BHA Response to Consultation on draft ‘Religious Education in English schools: non-statutory guidance 2009’

my comments on non-statutory guidelines published January 2010 are in red.
A: Introduction

• References of ‘religions’ in primary legislation should become ‘religions and beliefs’
• the majority of references to 'religion' do not include 'and beliefs'.
• local syllabuses are not the best way of delivering good RE.
• they give rise to patchy quality, uneven provision, and a postcode lottery. 
• they prevent progression for pupils who may move from local authority to local authority. 
• no comment
• We are in favour of a national entitlement to a subject called ‘Religions and Beliefs’
• which deals with religious and non-religious beliefs in a balanced manner 
• that takes the place of local determination.
• no comments
• We welcome that the new guidance
• generally uses the language of ‘religions and beliefs’, which includes Humanism 
• religion(s) and / or belief(s) are mentioned more than 30 times
• restates again the government’s view that RE should entail
• not a confessional induction into any one religion or belief, nor religion generally, 
• but a genuinely educational study of religious and non-religious beliefs about questions of importance, 
• in the process of which young people will develop their own responses to these questions. 
• not included

B: Humanism and Humanists – concerns with present guidance

• The content of the curriculum 
• the inclusion of Humanism in RE remains vague and patchy. 
• ditto
• Although the word Humanism at least receives a mention in many syllabuses, the required teaching usually remains at a minimal level. . 
• The new guidance should explicitly state 
• that the subject matter for RE is the principal religions and beliefs represented in Great Britain
• not stated
• that membership of the relevant group or committee on SACREs and ASCs respectively should be representative of the principal religious and belief traditions in the area. 
• not stated
• what is meant by ‘belief’ in this context
• We set out below further details of how this should be done.
• not stated
• Eligibility of Humanists for full membership of SACREs and ASCs 
• the new guidance recommends co-opted, non-voting membership of SACREs for humanists and no membership at all of Agreed Syllabus Conferences 
• since government is recommending that Humanism be included in the syllabus, a prohibition on humanists being involved in deciding what will be said about them and their beliefs (when religious representatives are included) is a gross inequality.
• When Circular 1/94 was issued, 
• most humanists who had been full members of existing SACREs were demoted to non-voting, co-opted membership, if they were retained at all
• Only two SACREs: Oxford and Westminster, in defiance of the guidance, chose to keep their humanists as full members of SACRE group A and ASC committee A. 
• Since 1994, some co-opted humanists have been chairs and vice chairs of SACREs. 
• In SACREs of good will, the position of humanists has not been as bad in practice as circular 1/94 mandated in theory. 
• The experience of other humanists, however, (and this is the case for most) has been that circular 1/94 makes SACREs and ASCs feel unable to appoint humanists as members of SACREs and ASCs, 
• and gives cover to those who, for reasons of prejudice, do not wish to do so. 
• Crucially, even where humanists have been able to be co-opted members of SACREs, they have still been prevented from being members of ASCs and so actually involved (as their religious colleagues are) in the writing of syllabuses. 
• On other SACREs humanists have been made to feel unwelcome and present only on sufferance. 
• We are concerned that this situation will not be resolved by the draft guidance and that by stopping short of recommending full membership of SACREs and ASCs for humanists, it may actually reverse the progress made in some areas. 
• Oxford and Westminster were the only SACREs that chose to retain their humanists as full members in 1994, 
• at least seven further SACREs who have restored full group/committee A membership to humanists since 1998
•  Brent, Suffolk, Portsmouth, Northumberland, Harrow, Ealing and Camden. 
• In the case of Brent, Portsmouth, and Suffolk this was explicitly in light of the Human Rights Act and Equality Act 2006. 
• The new guidance should state explicitly that 
• representatives of non-religious beliefs (worldviews or lifestances) such as Humanism are equally eligible with those of religions for membership of the group or committee of SACREs and ASCs, 
• not stated
• so giving humanists the right to be full members alongside the religious representatives.
• The law 
• the extension of the syllabus to include Humanism and of the membership of SACREs and ASCs to include humanists is what the law demands. 
• The present draft guidance fails to fulfil the DCSF’s obligations under the Human Rights Act sections 3 and 6 and the Equality Act 2006 section 52. 
• references to ‘religions’ in the present law on RE should be read as references to ‘religions or beliefs’ in the new guidance. 
• some mentions of 'religions or beliefs'
• ‘principal religions’ must be read as ‘principal religions or beliefs’ so that Humanism is made very clearly a wholly legitimate worldview for study
• not stated
• references to membership of SACREs and ASCs, ‘religions’ must be read as ‘religions or beliefs’, giving humanists the right to be full members alongside the religious representatives.
• not stated

C: Comments on the draft guidance

to follow in a later post