GCSE Reform – Kate Christopher

Religious Education GCSE reforms have been causing a stir even before they were released for consultation. The big issue for the papers, members of the cabinet and some religious groups is the compulsory study of two religions. However, what about from the point of view of the RE teacher: will this requirement improve RE?

The requirement to teach two religions is not in place because it is good RE, although sensible practitioners can certainly make it good RE. The stated aims remind us where the requirement stems from, in describing an RE which will ‘challenge students to reflect on and develop their own values, beliefs and attitudes  in the light of what they have learnt and contribute to their preparation for adult life  in a pluralistic society and global community’. It is anxiety about some schools’ failure to prepare their young people for adult life in a pluralistic society, for example some of the Trojan Horse schools, which has inspired this move.

Why shouldn’t RE prepare young people for life in a pluralistic society as well as being an academically meaningful subject? In fact, why have we accepted an RE for so long that has been decontextualized and idealised? I am firmly in support of the study of any religion being rooted in the world we all inhabit, and this has been the conviction behind the socially and politically switched-on RE I have tried to develop in my own classroom. My one reservation is simply that I do not share the political convictions of the administration that have initiated this move. Tribal allegiances aside, what does this requirement mean for RE?

As a teacher who has only ever delivered the Philosophy and Ethics papers at GCSE, from three exam boards over 11 years, this new requirement comes as something of a shock. There is so much theology! It demands textual analysis and historical contextualisation in more than one religion, as well as the ability to draw comparisons both within and between traditions. Since I have been complaining about the bad theology, bad ethics and bad philosophy of the papers I have taught, I have to admit this is what I have been waiting for. On closer analysis, a lot of the content I already use can be reworked to fit the new routes and pathways, but my subject knowledge is going to have to go deeper, a welcome development. It is going to take more mental exertions on my part, but it is going to be rigorous, much more valuable for students, and, I suspect, more exciting to teach once we have all got our heads around it.

Another requirement states that students will, ‘apply knowledge and understanding in order to analyse questions related to religious beliefs and values’. I hope this expectation is imagined along the lines of the NCFRE’s suggestion that students analyse religious beliefs and traditions according to the discipline’s own tools, such as historical or textual methods of analysis. Some elements are very familiar but have been refreshingly re-worked. Consider this new articulation of why students learn to analyse and evaluate at all: to, ‘construct well-informed and balanced arguments on matters concerned with religious beliefs and values’. No more earning an A-grades using the same five bible quotes – surely this is good news!

So in summary, wary of being a political football while having to admit that the RE described by this new spec is pretty good quality. We must maximise what we do well, which is RE, and build on this opportunity to develop and grow. The next ball that rolls our way might not be so helpful, and we may have to boot it off the pitch. This means we must continue to grow in voice and confidence. Welcoming this new spec won’t hurt us at all, it will make us stronger.