Viewing archives for

I am lucky enough to be working on Stockton-on-Tees’ Agreed Syllabus. Designed by adviser Kirsten Webber, the syllabus is already well-planned, challenging and highly practical. As I take the train up to Stockton, home of course to the world’s first public railway, I reflect on the pleasure of creating something of educational value for teachers and pupils and working with like-minded people. The syllabus is supportive and practical, but it also encourages teachers to increase the challenge of their teaching as children grow. Kirsten and I are agreed; we want to support teachers as much as possible, but we also want to establish a high standard of quality and coherence. We want growing understanding in RE to be systematic and deliberate. This syllabus encourages increasing demand and complexity. This is not accidental.

Gazing from my train window at the big skies of the North East, I wonder why isn’t there a Kirsten on every SACRE, academy chain and diocese? Why should this syllabus ‘only’ support teachers in Stockton? The Commission Recommendation 3 comes to mind:

Non-statutory programmes of study for each of Key a. Stages 1–4 should be developed at a national level…
Programmes of study should be developed by a national body of a maximum of nine professionals, including serving teachers.

Travelling around the country as I do, working with Academy Trusts and SACREs on various aspects of their RE architecture, I can say from personal experience how much energy is being spent on locally agreed or other RE syllabuses. With teachers at peak workload, SACREs losing touch with their local area, widespread fragmentation caused by new school types and the sharp decline in local RE advisers able to pull various strings together, this does seem like a timely innovation. All over the country advisers, SACREs and Trusts are reinventing the wheel; a colossal expenditure of energy that could surely be put to a better, or more streamlined, use.

What existing models can we look at to judge this proposal? RE Today’s Understanding Christianity and Model Syllabuses are good examples. Either, or both, of these syllabuses allows SACREs or trusts to access practical, coherent curricula at a standard they would be unable to create on their own. Both syllabuses are popular and continue to sell; teachers and schools want them. Could programmes of study, produced nationally to exemplify the National Entitlement, offer trusts and local authority areas coherent, practical RE of a universally high standard? This is certainly the intention. The Commission Report sets out in forensic detail just how inconsistent and incoherent children’s learning is in our atomized system.

However the oft-repeated warning springs to mind, given in response to the suggestion of a national curriculum for RE: whose RE? What curriculum? The small print of this Recommendation however cuts through that particular Gordian knot:

Members of the national body should be appointed on the basis of commitment to the approach taken to Religion and Worldviews in the National Entitlement’ (Rec 3, p 14)

I am sure in some quarters this phrase, nestling in Recommendation 3, will give rise to howls of anguish. ‘The Commission’s RE’, is the answer to the question ‘whose RE?’ and it will not please everyone.

What is ‘the Commission’s RE’? This justification for learning about religion and worldviews is given in the report; ‘it is impossible fully to understand the world without understanding worldviews’ (p. 3). Thus the National Entitlement presents one purpose of learning in Religion and Worldviews; to understand the nature, types and impact of religious and non-religious worldviews. The National Entitlement sheds other purposes for learning in RE, such as improved community relations, personal inspiration or respect for outlooks different to one’s own. ‘The Commission’s RE’ is the most inclusive version of the subject. With one purpose given for learning, the purpose of understanding, students don’t have to be religious or to care about religion to engage in this area of study. The rise, interaction and concerns of different worldviews explains both the past and the present. Worldviews studies could be described, perhaps at an open evening to parents, as the history of human thought. All humans have a worldview. With personal and spiritual aims of the subject dropped from the National Entitlement, Religion and Worldviews becomes the study of human thought, essential for understanding the world.

Kirsten and I are a good team because we agree on the purpose of learning in RE; to understand. It is an exciting partnership. One clear aim means we can see where we want to be. We might disagree about how to get there, although more often than not we agree, but we know where we are heading to. If national programmes of study can offer a clear purpose for the subject, which I hope they will, we as a community will have one outcome to aim for. Of course there is complexity in the doing, but clarity of what we want to achieve would cut out a whole host of distracting and stultifying confusion.

Programmes of study with one clear aim and purpose for learning would not only save teachers, SACREs and Trusts huge amounts of time and effort, it would enable a degree of creativity to flourish along the path to one clear aim. Teachers, schools and students are incredibly diverse, as anyone who has tried to teach from their colleague’s lesson plan knows. Teaching and learning has to be shaped to fit the teacher, the class and the context. How much more effective will we be as a community with one clear aim to provide an eventual outcome, as we work to achieve that outcome in our own particular contexts? Programmes of study offering coherence and progression, to relieve teachers’ burden of creating resources from scratch and to provide a benchmark of high quality, inclusive learning is surely to be welcomed.

My last blog focused on the word ‘worldviews’. In this blog I want to consider why the word ‘religion’ is also crucial in navigating a way forward for religious education.

In conversations about the Commission on RE report (201) with teachers, some have asked why the word ‘religion’ is there…. Why not just have ‘worldviews’?

At the recent NATRE Strictly RE Conference, Professor Grace Davie spoke about religion as being central in issues of the 21st Century world. She reminded us that 80% of people globally have a religious identity and that this is growing. She spoke about the importance of knowledge about, but also sensitivity to, the religious dimension in human experience. Davie placed an emphasis on lived religion and the power of religious practices to shape ways of life, but she also acknowledged the power of religious ideas to motivate, and religious communities to mobile and bring social change. Understanding the nature of religion itself is therefore an essential element of religious education. How do people within religions understand the term ‘religion’? How is the term used by people outside a religious worldview? Do we all mean the same thing when we talk about religion?

I recall an Agreed Syllabus Conference meeting in about 2011. We were debating whether to move from the phrase ‘learning about and learning from religion’ to ‘learning about and learning from religion and belief’. I remember the Bahai representative saying that she preferred the latter as she did not think her faith was a religion. The Buddhist representative then said that he agreed, he was not religious, he followed a philosophy for life. The Hindu representative then said that dharma could not be translated as religion. Lastly, one of the Christian representatives said that he did not feel religion described his faith, he felt that religion was something that people had to attain to, and for him his faith was based on the grace of God. In this brief, yet stimulating discussion, we can see questions of language, of reductionism, of the issue of categorisation, of internal and external perspectives in relation to how religion is understood. These are the conversations our children and young people need to be having.

Grappling with the nature of religion itself is at the heart of religious education. Some of the questions we are proposing in the development of a new curriculum through the key stages in the Eastern region are:
Where is religion around us?
How does religion contribute to society and culture?
What do we mean by religion?
What makes a religion a religion?
Is religion an outdated western category or a useful way of thinking about different ways of living?
To what extent are religions reflections or reactions to society?
To what extent does the lived reality of (name of religion) reflect an authoritative understanding?

It’s time to have a conversation about religion.

Dr Kathryn Wright
Independent RE Consultant, a co-opted member of the NATRE Executive and sits on the board of the RE Council of England and Wales

The RE Commission report (2018) recommended changing the name of Religious Education (RE) in England to ‘Religion and Worldviews’. This is in part in recognition of the diversity of religions and the rise in people who adhere to no religion (Woodhead, 2016). History records the previous name change for RE from Religious Instruction which was seen as too confessional, even for some inferring indoctrination. ‘Religion and Worldviews’ may appeal to those who want to acknowledge the breadth of views within England; and it may remove the perceived threat of RE equating to education to ‘be religious’. Or help to answer pupils’ queries of why they need to study RE when they don’t believe in God (Jones, 2013).

However, ‘Religion and Worldviews’ is seen by some as problematic. Worldviews followed by individuals are not neatly definable nor easily reduced to a useful 6 week unit of work. Does this place an individual’s eclectic mix of views on the same level as a faith practiced for thousands of years with traditions, scripture and liturgy? If these are seen as equally valid this might lead to a dilution of RE. In a letter to the Religious Education Council of England and Wales, Damian Hinds, the Education secretary, rejected the Commission’s proposals stating that “some stakeholders” had expressed “concerns that making statutory the inclusion of ‘worldviews’ risks diluting the teaching of RE”¹

However, I suggest that studying ‘Religion and Worldviews’ enables teachers and pupils to have a greater understanding of religion(s). When I teach pupils, trainee teachers and in-service teachers I begin by enabling them to identify aspects of their own worldviews. We examine the evolution of their worldviews and we attempt to trace the impact these may have on their lives: on their values, norms, practices and beliefs. For individuals who have no religious faith allegiance this enables them to recognise the belief system, or worldviews, within their own life and the origins, evolution and impact of these worldviews. This challenges the myth of neutrality (Bryan and Revell, 2011) and facilitates greater understanding of religion(s). Rather than seen as an alien concept, religion(s) may be viewed as an alternative provider of values, norms, practices and beliefs. Thus ‘Religion and Worldviews’ may save the subject of RE by facilitating greater depth of engagement into religion(s) themselves. Rather than religion(s) possibly being reduced to clothes and food that ‘different’ people eat, pupils and teachers can engage with the essence of faith – the guiding system throughout an individual’s life.

Without recognition of teachers’ personal worldviews RE faces a further danger of being watered down to the most palatable aspects of religion(s) that fit with the teacher’s own worldviews (Flanagan, 2019, unpublished thesis). Recognition of teachers’ own worldviews may help to stem this tide and prove to be the salvation of RE.

1- Cited on https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/12/education-secretary-dismisses-calls-for-re-reform-in-england

References

Bryan, H and Revell, L. (2011) Performativity, faith and Professional Identity:

Student religious education teachers and the ambiguities of objectivity.

British Journal of Education Studies. 54 (4), 403 -419.

Flanagan, R (2019) ‘Unlocking Reflexivity: Is identifying worldviews a key for non-specialist teachers of

RE?’ Unpublished MPhil thesis. University of Exeter, UK.

Jones, A. (2013) The irony of religious education? It needs to include atheists and humanists. The Guardian. 23rd October 2013. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/oct/23/religious-education-include-atheists-humanists

National Secular Society (2018) ‘Education secretary dismisses commission’s call for RE reform’. Available at https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2018/12/education-secretary-dismisses-calls-for-re-reform-in-england

RE Commission report (2018) Final Report. Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. A national plan for RE. Available at: https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Final-Report-of-the-Commission-on-RE.pdf

Woodhead, L. (2016) ‘The rise of ‘no religion’ in Britain: The emergence of a new cultural majority’. Journal of the British Academy. Volume 4, pp. 245-261, 8 December 2016.

Recommendation 1 says that we should change the name of the subject to “Religion and Worldviews”. This is a good thing as it makes things broader and includes the study of non-religious worldviews, which are increasing in the UK. Young people should be aware about these. It also opens up the awareness of diversity within beliefs. You can belong to the same religion as someone else but have a different worldview.

Recommendation 2 says Religion and Worldviews should be a statutory requirement for all publicly funded schools. Studying the subject is so important; it should be compulsory for all students.

I think the recommendations on RE are part of a journey. We cannot achieve many of them overnight and Recommendations 1 and 2 especially are likely to be further down the road. Take Recommendation 1. RE is called by various names in schools at the moment. Many schools do not teach non-religious worldviews at all. There is a growing understanding that this should happen and indeed that trying to plan the RE around units of study entirely of one religion is really difficult – a new way of looking at planning the RE curriculum is needed. Teachers will need to learn about how to do this, to understand what the term worldview means in this context and this will take time. Likewise, as time passes, people may begin to change the name of their departments to R&WV and we will start referring to RE in that way but this will not happen immediately.

This year I mark thirty years of teaching about religion. I hope various pupils and students have learnt something along the way. However, what I am certain about is that I have learnt far more than I have taught. The questions and comments of learners of all traditions and none around the planet have made me examine what I consider religion to be and to revel more in the complexities of connecting with the practices, stories and ideas people can hold most dear.

RE should reflect the messiness of the worldviews that people hold. I have yet to meet any adherent of any religion who agrees with everything their “leaders” (whatever that may mean) espouse, let alone what a text book describes. The current name of our subject is trite and makes it sound as if religion is something that can simply be learnt. It has also been devalued by its link to “Philosophy and Ethics” that almost succeeded in driving the study of religion out of the classroom and furthering the views of a very narrow manipulative chorale.

The proposed name change is a step forward. Religion as an idea is put centre stage and this is held in tension with the ambiguous and difficult idea of worldview. The inclusion of humanism as a positive, inclusive way of looking at the world is obviously right. Only religious bigots could object to this. What is much more interesting is how the unpacking of this name change could create interesting learning about how cultures and religions intertwine. Is homophobia, for example, central to a particular religious tradition, or to some cultural expressions of it? Can there be a pure form of a religion separated from its expression in a worldview? What is do we mean by words like “religion,” “culture” and “worldview.” The learning here could be vibrant.

Understanding the diverse complexity of religions and worldviews is important for us all – and this needs to be learnt. In the same way as young people need a comprehension of History and Geography so they do of Religion. It is a shame that humanities subject groups can not work together to promote this entitlement. An entitlement that needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians and zealots and into the hands of teachers and academics.

Much of recommendation 2 speaks sense and wisdom. It still wishes to promote respect – and I do not believe those who mutilate the genitalia of others, oppress women or keep people poor should be respected – but in engaging with critical enquiry we have an opportunity to develop the subject so that it is rigorous and intellectual. This is an opportunity. It is an opportunity, however, that is being opposed by some religious groups that already seem to have exerted their influence on their member, the Secretary of State. Even if we do not achieve this excellent name change we could gain a lot by thinking about why the religious power-brokers dislike it. If we reflect on that, and put our learning into practice this recommendation, unimplemented, could still revolutionise learning about religions.

Professional reflection on Recommendations 1 and 2 of the Commission on Religious Education’s final report

One of the most profound and important works in twentieth century philosophy was the magnum opus of the German hermeneutical philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer. He published Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik in 1960. What was striking about the main title (‘Truth and Method’) was that the word ‘and’ playfully suggested disjunction as much as it did conjunction. For Gadamer there is a disconnect – a tension – between conceptions of ‘method’ (which seem to make claims about truth) and the notion of ‘truth’ itself.

One of the most important documents – some might argue the most important – for twenty first century RE is the publication of the independent Commission on Religious Education’s final report. It drew on extensive research and submissions from a range of voices within the world of Religious Education.* Entitled Religion and Worldviews: the way forward, I see a parallel between the doubly conjunctive and disjunctive use of the Gadamer’s ‘und’ and the commissioners’ ‘and’. The tension within the religion/worldviews distinction, perhaps, revolves around the perceived ‘given-ness’ of religion and the ‘fluidity’ of worldviews; the “institutional” (p.6) narrowness of religion and the “complex, diverse and plural nature of worldviews” (p.7).

Whereas (I have argued elsewhere), the last few decades of RE discourse has focussed mainly on the subject’s pedagogic ‘how’, the CoRE’s final report attempts to delineate, to make sense of and to take educational ownership of the subject’s ‘what’. This seems to be the remit of carving out a ‘National Entitlement’. The commissioners make the forceful point that “[k]nowledge of religious and non-religious worldviews is an essential part of all young people’s entitlement to education.” (p.3) Furthermore, “[c]ore knowledge both of the content of religious and non-religious worldviews and the conceptual structure of how worldviews operate, unlocks knowledge and understanding of important aspects of our cultural and intellectual life.” (p.27) Did someone mention the ‘k’ word?

For those concerned about the intransitive nature of the subject’s pedagogy, this final report must indeed be welcome. Strikingly, the first eight of the points that “pupils must be taught” focus on the substantive (i.e. content) nature of the subject, reframing it within the horizon of the religion/worldviews tension. The ninth concerns what I call the subject’s disciplinarity, which, in terms of curriculum theory, sits structurally external to the substantive content. According to my understanding, the disciplinary dimension of any subject orders and structures that subject. It offers a pathway towards the content. It offers the grounds on which shared discourse takes place about the subject. Without it – or at least without an equivalent, agreed sense of the ‘rules of the game’ – discourse merely dissolves into hyper- individualistic opinion (confirming onlookers’ perceptions that the subject is not academic).

What should this tell us about ‘the way forward’? It is clear that the final report is keen to make sense of the varied landscape within which RE teachers and their pupils inhabit. It is clearly an Herculean task (for surely there are many parallels: slaying the Stymphalian birds of religious essentialism; struggling with the very nature of religion/belief/worldview – that has more heads than the Lernaean Hydra). Yet, for a number of important reasons, we must recognise that this is only part of the way forward.

For the National Entitlement is not a curriculum.

Why is this important to recognise? It is crucial that educational practitioners recognise this in order to protect their own intentions for the curriculum from all manner of possible distortions. Subject specialists in RE must continue to theorise the curriculum: what is the sequence of content that is required in order for pupils most effectively to grasp more complex ideas? What sort of disciplinary approaches are appropriate in order for pupils to make sense of the subject’s content? What might be the inter- relationship of the sequencing of content and the disciplinary approaches to study that content? Appendix 2 (pp.72-77) of the final report gives some general guidance, but this is qualitatively different from essential theorising of a Religion and Worldviews curriculum.

If it is the job of the RE teacher to enable pupils to grasp over time (and this is key – i.e. over the course of a curriculum) the nature, complexity and significance of worldviews, it may well be that one might begin by using binary language of ‘religion’ and ‘non-religion’ and build up to the more complex scene of worldview over time. For, unquestionably, novices learn differently from experts (and the complexity of language is the product of expertly consensus). This illustrates the provisionality and revisability of knowledge over the span of a curriculum. Other subjects do this too. Think of the way that a music teacher might begin by introducing pupils to the key of G major and teaching them the ‘truth’ that a key signature of one sharp, F♯, equates to G major. That ‘truth’ is provisional, and is certainly revised once the concept of relative minor keys are introduced, where that same key signature could now mean that the music is in E minor. In this sense, it is important that the curriculum designer (and indeed the teacher who enacts the curriculum) is released to exercise professional judgement about how to build a progression model towards such an ambitious end.

What can practitioners in RE do? Certainly as an active civic participant, the Commission on RE offers a clear political mechanism, with guidance, for supporting the vision. Beyond this, the ‘next step’ on ‘the way forward’ would be for Heads of RE, subject leaders and leading practitioners to begin to theorise and then, subsequently, to realise what such a curriculum might look like. In that way, the vision for Religion and Worldviews can be supported both from without and also within.

*I should note here that, sadly, my electronic submission of evidence was not acknowledged in the final report, since I corresponded directly with Rudi Lockhart and Jon Reynolds and not the official ‘evidence’ email address. In any case, diamond flaws are common; few diamonds are perfect!

This month’s blog represents a change from the ‘research of the month’ pattern. I’ve been invited to write about the Commission on RE’s first two recommendations – changing the name of RE to Religion and Worldviews and creating a statutory National Entitlement to the study of Religion and Worldviews for all publicly funded schools.[i] So why the photo of Padley Gorge, in the Peak District? Not, as you’ll see by the end, as a holiday snap, though I hope you like it.

Firstly, Religion and Worldviews, which, when the other recommendations in the set are considered, would obviously mean more than merely changing RE’s name. Some of the motivation appears to be to reflect the social reality of contemporary Britain, some to take away the ambiguity of ‘RE’. Non-religious worldviews are increasingly identified with, though not always on an organisational basis, so including these is a matter of accuracy and justice: religion continues to be the subject’s key focus, but it’s time to underline that it’s not about making people religious.[ii]

The changes are not just needed but overdue. In current research it tends to be how rather than if. I reflect on my career and ask whether it was fair to count pupils’ contributions to discussions as representing nonreligious worldviews whilst teaching about religious traditions was formally resourced and planned.[iii] Good teaching already includes individual worldviews by valuing pupil response, but we need more work on teaching non-religious worldviews at the organisational level. Once convincing case studies come in, those doubtful may be more convinced. I ask what pupils might say about such teaching, whether it might improve their motivation, whether it might help them to build knowledge and understanding of religion or improve their citizenship competences, all so far open questions.[iv]

I also ask about the framework for the study of non-religious worldviews and whether it can be common with that for religions,[v] as do the RE teachers whose views are reported in Judith Everington’s research.[vi] These teachers worry about lack of curriculum time and resources, but there is no sense that they are resistant to change: all 25 feel that non-religious worldviews should be included in RE, to build academic skills and social cohesion, and mainly to develop students’ own beliefs or spirituality.

The subject’s new identity should be viewed as an energising challenge. This brings me to recommendation 2, the statutory National Entitlement to the study of Religion and Worldviews. Would this mean a damaging increase to teacher workload? Not necessarily, provided other parts of the report are heeded, notably recommendation 3 and the setting-up of a national body to develop programmes of study.[vii] I would include an expectation that the national body provide guidance and resources aimed at ensuring that teachers are better supported than at present. Clearly this requires investment, as recognised in recommendation 7.[viii]

The Commission report is visionary and realistic. However, the Secretary of State’s ‘now is not the time’ response to the Commission report is neither visionary nor realistic, though we might hope for change in the next Parliament. Meanwhile, the problem with the status quo is that it isn’t one. It’s erosion, meaning further erosion. I don’t need to divert Padley Gorge, but if I did, I wouldn’t expect Padley Gorge to do it for me.

i Commission on Religious Education Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. London (Religious Education Council of England and Wales) 2018 p.11.
ii Ibid. pp.6-7.
iii Kevin O’Grady, Religious Education as a Dialogue with Difference: Fostering democratic citizenship through the study of religions in schools. New York and London (Routledge) 2019 e.g. pp.3-4, 159-60.
iv Ibid. 197.
v Ibid.197.
vi Judith Everington (2019) Including nonreligious worldviews in religious education: the views and experiences of English secondary school teachers, British Journal of Religious Education, 41:1, 14-26. This research is also summarised at https://researchforre.reonline.org.uk/research_report/nonreligious-wor…ers-perspectives/
vii Commission on Religious Education Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. London (Religious Education Council of England and Wales) 2018 p.14.
viii Commission on Religious Education Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. London (Religious Education Council of England and Wales) 2018 pp.15-16.

Religious Education has long suffered with an identity crisis but it is more important than ever that we utilise this vibrant subject to support students in understanding the world around them and becoming global citizens. In this blog I will commend the Religious Education Commission’s recommendation to change the name of Religious Education to Religion and Worldviews and their insistence that this subject should be a ‘National Entitlement’ for every student.

First I want to celebrate the commission’s recommendation to rebrand the subject. As the world has changed around us some teachers, parents and students have lamented that Religious Education has not adapted and renewed itself. As a result our subject has (falsely) been seen by some as irrelevant. Whether you agree with this or not it is undeniable that many schools have changed the name of the subject, often not including the word Religion, and others have abandoned teaching the subject all together.

The name of something goes to the root of its purpose and the purpose of Religious Education is something teachers and researchers feel the need to address again and again. This speaks of an insecurity at the core of Religious Education and its reason for existing in the curriculum. Until we have a clear purpose we will struggle with the day to day task of teaching students. Not to mention persuading schools not to cut our subject from their curriculum.

The Religious Education commission offers much needed clarity. It outlines a clear, unifying purpose based on a foundation of solid research. It also raises the status of Religious Education, now Religion and Worldviews, and places it firmly within a school’s curriculum. It persuades us of Religion and Worldviews’ undeniable importance to children and a school environment.

Next I want to address the Commission’s call that this should be a ‘National Entitlement’ for every student with full backing and funding from schools. For all kinds of reasons, good and bad, religion is in the headlines. Even those who do not read the news can appreciate that religion is one of the most important factors shaping our world. Simply put, if one fails to understand the world’s religious beliefs and practices, then one fails to understand the world.

If you think that statement is provocative, then look at the alternatives. Science can tell us what’s happening in the world and why. But it can’t explain people’s motives. Economics can tell us about the costs and benefits of our actions. But it won’t tell us why we still do them. History, literature, social theory can all open up a world of ideas. But they can’t tell us, today, what people actually believe in and what motivates them.
Changing the name of the subject to Religion and Worldviews best represents what we do in our classrooms. It sends a clear message to those teachers, parents and students who have puzzled over the purpose and relevance of our subject.

Regardless of what sort of school you work in ‘Religion and Worldviews’ explores the world as people find it; it is exciting, provocative, and vital. Only this subject shows us a world people live and die for, and the God and god’s people worship in their lives and deaths.

The Commission on RE (2018) report uses the title ‘Religion and Worldviews: the way forward’. In the media, in meetings I attended and on social media it was clear that for some there was an instant connection with this reimagining of RE as ‘religion and worldviews’ for others there was indifference and for others there was consternation.

I want to share with you why I think this reshaping of RE is right for this moment.

In a meeting recently, I was asked to give a simple definition, of the term ‘worldview’. I confess mine was probably the simplest in the room, but this is what I said:

‘How we make sense of the world and the impact this has on daily life.’

My point was that we all have a worldview.

My worldview is influenced by an institutional one, namely Christianity, but this itself is a complex and diverse worldview. My worldview is also influenced by my parents, my education, my interests, by values and passions. I know many other Christians and their worldview is not the same as mine. My worldview influences how I live my life, what I do with my life, how I spend my money, how I conduct myself as so on.

To catch hold of the vision of the Commission on RE is to grasp the fact that worldviews are fundamental to human life. This insight means that RE can only ever be inclusive, it can only ever be applicable to all pupils, it can only ever inform and challenge children and young people to consider their own and learn deeply about the worldviews of others.

The Commission on RE defines a worldview as,

‘….a person’s way of understanding, experiencing and responding to the world’. (p.26)

The report makes clear that religions are worldviews, as well as there being non-religious worldviews. This is important as it clarifies the position of religions within religious education alongside non-religious perspectives. It also shows why the title used is ‘religion (singular) and worldviews’. Religion as a category is to be studied alongside worldviews. This to me is also important. I remember a SACRE meeting many years ago where a number of religious community representatives said that they did not belong to a ‘religion’. They belonged to a faith, or belief system, a way of life or a philosophy of life. There was debate about the nature of the word ‘religion’ itself. These kinds of conversation are essential in the classroom today to help children and young people navigate the world in which they live.

Finally, when considering writing this blog I thought it would be interesting to hear the voice of primary teachers on this topic! How would they define a worldview? Here is a selection of responses from a recent meeting I hosted with RE Subject Leaders, used with the teachers’ permission:

‘What people believe and think, how they live their life, what values the person has and the impact on their community, home and how they live’ (Rebekah Moran)

‘An informed opinion that can be formed by few but impacts on many; may be linked to social/economic/political experience’; may attempt to offer an answer or solution to a needs/crisis /issue….’ (Chris Allen)

‘A belief or opinion held by people which influences human behaviour and contributes to culture, values or a belief system. It influences your own personal daily life and contributes to the choices and decision a person makes’ (Elizabeth Cooper)

‘The lens through which we see the world. This lens is intrinsically linked to our culture, heritage and place in history. It is influenced by the sum of the thoughts which have gone before. It is also influenced by more personal circumstances such as family, education and geographical location. It is a composition or construction through which we make sense of the world around us’ (Jay Lindner)

These comments show the institutional nature of worldviews as well as the personal, and their impact on the world. This is why religion and wordviews IS the way forward for RE

Dr Kathryn Wright (at the time of writing)
Independent RE Consultant, a co-opted member of the NATRE Executive and sits on the board of the RE Council of England and Wales

These days we’re gathering data on which Research for RE reports are read most and rated highest. At the time of writing, the top report is by David Lundie, entitled Does RE Work? It was read 86 times between July and November 2018, with an average rating of 5 stars.[i] After all, the question cuts to the quick. Many claims are made about what RE does for young people and society, but are they justified, and how do we know?

The research reported was a major study of RE in the UK that took place between 2007 and 2011. An hourglass model was used, where the ‘blizzard’ of policies, interests and pedagogical models at the ‘top’ was followed down to what happens in classrooms at the ‘middle’ and the wider impacts on pupils and society at the ‘bottom’. 24 schools were studied in detail.

The researchers found that there was confusion about the purpose of RE and that the subject tried to cover too many bases, ranging over knowledge and understanding of religion, citizenship, SMSCD, sex and relationships education, leading on charity activities and others. Exam demands were found to have huge power to drive but distort RE. Commenting in the How RE Teachers might make use of it section of the Research for RE report, David Lundie nevertheless draws out some positive advice for us. He writes about the need for a shared sense of meaning in the RE classroom, where there is an understanding not just of religious beliefs and practices but what they mean for members. The most successful teachers “demonstrated a ‘committed openness’, steering a course between dogmatic commitment and undifferentiated relativism”.

I thought further about the practice of this, referring to original sources for the Does RE Work? research.[ii] It seems that the best RE teachers seen neither insisted on answers to questions of truth nor acted as if any statement was true. They helped pupils to understand the roots of different views, in different religious or worldview commitments.[iii] The researchers recommended that teachers should help pupils to see how religious language relates to other signs, or aspects.[iv] This relates closely to the National Entitlement outlined in the CORE report, for example, criterion 1 (matters of central importance to the worldviews studied, how these can form coherent accounts for adherents . . . ) or criterion 6 (how worldviews may offer responses to fundamental questions of meaning and purpose raised by human experience, and the different roles that worldviews play in providing people with ways of making sense of their lives). Thus, though the research isn’t current, both its ratings and relevance are, which make it Research of the Month.[v] There is much more that is of interest in the Does RE Work? research and I would strongly encourage you too to track down the original sources. Why do RE teachers often find religion embarrassing? Why do text-books and exam boards have so much influence over us? How is RE perceived as different to other subjects? These are some of the important questions identified and addressed.

Finally, why does the question Does RE Work? make us sit up? Data from the Research for RE website can’t answer that question, but my hunch is that teachers and others are interested in evidence about not just whether RE works but how it could be made to work; one reader comments that he or she will use the research to plan and deliver lessons. We want to know much more about how the research reports are being used and would be particularly interested to receive your comments or emails on reports that you have found useful and how these have helped to shape your teaching.

i. David Lundie’s report of the Does RE Work? project can be found at Does Religious Education Work? An analysis of the aims, practices and models of effectiveness in RE in the UK

ii. See e.g. J.C. Conroy, D. Lundie, R.A. Davis, V. Baumfield, L.P. Barnes, T. Gallagher, K. Lowden, N. Bourque and K. J. Wenell, Does Religious Education Work? A Multi-disciplinary Investigation (London: Bloomsbury, 2013).

iii. Ibid. 126-9.

iv. Ibid. 225-6. I discuss the significance of Does RE Work? for RE teaching more fully in chapter 8 of Religious Education as a Dialogue with Difference: Fostering Democratic Citizenship Through the Study of Religions in Schools (New York and London: Routledge, forthcoming).

v. You can find an update to the research in David Lundie’s article, “Is RE still not working? Reflections on the Does RE Work? Project 5 years
on,” British Journal of Religious Education 40 (3) (2018), 348-356.