SUCCESSIVE governments
have struggled to grasp the importance of the Church in English
schooling. Church officials have been used to reminding new
Secretaries of State (they have come, on average, every two years
for the past two decades) that the C of E runs a quarter of the
primary schools in this country, and a lesser but still significant
proportion of secondary schools. After each hiatus, respect for the
Church's stewardship of one million of the country's children has
been restored.
This time, however,
something has changed. Despite the usual respectful rhetoric,
church representatives report a continuing incomprehension of the
part that the Church attempts to play in education. The exclusion
of RE from the core curriculum, the halving of teacher-training
places for the subject, and the zero figure given for curriculum
review have all signalled a dogged refusal to listen to the
Church's arguments. Added to this is the rapid expansion of the
academies programme, again with minimal consultation, which has
left the Church struggling to maintain the relationship.
It is clear that, at
present, the Department of Education is being driven by ideology,
to the extent that even schools feel that they are not being
listened to. At such times, it is only reasonable to re-examine
where church schools stand. Something similar was suggested in the
Chadwick report published last year, with little publicity. Dr
Chadwick talked of a new "concordat", though gave little detail of
what this might entail.
In our view, there are
two important issues to address. One is how to replace the tier of
support for schools which was removed with the destruction of local
education authorities. Schools now seek help from their more
successful neighbours or, increasingly, from the diocese. Even
community schools are making approaches. Diocesan boards of
education, often employing just two or three people, are unable to
cope. New funding must be found, and the question is whether any of
this will come from Government, or whether the parishes must bear
the extra burden. The other issue is to restore the link between a
school's governance and the education policy it is expected to
carry out. The increase in the number of organisations involved in
education has diffused the schools' voice. The C of E, as by far
the largest stakeholder, is in a position to negotiate a greater
say in the formulation of policy rather than, as at present, read
about it in the weekend papers.
To make progress in
either of these areas, the calibre of the Church's arguments,
resources, and personnel must be first-class. The Government will
not take the Church seriously if it believes that it cannot meet
its new challenges. For its part, the DfE ought to be warned that
it, too, will not be taken seriously if it fails to draw on the
wisdom and expertise that the Church has to offer.