From Vision to Reality: Reflections on Building a Trust-Wide RE Curriculum for Every Secondary School

When I first began designing a new Religious Studies curriculum across our 28 secondary schools, I knew it would be ambitious but I most certainly didn’t realise how much I would learn along the way. As Trust Strategic Lead for Religious Studies (RS) and Personal Development, I work with schools where RS is often taught by non-specialists and where, historically, it hasn’t always been a curriculum priority.

Where it all began

Until this academic year, RS was taught alongside Citizenship and PSHE under the banner of ‘Life’. The model was well-intentioned but often disjointed, rushed and poorly implemented. Then came a turning point: as part of an extension to the school day, we were given something we had wanted for what seems like forever…Dedicated Curriculum Time.

From September this academic year, every Key Stage 3 student in 20 of our schools is receiving one hour a week of RS, with the remaining 8 receiving this in either January 2026 or September 2026. This was a golden opportunity, but also a challenge: we needed a coherent, high-quality curriculum that could be delivered effectively across very different school contexts, mostly by non-specialists, and it needed to be developed at a significant pace.

Stage one: building the foundations

I began by reviewing the locally agreed syllabuses from our 13 local authorities. I wanted to identify the common ground; the shared themes, aims, and approaches that could underpin our Trust curriculum. It quickly became apparent how much consistency already existed. Many syllabuses had been written or influenced by the same experts and organisations, meaning we were, in effect, edging towards a national curriculum for RE by default. Although our schools didn’t have the curriculum time to follow these, it was useful to see what the intended model was for each Local Authority.

Using these common threads, I drafted a Trust-wide curriculum specification; a document setting out what our students should study, understand, and be able to do by the end of Key Stage 3. This draft was shared with a small group of RS teachers across the Trust, who were asked to outline a three-year plan which would fulfil its demands.

Out of curiosity (and practicality), I also ran the same specification through a generative artificial intelligence tool, asking it to generate a range of possible units that would meet our aims. There were far too many to use — but that was the point. When the teachers later did the same exercise using the AI-generated unit ideas, their models were remarkably similar to both their original plans and my own initial proposal. That gave me confidence that the foundation was sound.

Stage two: defining the core

From there, I identified our core concepts and curriculum aims, drawing heavily on:

• The Ofsted Research Review and its distinction between substantive, disciplinary, and personal knowledge
• The REC Handbook for Religion and Worldviews

Initially, I wanted to offer schools plenty of flexibility. Each unit would contain core lessons that every student would complete, alongside optional lessons that teachers could select based on their school’s needs, interests, or specialisms. The idea was that all students would receive a common “diet” of RS knowledge, while teachers retained some autonomy.

However, this model quickly proved unsustainable. Some units contained up to 15 lessons, which simply wasn’t realistic to plan and would lead to too many variables when implemented. Another challenge was that, because our new timetable allowed RS to be taught across all of Key Stage 3 simultaneously, teachers would be teaching the new Year 7–9 units at once; without students having completed the prior knowledge the curriculum assumed. And in conjunction with this, we have been planning all 3 year groups simultaneously.

In response, I scaled the plan back. Every unit now has a maximum of eight lessons; enough to explore depth and variety, but manageable for planning and teaching. Optional elements remain, but within realistic limits.

We also had to make pragmatic decisions about our Dharmic faith units. Ideally, schools would have a choice between Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh traditions for 2 units — but this would triple the planning load. For this first implementation, we’ve chosen to focus on Hindu for the first unit and Buddhist traditions for the second, with an aspiration to broaden in the future.

Lessons learned along the way

1. Start with purpose, not content

It’s easy to begin curriculum writing with lists of topics, and in all honesty – the things you find most interesting, but the most valuable question is: What should students understand about religion and worldviews and what skills should they develop by the end?

Defining purpose first gives every later decision direction. It helps filter what truly matters from what merely fills space.

2. Less really is more

This phrase has become something of a mantra. Overloading the curriculum helps no one…not students, not teachers, and not long-term understanding. Keeping the number of lessons tight has allowed us to focus on quality over quantity.

You will face resistance, especially from those who equate breadth with rigour, those who want to teach the things they have always taught, those who want to go back to learning a list of facts by rote. Stick to your vision and moral purpose. A deep understanding of fewer ideas is more powerful than a shallow tour of everything.

3. Write for non-specialists

This was one aspect I have been almost militant about. In a Trust where many RS teachers are non-specialists, every detail has to be clear, purposeful, and accessible.

Lesson plans are simple and direct: “Do this, then that.” But each includes a knowledge box outlining exactly what students must know by the end of the lesson. There are teacher guides with key knowledge, extra reading, misconceptions, and context for where each lesson fits within the wider scheme.

Resources also come with tiered reading materials, usually at four levels (e.g., reading ages 10, 12, 14, and 16). This isn’t to match each text to individual students, but to allow teachers to choose what’s most appropriate for their group.

Finally, every resource is as inclusive as possible to support our most vulnerable students: pastel backgrounds, minimal icons, clear dual coding, and accessible fonts. These are simple changes but that are, “harmful to no one, essential for a few.”

4. Listen to feedback but know which feedback matters

Feedback is invaluable, but not all of it is meaningful. Learning to tell the difference is crucial. Comments like “I’m not sure when to hand out the worksheet” aren’t the same as “The pitch of Year 9 feels too high.”

Equally, some colleagues will always resist perceived “top-down” curriculum models. Respond politely and professionally, but don’t let negativity derail progress. If the plan is pedagogically sound, it deserves the chance to prove itself.

5. Keep refining

Curriculum design is never “finished.” I’m continually reviewing lessons using a RAG system (red, amber, green) to track where further development is needed. Once this first academic year is complete and the resources are in place, I will begin the process of refining materials, tightening clarity, and responding to meaningful feedback.

Being open to iteration keeps the curriculum alive — and builds trust with those who teach it.

What’s changed and what’s next

It’s early days, but the impact is already clear. Many Heads of Department who once felt disheartened are now re-energised. Some are actively lobbying for GCSE RS to return as an option in Year 9 not because they suddenly found spare time, but because they finally have the tools and confidence to deliver their subject properly.

That, to me, is the most rewarding outcome of all. Curriculum isn’t just about documents and sequencing; it’s about giving teachers and students back their subject.

Next year, I’ll continue to gather staff and student feedback, refining as we go. But for now, I’m proud of what we’ve built…a curriculum that’s inclusive, practical, and purposeful; one that balances flexibility with consistency, and ambition with realism.

If I’ve learned anything from this process, it’s to stay humble, listen wisely, and accept that you’ll never please everyone. Curriculum design invites strong opinions and that’s no bad thing. It means people care. What matters most is keeping sight of the purpose: giving every student the chance to make sense of religion and worldviews in a way that’s meaningful, challenging, and fair.