Can the Minister of Education pour ‘new wine into old wineskins?’

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court in regards to ensuring religious education in Northern Ireland is delivered in an ‘objective, critical and pluralistic manner’ has sparked a flurry of comment from politicians, church leaders and representative bodies; with a little scaremongering and electioneering thrown in.

The DUP is now claiming how important it is that it fills the portfolio.

There is clearly a conversation to be had in the light of the ruling but will it be as comprehensive as it needs and can be? Can it be reframed in a broader and deeper context; to address the constraints of denominational privilege and orthodoxy on the ethos of schools and collective worship wherein learners have to opt out rather than opt in.

In 1923, the Minister of Education for Northern Ireland, Lord Londonderry introduced an Education Act designed to create a school system under the management of local authorities and free from denominational control.

Unsurprisingly, given the influence of churches and religious leaders and the concern they expressed about education in the event of Home Rule or partition, the proposals met with strong clerical opposition.

The Catholic hierarchy interpreted the proposals as an attack on Catholic education and refused to nominate a representative to a Lynn Committee charged with detailing the implementation of the 1923 Act.

The proposals also drew the ire of Protestant churches when it emerged that there would be a prohibition on the provision of any denominational religious instruction.

Similar protestations were voiced when it emerged that the Committee of Management for the new Stranmillis College for teacher training made no provision for representation of the mainstream churches.

Londonderry wanted to stand his ground but Prime Minister, Sir James Craig, against his personal judgement, bowed to pressure and gave way on an issue causing disagreement within unionism. What emerged, undermined Westminster’s insistence that educational funding should be allocated on a strictly non-denominational basis but London did not interfere to insist on adherence to its requirements.

Had it done so, Londonderry’s Act had the potential to shape different structures within which learners have been educated since 1923.

Could Northern Ireland have avoided the stubborn boundaries of educational segregation which marry a statutory curriculum with the subtler learning of communal identity, cultural, political and denominational affiliations.

It has been a mix that has facilitated sectarianism and polarisation.

Shared education would have been deeper and less contrived, would it not, than that which pertains currently?

The Supreme Court ruling may lead to repair of shortcomings in pluralism and inclusion but is wider thinking required?

Change would benefit from being incremental but could commence by making the statutory adjustments needed to reduce the role of churches in school management with a view to education becoming non-denominational as planned in 1923.

Religious Education as a curriculum subject, soon to be reviewed, would and should be retained but it is not dependent on transferors being members of governing bodies any more than mathematics requires computational expertise within those who govern.

The role has had more to do with ensuring the ethos of a school adheres to selected denominational thinking and nurturing; embedded in the exercise of power, game-keeping, decision-making and the authority judged necessary to deliver this.

It presents as a legacy of religious instruction as opposed to religious education.

Is this not out of kilter especially within controlled structures which should be welcoming to learners of all faiths and none, not to mention sexual orientation and cultural identity; entitled as they are to the same curricular provision?

Too often the dominant component of a school ethos feeds into a de facto marginalisation of ‘non-mainstream’ in its widest sense.

The judgement of the Supreme Court seems to recognise this.

The continuance of transferors, afforded representation on the basis of historical arrangements with judgements and decisions too often informed by denominational interests and priorities will operate to frustrate the ruling.

The DUP and the TUV – products perhaps and now promoters of just such structural provision – have been first out of the traps to commit to ensuring that schools continue to reflect a Christian ethos; in effect to what is described above.

Given the nature of their politics where it is sometimes hard to see them exercise the values and discipleship of the beliefs they profess, it seems reasonable to conclude they want controlled schools to function as culturally and politically ‘Protestant’.

It is a classic example of ‘othering’ different educational institutions and beliefs.

Should churches be compliant?

Judging by the reducing attendance in churches and the decline of Sunday schools and church-based youth activities, the connection between school ethos and the membership health of denominations, seems ever more tenuous if not counter-productive.

Religiosity appears to be inoculating young people against Christianity.

Something is going wrong and it is not the job of schools to fix it.

They cannot be a lifeboat for vessels adrift in the storms of reduced significance, leadership deficit and historical scandals.

Bailout is by definition designed to rescue something which has become bankrupt.

It is the laziest of strategic thinking and sense of mission where your best option is to retain the privilege of proselytising to a captive audience.

Churches could benefit by stepping back to release the hold they lobbied to retain in the early years of Northern Ireland.

The current model is not the church ‘without walls’ that radical thinkers in church circles believe necessary in an inclusive, pluralist and democratic community; where service and leadership is not commensurate with sitting on a school board of management to risk, at best, compromising your values, at worst, exercising institutionalised manipulation to ensure denominational adherence in staffing and coded ethical practices.

It happens.

In addition, within the present structures there is an in-built inequality.

The days when Christian worship allowed churches to identify as mainstream are passing.

The ‘co-called mainstream churches’ speak for and represent an aging constituency with many younger people not attending church or, where they do attend, opting for newer fellowships which offer less traditional and formal worship, embrace inclusive outreach and address social need at source.

As with any church which is not Church of Ireland, Presbyterian or Catholic, they have no designated positions on school management boards.

In the context of the times this can only be deemed as ‘privilege’; further facilitated by educational authorities where they show a pattern of placing non-transferor members on boards in ways that avoid upsetting the denominational applecart; to preserve the status quo.

Will continuing this sustain a tension between denominational preference and the provision of religious education and collective worship in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner?

The Bible will surely remain as a key element of religious education but if resistant to change, that must come, churches may wish to reflect upon the wisdom of  ‘pouring new wine into old wineskins.’

The current Minister of Education seems determined to try.