MELANIE McD ONAGH Crisis of faith in the classroom

Robert Elias asks whether we must choose between morality and unity in our children's religious education. Are more denominational schools for all religions the answer?
IN JANUARY, MUSLIM parents withdrew 1,500 of their children from Religious Education lessons in Batley, West Yorkshire. Shortly afterwards the segregation of Muslims and other children for RE lessons at Birchfield Primary school in Birmingham was approved both by Birmingham City Council and the Department of Education. Conservative Christian groups have come out in support of the Muslims. The spirit of the 1988 Education Reform Act, however, is that religious education should be multi-faith. All of the principal religions represented in Great Britain should be multi-faith. Teaching any one religion as true is ruled out. The battle lines have been drawn between the liberal idea of consensus and the desire of minorities to inculcate their children in their own religion.
It is entirely understandable for parents and communities with strong religious beliefs to want to instil religion in the minds of their children. This is especially true at a time when there is a perceived absence of moral sense in today's youth. On the other hand Don Foster MP, the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, has said that in an ideal world there would be no denominational spokesman. He intends an education system which everyone will be happy to use. Must we choose between the moral ambivalance of a liberal education and the segregation of children according to religion?
The Muslim parents who withdrew their children from Religious Education lessons in Batley believe that young children in particular are confused by being taught about religions other than their own. Acceptance of what the teer says is being held responsible for the undermining of their own faith.
Primary school RE generally takes a thematic approach to the world's major religions. Educationalists believe that far from confusing children, religious education with a solid educational basis can help them come to terms with their day to day environment. Children do encounter religious and cultural diversity at school regardless of what goes on in RE lessons. Grasping the sense of "Muslims believe" may well be different for a Christian child, but religious education is designed to help such understanding.
These arguments do not convince those with a growing conviction that multi-faith education is fundamentally flawed. The very measures which were introduced to the syllabus to keep everyone happy are being rejected by many religious groups. At the heart of a religion, and the crux to its understanding, is the belief that it is true. To place one alongside another is to make such belief impossible. In this sense, religions compared are not religions understood.
Worse still is the fear that religions are being taught as if they are all equally true. Fred Naylor, secretary of the Parental Alliance for Choice in Education, believes that current teaching of religion tries to assimilate all religions into one: a mish-mash of vague good intentions. He sees the new "collectivist" religion as insidious because it denies the opportunity for real religion to flourish.
Mr Naylor's suspicion that a collectivist religion is being sneaked in through the back door of our state schools no doubt places malicious intention where there is no more than uncertainty and inconsistency. It does illustrate, however, that those with strong moralitites based on religion are not happy with their children's education. They want to take active measures to educate their children morally. It is no good teaching religious education like geography if you want to teach morality with it. A sanitised socio-cultural guide to the world's religions will not put fire in the soul.
A governor of Birchfield primary school and architect of the changes, Mohamed Mukadem, wants RE at primary schools to reinforce the faith the child brings to school from home. He defends his position by claiming a priority for parental choice. If the Muslim parents want Muslim RE for their children, then they should have it. But what about the parents who want a humanist education for their children? What about those who feel their child should learn Latin and Greek, or that Shakespeare should be seen on stage before Neighbours is seen on television?
The exercise of parental choice and responsibility is clearly a crucial mechanism in the religious instruction which sustains religious communities. In our liberal society, who would deny the right of parents to raise their child as a Christian? But who would allow those parents to
impose that upbringing on someone else's child? The state primary school is acting in loco parentis, but also as a mediator between the choices of the parents and guardians of its pupils. When it comes to religion it is difficult to see how the exercise of parental choice can be reconciled with a truly comprehensive school. Birchfield Primary School is a clear example of that difficulty. The priority of parental choice has led to to the segregation of pupils, albeit for one lesson a week.
Vociferous religious groups have drawn attention to a question that should trouble everyone. From where do our children derive their moral education? The school plays a role in that moral education regardless of its religious education syllabus. That a school's ethos, the attitudes of the teachers and the tone of their teaching influences a child's moral development is undeniable. How to pitch that moral tone in a school of huge cultural diversity is one of the toughest decisions facing teachers. One thing is sure; the decision will not coincide entirely with the wishes of a religious parent.
Many parents accept that compromise between their beliefs and the school's is necessary for the sake of a broad education. A large proportion of the population do not hold strong religious views. There is an assumption either that they are happy with their child's education or that they are apathetic. There are also those, such as Muslims in Birchfield, who are not content to accept compromise. That they should interfere with the education of other children, that they should change the content of a state school's lessons is unjustifiable. Mr Mukadem's assumption of a parental right to choose applies equally to those who send their children to state school precisely because it is a state school. For them segegation is a greater evil than confused liberalism. Instead, there are two options to c-nsider if we are to retain a truly state system.
The first option is to operate denominational state schools alongside the nondenominational. Unlike today's denominational schools, these would have to be fulfilled by children of the same denomination. That would remove the dilemma facing parents and teahers. The religious and moral basis of teaching throughout the syllabus can be established by the denomination of the school. A further assumption is that such schools should be available to anyone who can show sufficient demand and an ability to educate to acceptable standards. Muslims have not yet been granted the "voluntary aided" status which Jewish and Christian schools enjoy.
The second option is the ideal because it would not segregate children on the basis of religion. It is to provide education about religions in schools and religious education in the community. Don Foster's ideal of nondenominational schools might be recognised if religion and morality were learnt at home, while the world's diversity was explained in school.
In either event we must acknowledge that state schools cannot fulfil the role of religious instruction without resorting to segregation. There is indeed a choice to be made betwen God-based morality and unity.
Wherever children of different faiths are together religion will be sanitised for school consumption. But the balance can be redressed. The dilemma is one which our children must be confronted with sooner rather than later: how to hold their own beliefs while respecting those of others.