The aftermath of the GCSE debate; Why Grayling is irritating – but right!

So, the GCSE and A level criteria are published. And a new debate has begun.

If you missed it, it started with an article in the TES (20/2/15) about A.C. Grayling’s fight to fill philosophy’s ‘screaming silence’. https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=11006441 Grayling is campaigning for a separate Philosophy GCSE but is doing so by taking side swipes at the Religious Studies GCSE. He recognises the two could be in competition but also questions the integrity of RS and the inclusion of philosophy and ethics in the RS GCSE. The article quotes a number of Heads of RE who suggest that refocussing on the study of world religions is a backward step which will not capture the interest of the punters.

Time for Bob Jackson to ride to the defence of RS in his excellent contribution to TES Comment (2/3/15): https://news.tes.co.uk/b/opinion/2015/03/02/ac-grayling-is-wrong-religious-education-and-philosophy-are-complementary-not-alternatives.aspx. Bob attacks Grayling’s trivialization of RE and questions the need for two under-resourced subjects like RS and Philosophy to go into battle with one another. As so often, we are grateful to Bob for his support.

Grayling’s argument and attitude are irritating. His cheap remarks do not help his case. But the debate raises four important issues.

-There is a case for a separate Philosophy GCSE – the quality of the philosophy within the religious studies GCSE is compromised. It is thin philosophical soup; while it does provide students with opportunities to discuss issues and develop the skills of argument and debate, it does not provide students with a coherent and thorough grounding in the essential concepts and content of philosophy.

-A serious study of religion needs to include the genuine engagement with the nature and the social reality of religion in the contemporary world – and these threads are seriously neglected in the GCSE criteria. Bob makes the crucial point that good religious studies uses a range of disciplines to explore religion, including philosophy. Bob also mentions history, literature and media studies and I would add sociology and psychology as well as ethnography. BUT, the current RS criteria do not reflect this range of approaches. The ‘issues’ component is dominated by philosophy. Some themes are properly derived from the Philosophy of Religion (such as topics related to the existence of God) but others are a rehash of the old social/ethical issues with a splash of ‘religious’ perspectives.

-So we end up with a ‘curate’s egg’ of a qualification. Two halves which do not make a whole. The criteria lack coherence. We have a low level study of 2 religions with no clear sense of which disciplines are involved – it looks like learning ‘stuff’ to me! And we have a more challenging but disconnected exploration of issues dominated by philosophy and ethics but not integrated effectively with the study of the religions.

-Finally the most disturbing issue of all. How have reached a point where the study of the complex, controversial, highly relevant, urgent study of religion and belief in the modern world is perceived to be dull and regressive? Why are those Heads of RE suggesting that refocussing on the study of world religions is a backward step which will not capture the interest of the punters? I fully understand their concerns. But how have we got into this mess? Where is the material exploring the concept of religion itself? Where are the topics going to come from which investigate controversial contemporary issues within the study of religion and religions? Where are the topics which explore the diverse changing reality of religion and belief in the contemporary world?

Sadly the development of these GCSE criteria was an exercise in compromise and pragmatism. Yes, we need to wait and see what the exam boards come up with in terms of specifications but I fear that they do not have a good basis on which to work.

Ofsted’s 2013 report on RE had called for a review of GCSE. That report concluded that “Most GCSE teaching in RE failed to achieve the core aim of the examination specifications, that is, to enable pupils to adopt an enquiring, critical and reflective approach to the study of religion”. Hidden in Grayling’s attack is a sense that the new criteria have failed to address this issue effectively.