Anglican Identity Project
End of Year One Literature Review
September 2012
1.
The Anglican identity Project is a work of the Church of England Board of
Education. Its aim is to explore how Anglican identity is currently expressed in the
Anglican foundation universities and university colleges and how it might be
expressed in the future.
To see the project outline, please click on
http://www.churchofengland.org/media/1535783/aipoutlines.doc
2.
The project began in September 2011. Part of the first year’s work was a
literature review. A more extensive literature was discovered than had first been
imagined. More work will be done on it in the second year of the project. Whilst at
present incomplete, it is extensive and will be of use to interested parties. It is a
working document in which information has been gathered to be used in other,
more accessible, reports.
3.
The literature relevant to this project takes a number of forms, primarily
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Histories of individual HEIs
Church of England reports
Documents relating to research done by individuals or groups.
A small number of books, either directly about the Anglican
foundation HEIs or about higher education and relevant to the issues
being considered in this project1
Journal articles
Documents produced within the HEIs, either individually or
collectively.
Books and other resources relevant to a consideration of what it
means to be Anglican.
Government documents, including Education Acts.
4.
Time did not permit a study of the individual histories, which do not form
part of this review, therefore. Nor was there time for a close study of all relevant
documents in the other categories. It is not comprehensive. It largely arises from
research at the Culham Foundation in Oxford, Church House in London and the
author’s private collection.
5.
The review is not organised under all the headings above, but looks at them
all under four categories; Church reports, documents produced by the HEIs, The
Culham Research projects and associated literature, and other lectures, books and
journals exploring Anglican understandings of higher education. The rationale is that
it gives a series of perspectives on how different stakeholders and individuals have
told the story of the Anglican HEIs and also gives thought to what the literature says
Anglican identity might consist in.
1
An example of the former is Lofthouse M, Faith, Class and Politics: The Role of the Churches in
Teacher Training, 114-1945 (Oxford: University of Oxford Department of Education, 2009). An
example of the latter is Astley J, Francis L, Sullivan J, Walker A, The Idea of a Christian University
(Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004).
1
Church of England Reports
6.
The following reports were discovered. They are listed here in chronological
order.
Mayor, RG, Report on the Church of England Training Colleges for Teachers
(London: Central Board of Finance of the Church of England, 1929).
Church of England Training Colleges for Teachers. Report of the Committee of
Enquiry, as presented to the Board of Supervision. (1933).
The Church Training Colleges for Teachers. Memorandum by the Board of
Supervision on the policy of Concentration, including specific recommendations as to
the closure of certain colleges. (London, Church Assembly, CA 590, 1937).
The Church and Education: The Report of the Archbishops’ Commission (London,
Church Assembly, CA 812, 1946).
Submission by the Church of England Board of Education to the Secretary of State
for Education and Science on ‘Teacher Education and Training’ – the James Report
(London, Church of England Board of Education GS Misc 16, 1972).
The Future of the Church Colleges of Education (London, Church of England Board
of Education report to General Synod. GS194, 1974).
Christian Involvement in Higher Education. A Discussion paper by the Working
Party on Christian Involvement in Higher and Further Education. (London, National
Society, 1978).
Trevor Brighton (ed) 150 Years: The Church Colleges in Higher Education
(Chichester, West Sussex Institute of Higher Education, 1989).
An Excellent Enterprise. The Church of England and its Colleges of Higher
Education. A Report by the Working Party on the Church Colleges of Education and
the Revision on GS417. (London, Board of Education of General Synod of the
Church of England, GS1134, 1994).
The Way Ahead: Church of England schools in the new millennium (London, Church
House Publishing, GS 1406, 2001)
Mutual Expectations. The Church of England and Church Colleges/Universities. A
report of the Church of England Board of Education. (London, The Archbishops’
Council of the Church of England. GS 1601. Undated).
7.
These documents clearly portray the changes to what began as monovocational institutions training teachers, and their shifting relationship with the
Church of England, from the Church’s perspective.
2
8.
The 1929 Report on the Church of England Training Colleges for teachers
gives a strong reminder of the important role of the Church in teacher education. All
the then existing colleges were founded before the 1902 Education Act, which
created Local Education Authorities. Indeed all but one dated from before 1890, the
year the first university teacher training departments were established. ‘For fifty
years before 1890 the training of teachers was entirely carried out by voluntary
training colleges of which the Church of England colleges were the vast majority’
(P.6).
9.
The 1933 report, Church of England Training Colleges for Teachers, is of a
‘Committee of Enquiry’ set up by and reporting to a central Church of England body
called ‘The Board of Supervision’. The remit of that body is not made clear in the
report, but ‘supervision’ is a strong word. Logically, it suggests the Church perceives
itself as having a supervisory role over the colleges.2 The terms of reference of the
committee of enquiry may support such a supposition:
(i) To consider the general standard of efficiency of the group of Church of
England Training Colleges.
(ii) To review for every College – (a) the financial stability; (b) the need for a
scheme of development and its cost
(iii) To advise whether efficiency can be adequately secured without a policy
of temporary concentration
(iv) To report to the Board of Supervision.
10.
It is perhaps noteworthy that the colleges can be called a ‘group’. It may imply
a particular relationship between them, though how close a relationship is not made
clear.
11.
There is an illuminating section on what might now be called ‘Anglican
identity’ on pages fifteen and sixteen. The report says the ‘fundamental difference’
between a religious training college and others is that the ideal of the former is ‘to
produce a teacher so well equipped not only in the art of teaching but also in
knowledge and spiritual qualities as to become a centre of religious influence among
the children and the homes from which they come. Hence the Church Training
College should, in the forefront of its obligations, provide a religious training in a
spiritual environment which will leave a permanent impression upon its students and
become a valuable asset in the life of the Church and nation’ (p.15).
12.
Clearly, the Church sees part of the role of Church colleges as to strengthen
and advance religious influence, by which is presumably meant Christian, or, even
more narrowly, Anglican influence, in individuals, their homes, and the nation.
2
Lofthouse in Faith, Class and Politics (see paragraph 105 for full reference) says the Board of
Supervision was created following a review of the colleges led by Bishop George Eden of Wakefield.
Lofthouse draws particular attention to the poor quality of the buildings as described by Eden, who
recommended 5 of the colleges should close. The review was commissioned by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Randall Davidson, who believed, says Lofthouse, that ‘a smack of firm government … was
needed to sort out the mess’ (p.10). The Board of Supervision was created to deliver firm
government.
3
13.
The Church’s view of the relationship between the colleges and the national
organs of the Church of England is clearly stated in the 1972 submission to the
Secretary of State following the publication of the James review of teacher training.
An introductory letter to the Submission from George Whitfield, the General
Secretary of the Board of Education, says ‘In distinction from Church schools, which
are for the most part regarded as the responsibility of the dioceses, the colleges have
been regarded as a central responsibility of the Church, so that their future is of
direct concern to the General Synod’ (p1). Thus, even as recently as the 1970s, the
Church could see its central bodies as having responsibility for the Church colleges.
14.
The James Report, or, more properly, the Report by a Committee of Inquiry
appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, under the
Chairmanship of Lord James of Rusholme, marked an important moment in the
development of teacher education. It had the following terms of reference:
'In the light of the review currently being undertaken by the Area Training
Organisations, and of the evidence published by the Select Committee on
Education and Science, to enquire into the present arrangements for the
education, training and probation of teachers in England and Wales and in
particular to examine:
(i) what should be the content and organisation of courses to be provided;
(ii) whether a larger proportion of intending teachers should be educated with
students who have not chosen their careers or chosen other careers;
(iii) what, in the context of (i) and (ii) above, should be the role of the
maintained and voluntary colleges of education, the polytechnics and other
further education institutions maintained by local education authorities, and
the universities’.3
15.
This directly affected the Church colleges, which trained teachers in a monovocational context, and because the voluntary colleges, of which the Church colleges
were an important component, were specifically mentioned in point (iii) of the terms
of reference.
16.
The 1972 Submission, made in response to the James Report, welcomes the
Report’s saying, in paragraph 5.36, that ‘the voluntary bodies which maintain training
establishments would continue to do so and the colleges to fulfill their distinctive
role’ (p.3). The Submission then makes this comment: ‘We take this to include the
understanding that, although its mode of expression may change, the contribution of
the Church colleges will continue to be recognisable as an expression of the life of
the Church to which they owe their origin. We are convinced that staff and students
support this view’ (p.3). The colleges are part of the life of the Church, an
expression of that life, and the Church wishes that to continue. So, apparently, do
staff and students.
17.
The James Report recommended a reduction of about a third in teacher
education places. The Church Submission assumes that will apply to Church colleges,
and suggests the extra places thus created in the colleges could be used for more
3
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/james/james00.html Accessed 12.1.12.
4
general higher education (p3). This is the path which has mostly been followed by
the surviving HEIs. Whether the Church suggests using extra places in this way
because it accepts the view that a wider student community enhances teacher
education, or out of expediency, or for some other reason, is not clear.
18.
Two further points from the Submission are worth noting. One is that ‘We
must regard it as of fundamental importance that the Church colleges be treated as a
coherent group, which already has a tradition of group consultation and response to
national pressures’ (p.4).
19.
The second is that it argues against the colleges being absorbed into ‘either
the present university or polytechnic mould’ (p.5).
20.
In rejecting ‘absorption’, the Submission outlines several options for the
future:
(i) Collegiate relationship with a university or polytechnics
(ii) Evolution as individual institutions or in groups towards becoming
colleges preparing teachers and allied professions
(iii) Forming a consortium linked to the Open University or similar
(iv) Becoming a national professional centre for teacher education (p.5)
21.
The 1974 report on The Future of the Church Colleges of Education is a
consideration of options for the future, in which account is taken of the maintenance
of Anglican identity, but perhaps there is a note of expediency for the sake of
survival sounding also for, in many cases, survival will involve some linking with
others, which has now become an urgent issue. As the report says ‘in order to have
the resources to provide this wider variety of options’ (i.e. a wider range of courses)
‘larger units will be needed, and colleges other than those which are already large
will be expected either to amalgamate, or to link themselves in some federal scheme,
with other appropriate institutions’ (p.4).
22.
Thus two significant things are happening. One is that the Church colleges are
being forced to expand their curriculum. The other is that amalgamations are being
discussed. The Report considers each college and outlines possible plans. Again, it is
interesting that the Church saw itself as having such a role in shaping the future of
individual colleges. Seven possible ways forward were considered. In summary they
are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Evolution as free standing, diversified Church Colleges of Education
Merger with another Church College
Entry into a federation with other voluntary and maintained colleges
Entry into an ecumenical federation
Merger with an LEA college
Complementary association with a polytechnic
Integration into a university (pp.16-17).
23.
A little later, two other possibilities are considered; transfer to another
geographical area and closure (p.17).
5
24.
There is an awareness that in this shift Anglican identity might be lost, but a
clear hope that it might continue if certain criteria are kept. Four ‘Criteria for
Continuity’ are given (pp.17-19):
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Continuity will be helped if teacher education continues.
If establishing a closer identity with other colleges, ‘a College will need to
be seen as preserving its identity’.
Federation will mean some loss of autonomy. A way to deal with this
without losing identity is for the Church college to retain control of
teacher education and religious education. ‘The responsibility of the
Council of Management for the appointment of staff to conduct the
courses allocated to the college would need to remain the same as it was
before the federation’.
The trustees who were the legal owners before any changes are made
should continue to be owners afterwards.
25.
There are some practical suggestions there as to how to retain control, and a
clear linking of Anglican identity with teacher education and religious education.
Beyond that, there is nothing to say what being an Anglican foundation might mean
when linked to another institution or when a Church college diversifies into more
general higher education, except that teacher education and religious education must
continue.
26.
A question arising from study of the documents is whether Anglican identity
meant anything more, than training teachers who would exercise religious, spiritual,
perhaps specifically Christian influence. If that was it, in the new era of alliances and
federations, and with a decline in Church involvement the colleges would inevitably
find themselves with a very difficult job.
27.
The 1974 Report does acknowledge the increasing move away from Church
attendance. It sees that trend not so much as a problem, but as giving the Church
colleges an opportunity: ‘In the Colleges is to be found an inevitable tension between
the community of faith and the secular community with its neutral plurality. Within
that tension the Colleges offer an opportunity of mission to generations for whom
the life of the Church would otherwise be only a marginal influence’ (p.23). The
colleges are, the Report goes on to say ‘One form of outreach’ (p.23).
28.
Anglican identity seems now to be about introducing students to the Church
and to faith in a context where that is not happening in the parishes. Reflecting from
today, less than forty years on from the mid 1970s, as those then entering the
colleges come to the end of their careers, it is clear that if a previous generation
thought these colleges would encourage significant numbers towards the Church and
Christian faith, they were wrong. It would now also seem a proper question whether
thought was given to the appropriateness of that in institutions funded with public
money.
29.
Perhaps the over-riding consideration at this time was survival in some form.
The 1974 Report says ‘Nothing in all this need prevent a Council of Management
from supporting a plan for a Church College which in their considered judgement
holds out the best hope for the future but makes a break in continuity with the past.
6
What is important is to recognise at an early stage in the negotiations that such a
break is implied. Before any commitment is undertaken, reference will have to be
made to the Central Board of Finance about the capital funds provided by the
former Church Assembly, now the General Synod’ (p.19). Identity takes a back seat
to surviving.
30.
The next Church report found was that of 1994; An Excellent Enterprise.
That is an upbeat and affirming title, and the report starts by saying the Church
colleges are ‘good news’ and that the purpose of the report was ‘to disseminate
knowledge of the colleges’ current role and activities and to re-affirm and strengthen
the relationship between the Church and the colleges’ (p.1).
31.
The report is in part a history of the colleges, with recent rapid change in
curriculum areas, budget, funding sources, and size being noted. ‘Their growth in
activities, staff and facilities has transformed the colleges into enterprises with multimillion pound budgets funded through the HEFC(E). For some colleges these are six
or seven times larger (allowing for inflation) than they were in 1980’ (p.14).
32.
Chapter Six of An Excellent Enterprise asks two related questions. One is
‘Does the Church of England value and affirm the Church Colleges of Education?’
and the other is ‘Do the colleges value and affirm their relationship with the Church
of England?’ (p.24). The answer given is ‘What has become increasingly apparent
during the process of our investigation is that the relationship between Church and
colleges, though not symbiotic, is nevertheless of great benefit to both parties’
(p.24). It says the relationship has become closer in recent years as it has been
valued by the colleges in times of change in higher education (pp.29 and 30).
33.
The main value of the relationship is seen as being two-fold. Firstly, it
provides the Church with an opportunity ‘to engage with and influence the
development of higher education as part of its mission’ (p.30). Secondly, ‘it enables
the colleges … to contribute to the support for Christianity and the ministry and
mission of the Church of England’ (p.30). Exactly how the relationship does either of
those things is not stated.
34.
There is a recommendation arising from the comments on relationships
between the Church and the colleges. It is ‘with regard to the collective relationships
of the colleges with the central institutions of the Church: we recommend that the
parties involved (i.e. the General Synod Board of Education, the Central Board of
Finance, the Council of Anglican Principals, the House of Bishops, the National
Society and the Advisory Council on Church Colleges) consider, collectively and
severally, and keep periodically under review the extent to which the structures and
processes of their relationships need to be developed, and that the Board of
Education has primary responsibility for furthering this’ (p.30).
35.
It seems the Working Party is seeking an over-arching body with
responsibility for the relationship between the Church and the colleges. Apparently,
it was never set up, and remains lacking today.
36.
The Working Party also considered relationships between the colleges and
the Dioceses. These vary. This is proper, as circumstances vary. However ‘our
7
impression is that there is an unevenness in the effort that is made and in the results
that are achieved in the various dioceses that is not entirely due to the valid
differences in circumstances and may be due to the colleges marketing themselves
inadequately’ (p.31), plus the Dioceses ‘do not always recognise the potential’ of the
colleges (p.31).
37.
A recommendation follows: ‘We recommend that any diocese having a
college within its boundaries or having an interest in a college through being
represented on its Governing Body should seek to establish with the college a
Working Party representative of the diocese and the college to evaluate and audit
the existing relationship and its achievements, and to make proposals for the
development of the contribution of each to the life of the other’ (p.31). It seems this
did not happen.
38.
One particular way the colleges and the Church might work together is in
the area of theological training. The report recommends collaboration between the
Advisory Board for Ministry, the Board of Education, the Council of Anglican
Principals, the Standing Committee of Principals, and staff of Theological Colleges,
courses, and individual colleges (p.33). Again, it seems this did not happen.
39.
Constitutional arrangements for protecting identity are also discussed in An
Excellent Enterprise. The report clearly favours a situation where ‘a majority of the
members of the Governing Body (or of the Trustees where this is a separate body)
continues to be appointed by an Anglican foundation or to be required to be
communicant members of the Church of England’ (p.24). It is said that in cases of
mergers, where a new governing body ‘has only a minority of Anglican or Christian
members, care will be needed to safeguard the witness and mission of the Church
within the Anglican element of the component college’ (p.25). It does not say how
that might be done. Other things which are important are the continuation of
chaplaincy, worship according to the rites and practices of the Church of England,
attendance at which should not be compulsory, and ‘saving provisions in respect of
the employment of the principal, senior administrative officer and chaplain’ (p.26). As
regards the protection of identity, ‘the Working Party foresees no problem if these
requirements are continued’ (p.26).
40.
In the light of its thinking on constitutional matters, the working party made a
recommendation that
‘a)
the provision to set up the Advisory Board recommended in GS417
should be retained and enacted;
b)
That it should include a representative appointed by the General Synod’s
legal officers;
c)
That it should meet as soon as possible initially to review the legal
relationship between all the colleges and the Church so that it best facilitates the
partnership with the Church and the development of the institution and any
federation of which it is a member.
d)
And that thereafter it should meet whenever there were any proposals
from Governing Bodies or Trustees which appeared to make it unlikely that any or
all of the criteria would no longer be satisfied’ (p.29).
8
41.
The 2001 report ‘The Way Ahead’, the work of a committee chaired by Lord
Dearing, is primarily about Church schools. However, it does strongly affirm the
need for collaboration between schools, parishes, dioceses, the Church at national
level and Church foundation HEIs. It sees collaboration as important to achieve a
flow of well-prepared Christian teachers and leaders for Church schools.
42.
The report says ‘The Church colleges of higher education are the natural
partners of the Church in this task of developing leaders, and teachers should be able
to look to them for opportunities to learn about issues specific to Church schools‘
(paragraph 6.19). The Church Colleges Certificate is seen as capable of development
to meet this need (paragraph 6.19).
43.
Chapter nine is specifically about ‘The Church colleges’. They are ‘natural
places in a changing world to which the Church should look for developing Christian
teachers and for providing their continuing professional development for leadership
roles’ (paragraph 9.1).
44.
Clearly, therefore, Dearing is looking at the role of the Church HEIs through
the prism of Church schools. In a report on Church schools that is fair enough. It
may raise the question of whether the Church generally at that stage still thought of
the HEIs as mainly significant to the Church for teacher training, or whether an
understanding of their wider role had permeated.
45.
There are a number of points made in chapter nine relevant to this study.
46.
Paragraph 9.12 indicates the colleges were clear about their Christian
foundation in their mission statements, ‘including the provision of opportunities for
service, worship and the serious study of Christianity’.
47.
9.13 refers to the colleges as significant providers of teachers of religious
education and, in most cases, offering degrees in theology.
48.
9.14 speaks of them as aiming ‘to be supportive and welcoming communities
based on Christian principles and exemplifying Christian values’, with worship at
their heart, welcoming students and staff of all faiths and none, ‘Christian institutions
which offer a Christian influence to all staff and students’. Welcome is part of what is
on offer because these HEIs are Christian, but it is a welcome which it is hoped will
‘offer a Christian influence’. The meaning of that phrase is not entirely clear.
49.
9.15 speaks of the colleges responding to the needs of the Church, through,
for example, providing opportunities for Christian students and contributing to lay
and reader training. It describes relationships between the HEIs and the Dioceses as
‘variable’. It recommends ‘action now to identify best practice as a basis for
developing the relationships between colleges and all dioceses, whether they have a
college or not. This is a task which might quickly be discharged by a small group’. It
seems it was not.
50.
Major challenges to the colleges are identified. One is ‘to sustain and develop
their Christian distinctiveness’ (paragraph 9.18). Dearing sees that as applying in
particular to the teacher training departments ‘from the point of view of their
9
contribution to the Church’s mission to the nation, through the Church schools’
(paragraph 9.18), but there is a more general challenge, which is ‘to continue in being
for the long-term as Christian institutions’ (paragraph 9.18). Where ‘the viability of a
Church college becomes in doubt’, Dearing recommends ‘the college gives early and
serious consideration to a merger or other form of partnership with another
Church college’ (paragraph 9.34). It does not recommend merging with a secular
institution as, where this has happened in the past, ‘over time distinctiveness tends
gradually to be lost’ (paragraph 9.33).
51.
Dearing has a section on ‘The distinctiveness of Anglican colleges’ (p.68).
Distinctiveness involves ‘some combination of education in a Christian manner,
education about Christianity and education into Christianity’ (paragraph 9.21). There
what ‘Christian influence’ might mean is clarified.
52.
Whilst the colleges are ‘individual autonomous institutions’ they might be
expected to act ‘within a common framework’ (paragraph 9.21). Dearing suggests
such a framework on pp.73-74 of his report. Dearing further says the responsibility
for securing and enhancing distinctiveness ‘should be made clear through a formally
established structure, perhaps through the creation of a Foundation Committee
composed of members of the governing body and staff of the college’ (paragraph
9.25). In at least some HEis this has been done, in some form.
53.
A ‘significant core of academic staff who are practising Christians’ is seen as
‘clearly helpful’ in securing distinctiveness (paragraph 9.26). Dearing sees this as
‘particularly the case for their teacher training departments’ (paragraph 9.26). Indeed,
the report recommends ‘that as a long-term policy, the head of teacher training
should be a practising Christian’ (paragraph 9.26). Interestingly, it does not
recommend that for other, and more senior, staff, but says ‘We consider it essential
that all those appointed to senior positions in the colleges should be in sympathy
with and willing and able to support the mission of the colleges as Christian
institutions’ (paragraph 9.26).
54.
In a section on chaplaincy, Dearing commends the practice of seeking to
‘integrate the Chaplain(cy) into the decision-making processes of the institution’
(paragraph 9.31).
55.
Dearing argues there should be a process ‘initiated by all partners’ to
strengthen relationships between the Church at national and diocesan level, Church
schools and Church HEIs (paragraph 9.37). The report goes on to recommend ‘that
the Church should develop a strategic view of its relationship with the colleges and
that the Church should affirm the essential role of the colleges through using the
colleges as the first source of advice on relevant matters. We also invite the Church
to consider what long-term role the Church colleges might have in the pre- and
post-ordination training of the clergy’ (paragraph 9.40).
56.
The next document to be considered, Mutual Expectations, is an undated
publication, which seems to have been produced in 2006. Most of the document
consists of self-descriptions from the HEIs of their own particular mission. Each self
description begins with a sentence expressing the HEI’s ‘Commitment to …..’
Amongst the words following are ‘teacher education’, ‘religious education and
10
chaplaincy’, ‘access and widening participation’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘transforming
communities via the arts’.
57.
The Introduction, which runs to ten pages, discusses some of the issues
around the Anglican identity of the HEIs. It gives the historical context. It affirms the
HEIs are ‘meeting their original purpose in new and different ways’ (p.2), now as
Universities or University Colleges. Whether that changed status ‘will or should
make any difference to their partnership with the Church of their foundation is one
of the questions underlying this report.’ (p.2). It is a question the report addresses
without finally answering it.
58.
It addresses it in terms of expectations; ‘what do these Colleges and
Universities expect of the Church and what does the Church expect of them?’ (p.5).
Those questions are set in the context of missiology, and the mission of God, which
is seen as being about the bringing of abundant life. In that context, education
becomes about ‘enabling all people to fulfil their God-given potential’ (p.5). This
means offering higher education to those who would once ‘have been deprived of
that opportunity’ (p.5) and an education which is ‘more than the mere acquisition of
knowledge and skills’ (p.5).
59.
Mutual Expectations describes such work as part of the ‘common mission to
the nation and to communities’, which Church and HEIs share. From the perspective
of 2012, it seems here may be the seeds of a way forward in thinking about identity,
focussed on the mutual aspirations the Church and the HEIs might have for higher
education as a contribution to the individual and common good. In practice that is
not worked out explicitly in Mutual Expectations, though it may be implicit in some
of what the individual HEIs say. It is certainly not expressed explicitly in terms of
Anglican identity, and Mutual Expectations returns from that bigger vision to one of
what the Church and the HEIs can expect from each other, expressed in twenty
points on page seven.
60.
Amongst the other sections of Mutual Expectations, one on Leadership and
Governance (pp.11 – 12) is particularly important for the present project. It draws a
parallel between Church schools and Church HEIs, and alludes to Dearing’s challenge
that schools should be both distinctive and inclusive. Church HEIs should be the
same, with distinctive meaning distinctively Christian.
61.
In order to ensure that, Mutual Expectations says over half the governors
must be ‘practising and committed Christians’, as well as having the necessary skills
(p.11) and all governors ‘must have or develop a good understanding of the
distinctive role of a church HEI … and a clear commitment to its maintenance’
(p.11).
62.
Mutual Expectations takes a stronger line than Dearing on the faith
commitment of the Principals and Vice Chancellors. It says ‘It has been a consistent
expectation of the Church that the church colleges should be led by committed and
practising Christians, who are members of the Church of England, or of a church in
full communion with the Church of England, and who can articulate and implement a
clear vision of a church higher education institution’ (p.11). It goes on to say ‘Unless
the chief executive of a church HEI is fully and personally committed to the Christian
11
character of the institution and to the preservation and development of strong and
structural links with the Church of England, it is inconceivable that such a character
and ethos can ultimately be maintained’ (pp.11-12).
Documents Produced by the HEIs, either individually or collectively.
63.
The following documents have been found in this category:
The Key to Christian Education. The Opportunity of the Church Training Colleges
(The Council of the Church Training Colleges, undated).
The Development of the Church Training Colleges (The Council of Church Training
Colleges, 1949).
Colin Alves, The Church Colleges into the 1990s (College of Ripon and St John,
Occasional Paper Two, undated).
A guide to governance in church higher education institutions (Council of Church
Universities and Colleges, 2007)
Ewart Wooldridge and Eddie Newcombe, Distinctiveness and Identity in a
Challenging HE Environment: A Unique Opportunity for Cathedrals Group
Institutions (The Cathedrals Group, 2011).
64.
Included here are documents with some ‘official’ standing. There are also
relevant documents produced by individuals working in the Church HEIs. They are
included in the section on ‘Other books, lectures and articles’.
65.
It seems The Key to Christian Education was probably written around the
time of the 1944 Education Act, to which it refers. It also quotes the McNair report
into the training of teachers and youth workers, also dated 19444.
66.
The Key makes a number of points relevant to identity issues. For example, it
records a perceived lack of support from the Church for the colleges. ‘The plain
truth is that in too many cases the Colleges have not felt that they were being
adequately backed by the intelligent sympathy and practical help of the Church either
locally or at the centre‘ (p.11) ‘It is not uncommon to hear even in the public
assemblies of the Church, or from individual clergy and school managers, the
complaint that the Church is wasting its time and money in keeping the Church
Training Colleges going. They are not, it is said, fulfilling the purpose for which they
were founded. Their students do not seem particularly anxious to teach in Church
Schools: and when they do, they do not always appear to be markedly well equipped
for their work’ (p.6).
67.
There were also concerns about declining religious observance. ‘The boys
and girls who apply for admission to our Colleges reflect the temper of the schools
4
The McNair report can be read at
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/mcnair/mcnair00.html
12
and homes from which they come, and of the world which is the background of
those schools and homes. That means, quite frankly, that there is no guarantee that
they will be instructed or practising members of the Church of England or of any
other Christian body, or indeed that they will have any firm religious belief. The plain
fact is that some of them hardly know their way about their Bibles’ (p.8).
68.
It seems some may have been suggesting the colleges should only accept
Anglican students; at least that may be implied by the fact that the report says it is
not a good idea. There are a number of reasons given for that, including that
accepting state money carries the condition no-one should be refused a place on
denominational grounds and that the colleges cannot afford to have places vacant. It
is also said that turning the colleges into ‘preserves of orthodoxy’ (p.8) would defeat
the purpose of the colleges, which can serve three functions: ‘They must seek, as
they always have done, to deepen and train the religious life of those who enter as
professing members of our Church. They must make wise and sympathetic provision
for the religious life of those who are members of other faith communities. And they
must exercise a missionary ministry towards those who may have had very little in
the way of instruction in Christian faith and practice before they came’ (p.8). They
are to welcome people of all faiths, but there is quite definitely a missionary task and,
says the report, ‘There are few Principals who would not agree that the last of these
3 functions is the most rewarding of them all’ (p.8).
69.
The same lack of religious faith also makes recruitment of staff ‘of first-rate
professional qualification and wholeheartedly in sympathy with the religious aims of a
Church College’ (p.8) difficult.
70.
The Development of the Church Training Colleges, published in 1949, gives
an overview of what it describes as the Church of England’s pioneering work in
teacher training. It goes on to say the universities created teacher training
departments in 1890 and from 1904 the Local Education Authorities provided
teacher training colleges. It says these ‘could offer more than the church colleges
could’ (p.2) and by 1914 there were falling roles in the latter.
71.
The 1916 report of the Bishop of Wakefield and the Board of Supervision
have already been mentioned. The Development document says the report from
Wakefield was to both Archbishops and that they submitted the report to ‘an
influential committee which recommended the Federation of all Church Training
Colleges under the guidance of a central Board of Supervision’ (pp.2-3). The
Development document then goes on to suggest a development plan for the future.
Relevant to identity issues is that it sees the Church having a choice. It might see its
role as providing teachers to work in its own schools, or to teach children who go
to Church, whatever type of school they may be in, or to be involved in the teaching
of all children, in particular teaching them religious knowledge. The Council of
Church Training Colleges says: ‘For the first time in educational legislation, religious
teaching has been made obligatory in all schools by the Education Act of 1944.
Whether that obligation remains a paper condition, or is translated into effective
action, depends upon the supply of men and women qualified by training and
conviction to translate it. And the demand far exceeds the supply. The Council is
convinced that it is the opportunity and the duty of the Church to do everything in
13
its power to meet that demand … The Church, as the Church of England, cannot be
indifferent to the religious teaching of all the children of this country’ (p.9).
72.
The Council is clearly making the point that there is a role for the Church
colleges in supplying teachers of religious education. Again, the Council expresses
that in missionary terms: ‘They (the colleges) can win students who may not, when
they enter, feel a vocation to religious teaching, to recognise and accept this calling.
They are winning them’ (p.10).
73.
The Council also laments a lack of support from the Church: ‘Too little
thought has been given by the Church as a whole to the deeper needs, spiritual and
educational’ of the Church colleges (p.10).
74.
The paper by Colin Alves is included here because it is a report of the
Secretary to the Church Colleges prepared for the consideration of the governing
bodies and staff of the colleges. It sets out the then present context of five Church
colleges closing, plus various mergers; actual, in process or planned. It outlines
various possibilities for future numbers of places based on different scenarios in
higher education more generally. The important points on identity appear on pages
ten and eleven. There is a discussion of whether the Church colleges need to be
distinctive, or whether it is better to speak of ‘characteristics’. ‘The crucial
‘distinctiveness’ of a Church college would therefore seem to lie in the fact that its
institutional control is permanently in the hands of people who are committed to the
preservation of characteristically Christian ideals throughout the life and work of the
college, and who have the relative freedom to implement these ideals.’
75.
Alves seems to be arguing that keeping control in the hands of people
committed to Christian ideals in education is what counts.
76.
The Council of Church Colleges and Universities Guide to Governance
makes a number of relevant points.
77.
For example, it lists a number of challenges the Church HEIs face, such as
‘finding candidates of suitable quality for the governing body and senior posts who
meet the faith requirements set by institution’s constitution’ and ‘if it so chooses,
maintaining the genuine occupational requirement (GOR) for its chief executive and
senior staff’ (paragraph 1.2).
78.
It is what it says about the role of governing bodies which is perhaps most
illuminating for present purposes, including that all members of the governing body
are responsible for upholding the objects and mission of the HEI as well as its
strategic and corporate direction (paragraphs 1.7 and 1.10), that the governing body
and Church should keep the work under review (paragraph 1.11), that governor
training should take account of the need to support mission and values (paragraph
1.9), that ‘an HEI is free within the requirements of its trust deeds to decide whether
to maintain the faith distinctive’ (paragraph 1.14) and that ‘Good relationships
between the HEIs and the church will be achieved more effectively, as Professor
James Arthur has pointed out in Faith and Secularisation (with reference to the
governance documents of the Australian Catholic University), “if close personal and
pastoral relationships exist between university and church authorities characterized
14
by mutual trust, close continuing co-operation and continuing dialogue.” Good
communication systems are essential to the maintenance of this relationship’
(paragraph 1.16).
79.
A much more recent study is the 2011 report Distinctiveness and Identity in
a Challenging HE Environment by Ewart Wooldridge and Eddie Newcombe, of the
Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. It was undertaken at the behest of the
Cathedrals Group5 and with funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE). It is based on research with Methodist and Roman Catholic as well
as Anglican HEIs.
80.
The report finds ‘many of these institutions (the Church foundation HEIs) are
understandably reluctant in an essentially secular and multi-faith society to focus too
much on their specific Christian traditions in their promotional material’ (p.1) but
that arising from the Church foundation is a clear value base, highly relevant in the
present HE context. ‘The consistent message we distilled was an absolute
commitment to the quality of the student experience, built around respect for the
individual, a strong sense of caring community, and a profound values-based
understanding of the wider purpose of universities in their immediate communities,
in society, and in the wider world’ (p.1). Wooldridge and Newcomb make the point
that ‘these values contrast strongly with a vision of the future of HE which is marketfocused, with the student as consumer, and a less central focus on the wider
purposes of universities’ (p.1). ‘The values of the faith-based institutions may, if
clearly presented, enable them to take the moral high ground. That will give them a
distinctive edge in the coming years and one which is likely to be very attractive to
many students and parents who are uneasy about the current direction of HE policy’
(p.10).
81.
Pages one, eight and seventeen all contain the same list of ‘key elements of
distinctiveness and definable identity’, as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
‘Lived out’ core values which reflect the history and provenance of
the institutions
A special approach to students, centred on the development of the
whole individual
A particularly strong tradition of volunteering and external
community engagement
A strong sense of internal community based on personal values of
trust and respect
Vibrant Chaplaincies which are an integral part of the university or
college structure and which have a very positive effect on both staff
and students
An acute sensitivity in handling change
An approach to staff reflecting core values of individuals in a
supportive community
5
According to its web site, the Cathedrals Group is ‘an association of fifteen universities and
university colleges with Church foundations’. http://cathedralsgroup.org.uk/
15
*
A distinctive approach to partnerships with other faith-based
institutions’.
82.
It does later insert the caveat that ‘in certain areas at least, the differences
(between the Church foundations and other HEIs) were matters of degree rather
than substance’ (p.7).
83.
The report makes three suggestions for action; updating guidance on
leadership and governance in Church foundation HEIs, updating the framework Lord
Dearing suggested, and an annual meeting between ‘all the faith based institutions
and the relevant national bodies’ (p.2). Later, on page eleven, there is the suggestion
that ‘there may well be value if the national Anglican organisations met regularly with
the institutions on the lines made by the Catholic Education Service’.
84.
Leadership is something of a theme in the report. ‘The degree of
distinctiveness is largely determined by the quality of the institution’s leadership: the
Chair of the Governing Body and, above all, the Chief Executive (p.8).
85.
Chaplaincy is also seen as important, and as having a different role from
chaplaincy in the rest of the sector. ‘The chaplaincy is an integral part of the
organizational structure, with the Chaplain usually responsible at a higher level,
reporting either to the Vice-Chancellor or a Pro-Vice-Chancellor’ (p.9).
The Culham Research Projects and associated literature.
86.
The following have been considered:
Various papers of the Church Colleges Research Project and the Engaging the
Curriculum Project undertaken under the auspices of the Culham College Institute,
Abingdon, viz:
Interim Paper Number 1. The Future of the Anglican Colleges. A view from the
Synod, the Board of Education and Diocesan Directors of Education, October 1984
Interim Paper Number 2. The Future of the Anglican Colleges. A View from Church
Schools and Theological Colleges, October 1984.
Annexe to Interim Papers Numbers 1 and 2, 1984.
Interim Paper Number 3, The Future of the Anglican Colleges. A Preliminary
Theological Critique, February 1985
Interim Paper Number 4, The Future of the Anglican Colleges. The First Year
Students, April 1985.
Interim Paper Number 5, The Future of the Anglican Colleges. The Third Year and
PGCE Students, June 1985
Interim Paper Number 6, The Future of the Anglican Colleges. The College Staff,
October 1985.
16
Interim Paper Number 7, The Future of the Anglican Colleges. A view from the
Headteachers of Teaching Practice Schools, December 1985.
John Gay, Brian Kay, George Perry and Diana Lazenby, The Future of the Anglican
Colleges. The final report of the Church Colleges Research Project. (Abingdon,
Culham College Institute, 1986).
The Bulletins of the Engaging the Curriculum project, published between July 1994
and Spring 1998.
John Gay, The Christian Campus? The Role of the English Churches in Higher
Education. Culham College Institute, Culham College of Education Working Paper,
1979.
John Gay, Chaplaincy in Church Colleges. A study of the role of the Chaplain in
thirteen Anglican Colleges of Higher Education. Culham College Institute, Occasional
Paper 4, 1983.
87.
The Church Colleges Research Project, undertaken by the Culham College
Institute in conjunction with the General Synod Board of Education and the Anglican
HEIs began in 1982. Its purpose was ‘to seek an answer to the question ‘What
justifications can validly be put forward for the retention of the Anglican Colleges
within the higher education system of the 1980s and beyond?’’ (Interim Paper 2, p.1).
The Director of the project was John Gay and the Senior Research Fellow Brian Kay.
88.
The research sought to ascertain and consider what various interested
parties saw as the rationale for Church colleges, and, according to the final report of
the project, to ask ‘is there really a justifiable future for the Anglican colleges of
higher education?’ (paragraph 1.1). The interim papers listed above indicate which
parties were consulted. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to review all the
interim papers thus far. Below relevant aspects of the papers surveyed are noted.
89.
Interim Paper 2 indicates heads of Church of England Aided schools surveyed
were appreciative of the Church colleges and generally thought they could and
should continue, whilst also admitting they knew little about them. Amongst the
theological college principals surveyed, ‘A substantial majority believed that the
colleges have been secularised to the point that they are no longer distinctive’ (p.5)
and that ‘A similar percentage held the view that when they cease to be
predominantly teacher training institutions, colleges lose the main justification for
their continued existence’ (p.5).
90.
Interim Paper 4 surveys the attitudes of first year students. Noteworthy is
the response to a question about church attendance. 31% said they attended church
services ‘most weeks’ (p.3). Over 75% of them ‘regard themselves as members of
the Church of England, or the Roman Catholic or Free Churches’, with 54% saying
‘they regard themselves as members of the Church of England’ (p.3).
17
91.
Interim Paper 5 shows a similar level of Christian commitment amongst third
year students and PGCE students. They were asked about attendance at college
chapel as well as about faith commitment. ‘13% attended college chapel generally at
least once a week’ (p.4). The part of the survey dealing with ‘religious influence’
shows appreciation of the chapel and chaplaincy, sharply divided views on student
Christian societies, and various responses in terms of personal commitment,
including both moving away from and towards faith (p.15).
92.
Interim Paper 6 surveys attitudes amongst college staff. 73% ‘claim some sort
of Christian affiliation’, with 51% describing themselves as Church of England (p.3).
16% said they were agnostics and 5% atheists (p.3). 68% of staff described their
religious commitment as ‘moderate’ to ‘total’ and only 5% as ‘nominal’ (p.3). The
indicated level of church attendance ‘is well above that of the population at large’
(p.4).
93.
Members of staff were asked to chose from 28 possible objectives for their
college and prioritise them. The following objectives were given top priority by at
last 20% of those responding to the survey:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
Educating and training teachers to teach in schools in general
Serving local needs by making available human and material resources
of the college to the community
Highlighting the value aspects in all subjects taught in college
Exerting a Christian influence on students through the quality of interpersonal relationships in the teaching process
Seeking to develop academically rigorous courses in areas where
value aspects are particularly powerful
Providing regular opportunities for worship in the context of college
life.
Developing within the college a community of staff and students based
on Christian principles (p.4).
94.
The above were included amongst the priorities chosen when views were
sought on those deserving a ‘fairly high priority’, with three others being added:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Promoting Christian standards of behaviour among students and staff.
Providing a supportive environment for Christian students in higher
education.
Fostering the spiritual as well as the academic development of
students (p.4).
95.
However, not all staff were so keen on what might be called specifically
Christian objectives. So, for example, 31% thought ‘no priority’ should be attached
to ‘exploring with students Christian insights into the subjects they are studying’ and
30% thought ‘no priority’ should be given to ‘exploring the interactions of Christian
faith and thought with the academic disciplines’ or ‘educating and training teachers to
teach in Anglican schools’ (p.5). Yet others ‘were concerned about what they saw as
an encroaching secularisation of college life’ (p.6). The total number of ‘others’
referred to there is not specified, but 18% said there was less emphasis on Christian
18
principles than at one time (p.8). At the same time, 10% said there was more
emphasis (p.8).
96.
Another area surveyed which is relevant for the present project is staff
attitudes towards the Church’s involvement with the college. On the whole, it seems
staff are not impressed with the way the Church relates to the colleges. ‘Several
specifically criticised the church for its lack of interest in the colleges and its lack of
clear objectives for them’ (p.12).
97.
The final report of the project, produced in 1986, begins by setting the
context for the project. From the 1970s onwards, ‘The old manpower link between
the colleges and Anglican schools was now relatively tenuous (in contrast to the link
between the Roman Catholic colleges and their schools); many of the students
attending the colleges did not appear to have the religious motivation of earlier
generations; the structures and processes of the colleges seemed to have become
increasingly secular and, above all, the need for teachers was deemed to be
decreasing so that the colleges were being encouraged to move into new and
untested activities which appeared to be less clearly related to their foundation
purposes. In short, many people in the educational system, in government, in the
church and in the colleges themselves began to wonder whether these colleges really
did have a viable future’ (paragraph 1.4).
98.
The final report asks whether ‘the Anglican colleges (have) a distinctive
contribution to offer to the future HE scene – one which is firmly rooted within
their Christian foundation and purpose’ (paragraph 1.26).
99.
In discussing in what identity consists, the final report says ‘What initially
appears to differentiate them (the Anglican colleges) from most other colleges is the
nature of their foundation and the expectation that they should display certain
Christian qualities and fulfil a Christian role’ (paragraph 7.3). Paragraph 7.5 lists some
of the things which evidence the close links with the Church and contribute to
distinctiveness, viz, chapel, a core of committed Christians on the governing body,
principals who are members of the Church of England, the chaplain, and ‘the high
proportion of staff and students who are members of a church, committed
Christians and regular attenders at church services’.
100. The research indicated that the level of commitment to these things varied
from college to college, with the staff suggesting that, overall, they thought the
colleges were becoming less distinctive (paragraph 7.6). There was also an overall
feeling that the colleges were not good at influencing individual students directly, ‘for
example in fostering their spiritual development or encouraging them to feel a sense
of vocation towards their future profession’, and ‘most groups consulted do not
consider that the colleges are very successful in exploring Christian insights into the
subjects of study’, though ‘a good proportion of academic staff do judge the colleges
effective in exerting a Christian influence on the students through the quality of
personal relationships’ (paragraph 7.10). The colleges do display a ‘closeness of
community’ which ‘makes a very positive impression upon the visitor’ (paragraph
7.25).
19
101. The report says that ‘virtually all’ the characteristics of Church colleges could
be found in other HEIs (paragraph 7.29), but that ‘in few other colleges, however, is
the range of characteristics we have identified combined within a single institution’
(paragraph 7.30). Moreover, this is ‘not a haphazard or accidental occurrence but
one which is purposeful and the outcome of deliberate policy. It is in respect of the
overall profile of these characteristics rather than one or two single factors that the
church colleges stand out as distinctive’ (paragraph 7.31).
102. Arising from The Church Colleges Project was the Engaging the Curriculum
programme. The first Engaging the Curriculum Bulletin, published in 1994, says it is ‘a
programme which, over the next several years, will make available material which
aims at fostering Christian insights into most of the areas of the College’s curricula’
(p.2). It was ‘owned by the Council of Church and Associated Colleges and run by
its Management Committee’ (p.3). The second Bulletin (April 1995, pages not
numbered) refers to the Mission Statement of the Council which, amongst other
things, ‘commits’ the member colleges to ‘provide high quality education in a context
in which the practice and study of the Christian Faith are taken seriously’ and ‘to
seek to offer to their members and to their local communities the chance to
encounter Christian insights and experiences in the moral, ethical, social, political,
religious, philosophical and cultural issues which arise within Higher Education
programmes, and to consider these, freely, alongside a variety of other insights’. The
Bulletin goes on to say the Engaging the Curriculum programme is one of the ways
the Council is seeking to fulfil this goal. Specifically, Engaging the Curriculum aims ‘to
initiate a programme of Christian theological engagement with the wider secular
curriculum throughout our institutions’.
103. One of the marks of distinctiveness identified in the Church Colleges
Research project is the role of the chaplain. John Gay’s occasional paper on
chaplaincy in Church colleges argues that there has been a downplaying of the role.
He says there has been a shift from chaplains as senior members of staff to ‘pastoral
chaplains’, allied to student services. It reflects the shift in the very nature of the
Church colleges, which Gay characterises as a shift from ‘the theological college
model’, in which ‘the chaplain shared with religious purpose with a team of staff, and
the principal carried overall responsibility’ (p.18) to one more like secular HEIs, in
which the chaplain’s role is not central to the institution. Gay argues chaplains have
been marginalised to the point where it is difficult to see how they might have
significant influence on the religious nature of the college.
104. Gay also refers to a shift away from ‘the seminary ideal’ on page eight of his
The Christian Campus? In that work, Gay surveys some of the history of the Church
colleges and argues ‘a church college needs to be distinctive if it is not to be subject
exclusively to the changing needs of the State’ (p.46). He argues that key for the
future is a discussion of the purpose of higher education, which has sometimes been
eclipsed by a concentration on process.
Other lectures, books and articles.
105. This may be a somewhat arbitrary selection which the author has discovered
during the literature review. It includes material specifically about the Anglican HEIs
and work which offers theological comment on higher education more generally
20
from an Anglican perspective. It is offered here as a contribution to perhaps creating
a fuller note of relevant literature and is certainly not comprehensive.
‘The Significance of the Durham Report for the Church Colleges of Education’ by R.
A. Adcock of Bede College, Durham. Spring 1971 edition of Education for Teaching,
the Journal of the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of
Education. Pp. 28-35.
‘The Significance of the Durham Report for the Church Colleges of Education. A
Reply to R. A. Adcock’ by John Elliott, Senior Research Associate, Centre for
Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia. Spring 1971 edition of
Education for Teaching, the Journal of the Association of Teachers in Colleges and
Departments of Education, pp 36-43.
‘Collegiality’ During a period of Rapid Change in Higher Education – an Examination
of a Distinctive Feature Claimed by a Group of Colleges of Education in the 1960s
and 1970s. J.F. Wyatt. Oxford Review of Education, Vol 3, No 2, 1977, pp147-155.
G.J. Garbett (ed) Towards a Rationale for Church Colleges in the 1990s (Lancaster,
St Martin’s College, undated).
Leslie Francis and Adrian Thatcher, (Eds.). Christian perspectives for education: A
reader in the theology of education (Leominster, Gracewing. 1990).
Jeff Astley, Leslie Francis, John Sullivan, Andrew Walker (eds), The Idea of a Christian
University (Bletchley, Paternoster, 2004).
Gavin D’Costa, Theology in the Public Square. Church, Academy and Nation
(Malden, Blackwell, 2005).
Rowan Williams, ‘Faith in the University’ in Simon Robinson and Clement Katulushi
(eds), Values in Higher Education (St Bride’s Major, Aureus/University of Leeds,
2005), pp.24-35.
David Ford, Christian Wisdom. Desiring God and Learning in Love (Cambridge,
CUP, 2007)
Mark Lofthouse, Faith, Class and Politics: The Role of the Churches in Teacher
Training, 1914-1945 (Oxford, Department of Education, 2009).
Rowan Williams lecture at Rikkyo Gaukin University, Japan, 2009.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/776/archbishop-educationbased-only-on-reason-is-incomplete
Michael Wright and James Arthur (eds), Leadership in Christian Higher Education
(Exeter, Imprint Academic, 2010).
David Ford, Christianity and Universities Today: A Double Manifesto, the Dearing
Memorial Lecture, November 2011.
21
Mike Higton, A Theology of Higher Education (Oxford, OUP, 2012).
106. The two articles in the Journal of the Association of Teachers in Colleges and
Departments of Education offer two contrasting theological approaches to identity.
Adcock argues that there needs to be a community of ‘shared assumptions’ if
identity is to be maintained. Without that, ‘it then becomes difficult for the
institution to protect its values, let alone sustain and project them’ (p.29). Adcock
argues it is unlikely that can be sustained in the church colleges when many of the
students are not ‘actively subscribing to the Christian, quite apart from the
specifically Anglican, faith’ (p.29). This matters because ‘the significance of the church
college … lies in its ability to provide ‘a context of attitudes and values’ in which the
educative process can be carried on’ (p.31). Adcock then goes on to say it is the
values and beliefs which matter and says if a church college cannot make those values
and beliefs explicit, ‘there is no justification for its existence’ (p. 31). He illustrates
this with reference to concern for people which, he says, is not the monopoly of the
Church, ‘but the Church’s strength lies in the fact that this concern is not a transient
sentiment based on do-as-you-would-be-done-by or dubious socio-psychological
factors, but it is a permanent response to a point of reference outside the vagaries of
the human condition, the unchanging will of God’ (p.31). In fact, therefore, it is the
belief which is fundamental and without it there is a shift away from what makes the
college distinctive.
107. Elliott argues that this is to see mission as the Church proclaiming a clear
message to the world based on consensus in the church. He also argues it is to claim
a privileged position for the Church, any weakening of which will make the Church
vulnerable (p.37). Elliott wishes to challenge that on the basis that God is as much at
work in the world as in the Church. ‘The Church has no right to presume that the
source of truth and wisdom lies within its own boundaries’ (p.38). He says ‘The
Gospel originated … in the love of God revealed through the self-giving acts of Jesus,
who accepted a position of vulnerability, suffering and sacrifice’ (p.38). On that basis,
Elliott argues for ‘communities of Christians, staff and students, engaging with nonbelievers in dialogue and reflection about fundamental human questions’ (p.38). The
vision is of the Church transforming its colleges ‘into centres of dialogue where
Christians and people of other persuasions could explore, on equal terms, their
common ground and differences, and eek ways of co-operating in the practical field
of education’ (p.38).
108. Garbett’s paper is the result of a working party looking at the question ‘What
kind of future do we see for the Church Colleges of Higher Education?’ In trying to
answer that, the paper seeks a rationale for Church colleges. Pages two and three
offer three general points. The first is that in a free and plural society, where ‘no one
set of goals or structures or practices is seen to be uniquely right’, whilst higher
education institutions must have some things in common, such as a commitment to
free and open enquiry, they do not all ‘have to accept identical aims and practices.
The existence of institutions with a principled commitment to Christianity is a
perfectly proper and unsurprising feature of HE provision in an open and plural
society’ (p.2). The second is that students should be given choice in types of
institutions to study in and the Church HEIs widen choice. The third point is that HE
22
provision has evolved and ‘Institutions which have developed by voluntary effort and
intention should not be destroyed simply to make the HE system neater’ (p.3).
109. Section eight of the paper argues a Church college is one which brings
together ‘principles of secular liberal educational philosophy and Christian belief and
practice’ (p.6) with the aim of learning and promoting the growth of knowledge.
Within it, there will be ‘the raising of questions generated in Christian praxis to
challenge and call to account the assumptions of a liberal and neo-liberal philosophy
of education’ (p.6).
110. Gavin D’Costa is not directly concerned with questions of Anglican identity
but puts the case for a Catholic university. The argument would apply equally to an
Anglican one. He argues that ‘the modern university is increasingly consumerist’ (p.x)
and ‘fragmented’ (pp.10-11). In being so, it is rooted not in neutrality but a world
view which, for example, puts a particular value on the market. He argues that it is
appropriate to have other ‘tradition-specific forms of enquiry’ and the places to
facilitate that (p.37). A Catholic university would be one such, though it should not
only be ‘sectarian’ but ‘committed to the common good’ (p.78).
111. A similar, or related, point is made by Gerald Pillay in his article in the book
edited by Michael Wright and James Arthur. Pillay writes that ‘the church foundation
should by its very nature be the first among those universities and colleges which
stand up against the truncation or any narrowing of the university fashioned by
whatever the prevailing ideology may be; it could be the domination of the
University by the Sciences dogma; it could be the domination of ‘outcomes based’
forms of education shaped by utilitarian or functionalist purposes. It certainly must
be a refutation of the idea that faith is private and that faith has no bearing on the
intellectual quest’ (pp.47-48).
112. Wright and Arthur’s book is mainly about leadership in a Church foundation
HEI. It makes points about the importance of the personal influence of the leader
(p.6 for example). It also has within it more general points about the nature of a
Christian university. So, for example, James Arthur writes ‘Surely all universities with
a Christian heritage must be places where religious questions are debated within the
mainstream of intellectual life?’ (p.7).
113. Arthur, and Pillay, question whether distinctiveness can only be about values.
Arthur talks rather about ‘Higher Education Institutions where Christianity is
privileged’ or where ‘Christian vision or identity is one of the organizing paradigms’
(pp.8-9). He argues there is a need to look at questions about being a Christian
university in a theological way, noting that one of the members of the working group
which produced Mutual Expectations , Nicholas Sagovsky, recommended that it ‘go
back to theological first principles’ in seeking to understand what it means to be a
Christian institution. Arthur says ‘His conclusion was that an Anglican university
turns on a certain understanding of the incarnation’ (p.21). Arthur then adds
‘However, this strong theological aim for Anglican institutions did not find its way
into the final report’ (p.21).
114. Pillay also turns to the concept of incarnation, which he sees as central to
Christianity. Leadership in Christian institutions involves seeking to incarnate the
23
truth about a God who identifies ‘with the human condition and predicament’ in the
whole of the institution (p.54). Pillay takes this to involve producing certain sorts of
graduates; ‘the kinds of graduates who leave our institutions with a deep awareness
of civic and global responsibility, and with a sense of social justice’ (p.53).
115. Janet Trotter makes a strong theological statement in the Leadership volume
when she says ‘’The Gospel is good news which transforms individuals and situations
through Christ’s redemptive love and any church institution should constantly be
striving through all it does to be a channel of God’s transforming grace’ (p.60).
116. In his chapter, Michael Wright laments the lack of preparation available for
leading a Church institution. Reflecting on conversations with fellow principals and
vice chancellors he says ‘All of us would have valued an opportunity to participate in
a structured programme designed to address the needs of newly appointed Vice
Chancellors or Principals of institutions with a Church related mission. Such a
programme could be organised by the Church and/or the institutions themselves
with contributions from those with appropriate expertise and experience’ (p.94).
Wright also draws attention to what he calls ‘uncertainty in the Church of England as
to what it expects of those universities which are related to the Church’ (pp95-96).
That is a fairly gentle statement of the frustration he, his predecessors and colleagues
have clearly felt with the church.
117. Jeremy Law, also in a chapter in Leadership in Christian Higher Education,
points out that to seek an answer to questions about identity in Church HEIs is to
engage in contextual and public theology. The context in which he does his thinking
is that of a world dominated by neo-liberal capitalism in which universities are
marketised and seen as significantly about serving the economy. In such a context,
he argues, distinctiveness cannot lie entirely in a number of attributes such as
requirements that post holders have a personal faith commitment or that there is
regular Christian worship. Rather, he says distinctiveness lies in process (p.194).
‘That process is the creative interaction … between the meta-narrative of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ and the ideologies of the day, such that the Gospel can
contribute towards the decision-making and shaping of the institution’ (pp.194-195).
118. Law suggests there are 6 things which ‘would foster the kind of public
theology envisaged’ (p.196). They are a living Christian community, a department of
theology, the ability of those who are required to have a faith commitment to hold
their post to converse together for the shaping of the HEI, the context in which
Christian symbols would speak a counter-cultural word, a continuing relationship
with the wider church and a place for public theology in committees and policy
documents (pp.196-197).
119. If the Church HEIs can effectively do such public theology they will do a
service for the whole of higher education and for students by offering them some
alterative visions of the future.
120. The final word in Wright and Arthur’s book goes to Rowan Williams. He
argues the papers show that a Christian HEI ‘is one that offers a distinctive
perspective on education itself … in some ways at odds with the prevailing ethos in
education’ (p.209). That perspective is essentially ‘what used to be called ‘Christian
24
humanism’’ p.210), which is ‘a commitment to the enrichment of human minds and
imaginations in all possible fields, on the grounds that humanity, made in the image of
God and restored in Jesus Christ, deserves all the attention, cultivation and
enlargement that can be found’ (p.210). Education is about that enrichment.
121. Part of that is being about wisdom, not that a Church foundation HEI has a
monopoly of wisdom, ‘but it does and must claim that wisdom is worth talking
about’ (p.211). ‘And the institution needs a critical mass within it of people who are
committed to the particular kind of wisdom that Christian doctrine offers’ (pp.211212).
122. For this to work, and for the relationship with the church to work, ‘this
requires the Church to invest in the support and training of good leadership’ (p.213).
123. Students may not be as interested in Christianity as the Church, or as those
who are leaders of Church foundations.
124. Other books mentioned in the list at the beginning of this section will be
reviewed in due course.
Stephen Heap
National Higher Education Adviser
12th September 2012
25