Religious Literacy and the Dual System

The last few days has seen some lively blogging around the issue of religious literacy. Some themes are emerging which will need time to consider. It is clear that it is a complex and challenging issue – but one which needs clear and straightforward resolution if we are going to improve RE. We cannot leave teachers stranded in a fascinated but confused state.

One issue, hinted at but not made explicit, is the relationship between the way we define religious literacy and the Dual System. We all know the background to this system – what feels like ancient legislation dividing schools into two broad camps – either with or without a religious character. It remains a contested system with some actively questioning the presence of ‘faith’ schools within state funded education.

RE lies at the heart of this dual system. Separate arrangements for RE with, in some cases, quite distinct approaches, aims, content and exam specifications. It’s not a straightforward duality. It has a rather different character depending on which religion/denomination is involved. While the Catholic and Jewish sectors have tended to defend their separation from the ‘non-faith’ sector, the Church of England has often sought to bridge the divide.

One interesting example of these difference has been the degree of ‘sign-up’ to the 2004 and 2013 non-statutory national Frameworks for RE. While, for example, the Catholic sector officially supported the Framework, in practice their pattern of RE has gone its own way. I am also very aware that there can be a big difference between official policy and actual classroom practice; to use that great phrase some are ‘a long way from Rome’!

A positive outcome of the growth of social media has been the opportunity for discussion across the traditional divide in the RE world characterised by this Dual System. We are hearing voices from all sectors, although the range of those voices is still rather limited and there is a danger of the debate being driven by a few vocal individuals (mea culpa).

One of the differences within the dual system can be the amount of time and resources allocated, and the status given, to the subject. Some have suggested that the priority given to RE within some ‘faith schools’ will secure a higher level of religious literacy. But this clearly depends on what we mean by…..

A key question in relation to religious literacy is whether a common approach or definition is possible. Religious literacy is a contested term. Its application in the context of RE is not yet clear. There are a number of quite basic questions which remain unresolved and which relate to whether there is there a single definition/approach to religious literacy which can bridge the divide in the Dual System:

• Is the process of ‘promoting religious literacy’ primarily a religious or secular activity?
• Does religious literacy involve developing pupils’ ability to use a range of approaches to ‘read’ the complex, contested world of religion and belief OR is it to do with fostering pupils’ ability to ‘read’ their own experience of the world through a religious lens?
• Is a level of ‘religious sensibility’ needed in order to help foster pupils’ religious literacy?
• Can you develop religious literacy if you find much religious language ‘meaningless’?

How we answer these questions has great significance for the way we define religious literacy. It will go a long way in helping identify those core/threshold concepts which we hope pupils will be able to ‘read’. It will enable us to decide which perspectives in the study of religion we choose to adopt and how we balance them. Ben Wood’s excellent post highlights some of the issues: https://themyopictortoise.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/what-is-religious-literacy-part-2/

To illustrate at a very personal level. I recently attended a church where the service began with a proclamation: ‘Praise the Lord, Christ is risen’. I think I am a reasonably religiously literate person. I understand the theological significance and context of this phrase. I understand the highly contentious nature of the claim being made. I know something of the debates within the Church and the wider community of scholars about the meaning/origin of the language. I have my own views about how the phrase came to have credibility within the early church. However, I am also aware that for me existentially the language is meaningless; it simply does not function as a meaningful phrase in my life. I do not participate in that particular language game. Am I religiously literate? Answers on a postcard to…..

The issue of the Dual System is critical here. It is possible that a deep divide within the RE world, which is often quietly overlooked for pragmatic purposes, will be exposed by this debate. For example, the concept of religious literacy within Catholic schools is quite tightly controlled by an approach to RE which others find very difficult to come to terms with. RE is clearly seen as an extension of the work of the Church. These quotes from the Religious Education Curriculum Directory (3-19) for Catholic Schools and Colleges in England and Wales illustrate the issue:

“The primary purpose of Catholic Religious Education is to come to know and understand God’s revelation which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school is ‘a clear educational project of which Christ is the foundation.’ In the person of Christ, the deepest meaning of what it is to be human — that we are created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his Incarnation — is discovered.”

“The outcome of excellent Religious Education is religiously literate and engaged young people who have the knowledge, understanding and skills – appropriate to their age and capacity – to reflect spiritually, and think ethically and theologically, and who are aware of the demands of religious commitment in everyday life.”

“The methods employed in Religious Education are always aimed at opening up for the pupil the mystery of God’s saving action in Jesus Christ.”

This approach to religious literacy is one that many in the world of RE simply could not accept. We may need to recognise that these divisions exist and that here is a danger of trying to fudge the issues.