hope that assisted in clarifying.

@Cockerdileteeth wasn't me who brought up the EA2010 in the first place

So?

and I'm tempted to say, go read it yourself.

Oi, no need to get snippy because I requested clarification on the two conflicting statements you posted.

It seems strange that you are keen to have people respect your 'rights' as an atheist, yet are happy to disregard the rights of others?

It is O.K. for anyone to say that they do not have knowledge on a topic or that they haven’t reached a conclusion in a certain matter. It is also O.K. to ask for additional information when trying to understand or gain knowledge on a subject.

To move on...

If you resent what you perceive as 'legalised discrimination against atheists' by some schools what are you doing about it?

Have you lobbied your MP, supported a Private Members Bill, joined (or started) a pressure group, joined (or started) a campaign or done anything else to try and change the Law as it stands?

If the answer is 'No' then maybe you should stop being a keyboard warrior and do just that?

@DancingLeaves I'm sorry for being snappy, it wasn't called for. I was frustrated because it felt, possibly unfairly, as though you weren't engaging with the substance, just trying to trip me or be provocative, but that's no excuse.

I've said what I don't like about the way the current system operates, and outlined my son's experiences. This is an open forum for parents to share experiences with other parents, I've found reading others' experiences useful on a wide range of parenting topics. I hope I have described my views and experiences in a way that's respectful towards people of faith. Mutual respect and consideration at grassroots level in schools would go a long way without any legal change and is in my view the most constructive way forward. I've said my piece, stepping away now.