Viewing archives for

What tops your list of priorities for RE? Good initial teacher training or CPD? A review of the EBacc so that we have parity with subjects included there? Improved syllabus or curriculum arrangements? Successful inclusion of non-religious worldviews? Perhaps, a completely renewed vision for the subject.

You might remark that all are needed and included in the final report of the Commission on RE. I want to focus on a different finding of the report, that the subject must get better at reflecting the complex nature of religion in the 21st century.

So, for example, on page 6 we read that ‘the distinction between religious and non-religious worldviews is not as clear-cut as one might think’, that we need to move ‘towards a deeper understanding of the complex, diverse and plural nature of worldviews at both institutional and personal levels’, and to ‘ensure that pupils understand that there are different ways of adhering to a worldview – you may identify with more than one institutional worldview, or indeed none at all’.[1]

Recognising and addressing such complexity sounds . . . complex. But the commissioners have captured the growing sense that accounting for the key beliefs and practices of six world religions will no longer do, if it ever did. Research backs this up.

One source they cite is Linda Woodhead on the religiously unaffiliated in Britain.[2] She reports how whilst ‘no religion’ now exceeds ‘Christian’ as most people’s self-designation, they are not straightforwardly secular. They reject religious labels and secular ones (they are not hostile to religion). A small minority believe in God whilst most are agnostic. A quarter take part in a personal religious or spiritual practice, but none take part in communal ones or join groups. ‘Nones’ share a liberal value set with many ‘somes’.

Another piece of boundary-blurring is this month’s Research of the Month, a new typology of religion from the Pew Research Center in Washington DC.[3] Their 2017 survey sorts US adults into seven groups based on the religious or spiritual beliefs or practices they share, how actively they practice and the value they place on religion. The Pew Center researchers generate categories from the data such as Sunday Stalwarts (traditionalist and highly engaged), Diversely Devout (traditionalist but also believing in e.g. psychics or reincarnation) and Solidly Secular (holding no religious or ‘new age’ beliefs). The categories cut across traditional religious and non-religious lines, and whilst some data may be unsurprising (76% of the Solidly Secular have no religious affiliation), it raises questions that 17% of the same category identify as Christian. The category of Religion Resisters, or those who think that organised religion does more harm than good, is where non-Christian religious faiths contribute their highest overall percentage (11%); by contrast, they make up 6% of the Sunday Stalwart category. The researchers recognise the problem of applying Sunday to e.g. Jews or Muslims but point out that 90% of the group belong to Christian churches: the survey questions used ‘daily’ and ‘weekly’ language.

As for holding more than one worldview, we could turn to the work of Graham Harvey, who writes of Maori and Hawai’ians who blend traditional practices with those of Anglicanism, Baha’i or Catholicism, without any sense of transgression.[4] Another of the Commission report’s angles on religious or worldview complexity is related to the point that worldviews, including religious ones, may not be primarily about holding beliefs.[5] There is a need to include the lived experience of individuals and communities.[6] Harvey’s emphasis on lived relational religion leads him to some startling conclusions: if Christianity is unique in placing belief at its centre it is not a religion (he later re-addresses the point and suggests that Christians ‘do religion like other people’).[7] I hope to return to his ideas critically in future blogs.

For now, I conclude that only research can underpin accurate portrayals of religion in the world. These reflect constant change and can only be gained through rigorous, imaginative methodology. We should remember as well that RE also needs evidence about learners and learning.

Links to research reports

We have reports of the various research sources mentioned above on RE:ONLINE.

Linda Woodhead: British ‘nones’: what do they believe in and do?

Pew Research Center: From Sunday Stalwarts to Solidly Secular

Graham Harvey: Religion is everyday life, not belief

1. The Commission on Religious Education, Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE, online material available at https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/final-report-religion-and-worldviews-the-way-forward-a-national-plan-for-re/ accessed on September 10, 2018.

2. Linda Woodhead (2016), ‘The rise of “no religion” in Britain: The emergence of a new cultural majority’, Journal of the British Academy, 4: 245–261. Available for free download at
DOI 10.85871/jba/004.245

3. Pew Research Center, ‘The Religious Typology: A new way to categorize Americans by religion,’ online material available at http://www.pewforum.org/2018/08/29/the-religious-typology/ accessed on September 1, 2018.

4. Graham Harvey, Food, Sex and Strangers: Understanding Religion as Everyday Life, Durham (Acumen) 2013: 115-16.

5. The Commission on Religious Education, Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE, page 74.

6. The Commission on Religious Education, Final Report: Religion and Worldviews: the way forward. A national plan for RE, page 76.

7. Harvey, Food, Sex and Strangers: Understanding Religion as Everyday Life, chapter 3, chapter 11).

Our eagle moment

There’s this motivational story going the rounds. A farmer discovers a young wounded eagle, takes it into his farmyard and tends it until it’s well. But because the young eagle has lived among chickens, it thinks it is a chicken: it pecks, struts, cackles and flaps, but it doesn’t fly.

The story has two endings. In one, the eagle/chicken looks up, sees a real eagle hovering far above, and after many struggles, it flies away, heroically realising its true nature. In the other, it sees the eagle, but continues to believe it is just a chicken. It dies a chicken.

The inferences for our subject are obvious, aren’t they? Shall I go on? You can stop reading now if you’ve already spotted where I’m going with this.

The final report of the Commission on RE is our eagle moment.

But let’s take a step back.

The Commission on RE

It was created in 2016 by the RE Council with a remit to review the legal, educational and policy frameworks for RE. Chaired by the Very Revd Dr John Hall, Dean of Westminster and a former Chief Education Officer of the Church of England, the fourteen commissioners have worked for two years to generate proposals based on research and reflection. The rationale for this work, and the reasons why it was needed, lie in the RE Council’s 2013 Review of RE, which paved the way by recommending that the challenges around the current legal settlement should be further explored. In addition, plentiful evidence from Ofsted and independent research had pointed up the necessity of reform.

Titled ‘Religion and Worldviews: the way forward, a national plan for RE’, the report addresses RE in England with evidence, reasoned interpretation and proposals of historic significance. It can be read in full here: https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/final-report-religion-and-worldviews-the-way-forward-a-national-plan-for-re/

Three defining principles of change

The Foreword of the report calls for a national plan based on three components, which serve as defining principles for the recommendations. The principles are:

• A new vision for the subject, reflecting changes in patterns of belief in England since 1944, made concrete in the new name, with an educational rationale fitted to who we now are as a country.
• A pupil entitlement to high quality teaching and learning in all schools, underpinned by a statutory national entitlement statement. Within that, schools would have flexibility to meet the entitlement in their own ways, guided by their ethos and trust deed.
• A significant investment in two supports: training for teachers to implement the new vision, and a reformed structure at local authority level.

From these three principles come eleven recommendations (pp11ff), all aimed at the DfE

1. Name: RE should change its name to Religion and Worldviews.
2. National entitlement: there should be a national statement of entitlement (pp 12-13) which should in time become statutory for all publicly funded schools.
3. Programmes of study: a national body of professionals should approve a non-statutory programme of study for Religion and Worldviews.
4. Local syllabuses: the requirement on local authorities to create agreed syllabuses should be lifted.
5. Qualifications: the next round of reforms to GCSE and A level Religious Studies should be based on the national statement of entitlement.
6. Initial teacher education: all primary trainees should receive a minimum of 12 hours on Religion and Worldviews. Secondary bursaries should be equivalent to other humanities subjects. There should be DfE funding for a subject knowledge enhancement course.
7. Continuing professional development: funded for five years, CPD should enable teachers to teach the national entitlement.
8. SACREs: They should be replaced with new Local Advisory Networks for Religion and Worldviews, responsible for supporting implementation of the national entitlement.
9. School accountability: Ofsted and faith-based inspections (Section 48) should report on whether a school is meeting the national entitlement. There should also be a once-off impact review conducted by Ofsted.
10. Ebacc: DfE performance measures which encourage schools to squeeze RE or drop it altogether should be reconsidered.
11. Withdrawal: the right to withdraw should not be abolished, but the reforms above should make withdrawal less common. The DfE should issue guidance for Heads.

The report also includes a suggested timeline for implementation (pp69ff), supporting guidance on the national entitlement statement (pp72ff), and a list of all sources of evidence, individual and corporate (pp81ff).

Commentary

The eleven recommendations hang together. Roughly speaking, recommendations 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 call for policy change and resource allocation in the DfE, while recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 require a change in the law. Policy change and resource allocation, for example a minimum number of days for primary ITE, a ring-fenced budget for SACREs, school accountability to Ofsted, and even a national statement of entitlement, require Ministerial approval in the DfE without any legislative change. But a careful reading of the whole report, its reasoning and particularly its case for improved systems and structures (p7), shows that policy change and resource allocation will be dependent on legal change if they are to be effective in the short and long term. For example, if SACREs wanted ring-fenced funding without any reforms to their composition or remit, how likely is this to be acceptable to the wider RE community? Or how can Ofsted hold schools to account on a statement of entitlement that is not statutory?

What happens next?

We don’t know. The DfE is looking closely at the whole report, and understands the issues. We do know that we have an opportunity now, and we mustn’t blow it, because it won’t come round again. So here are a few tips on getting out of the farmyard ……

• Look at the big picture. Read and understand the three guiding principles of change in the Foreword.
• Don’t get stuck on the detail. Help colleagues to see the urgent case for change. It is huge win that for the first time our statutory position will be underpinned by a clear educational rationale. No longer are we there just because of historical accident but because we will have a clear educational justification. We should grasp this opportunity.
• Balance bad news with good. Yes it’s urgent – figures may suggest the subject has low status in the public imagination – but here we have a national plan designed to establish its credibility and integrity.
• Think a lot about the Statement of Entitlement. It is a relatively new way of supporting curriculum design in schools. Some people have argued that it ‘tries to fit in too much’ (that is usually a euphemism for ‘we don’t like secular world views’) and ‘dilutes academic rigour’ (translation: ‘less time for our religion’). People who see RE in terms of religion-by-religion planning now have an opportunity to think afresh. The SoE cuts the deck of cards differently: the study of religion and belief (no ‘s’) by recurring big ideas, illustrated by a range of world views.
• See the advantages for all stakeholders. For example, the new Local Advisory Networks, replacing SACREs, will be freed up with a different, more inclusive composition to work with ALL schools in the local area (faith/non-faith/academy etc). They will also have a wider remit to connect schools with local faith and belief communities.
• Stick together. None of this is going to happen if we strut and peck. We need a unified RE movement for change. Chicken or eagle?

Mark Chater is a former teacher, trainer, researcher and adviser on RE, and is now Director of Culham St Gabriel’s Trust. He writes here in a personal capacity.

I remember, from a young age, working on my times tables, whether it is was my mum going over them again and again with me, or those CDs that turned them into catchy songs. I definitely remember them being a key part of my early education. Quite quickly I became quite fluent and those numbers would roll off my tongue;

“3×3 is 9
4×3 is 12
4×4 is 16
4×5 is 20”

But every now and then someone would throw me a curve ball:

“Okay Sam, what’s 7×8?”
“Erm, 64, no wait! Erm, 42. No! No! 56!!”

I could sense their frustration that I had managed so well before and remembering this large body of knowledge in the correct order with correct answers, but then got completely thrown when just asked for one piece of knowledge. I knew the answers, but I didn’t really know them. Back then it just didn’t make sense to me. Since becoming a teacher I’ve often thought about this, but now I’m using my times tables knowledge to drive my reworking of our curriculum.

Now we have just seen our first cohort complete their exams after the new GCSE reforms (at the time of writing, we are a few days away from getting those results). Hopefully the way in which it was taught will bring plenty of success and showcase the brilliant young minds I had the pleasure of teaching over the past two years, but there are already things that I know I want to teach differently and the results of the exams will likely highlight other areas where changes can be made.

Now redesigning the curriculum is a pretty daunting task. On one hand we can stick with what we’ve got and know that it’ll get the job done. On the other, it’s an opportunity to be brave and to really think about what we want pupils to learn and to trial and test the best ways of achieving that. Whilst a complete overall of KS3 and KS4 is tempting, the burden on workload would be much too large (it is the summer holiday after all). However, in rethinking KS4, I’ll certainly be considering and giving some basic outline plans of how I would like KS3 to look in time.

To start with, I decided to ask myself a bunch of questions – from admin tasks, to my deepest fears:

• What do I want pupils to know by the end of KS3, KS4 & KS5?
• How is this going to fit with the locally agreed syllabus?
• How is it going to prepare pupils for what we will be looking at in GCSE?
• How will it prepare pupils for their GCSE exams, but avoid the subject being an exams-factory?
• How am I going to assess pupils?
• Do I try to cover more topics in the same time to give breadth, or do I cover less but give depth?
• How do I ensure that the lessons and teaching are research-informed, rather than just doing what we’ve always done?
• How do I make my life easier?
• How do I create something that is academically rigorous, but can still be taught by non-specialists?

Whilst there are a host of other things that I’ve been asking myself (and am continuing to do so…) these have been a good foundation. If I taught somewhere else, then my questions would likely vary, but if you need a new starting point, then I think these will help. It would have been helpful if I could have established some kind of hierarchy to these questions, but currently I see them as a mesh of interwoven ideas and objectives that cannot be easily untangled.

What do I want pupils to know by the end of KS3, KS4 & KS5?
But where to begin? Well I’m going to start by looking at where I want my students to end up. KS5. I would love it if every student I taught wanted to do it at A-Level, or even at university, or to have an education and interest that will last them for life. Therefore, I have to think about the knowledge and skills that I want pupils to have for the rest of their lives. Now, that’s a pretty big task. I feel that thinking about the skills and knowledge needed for KS5 will be a good starting point, given that the aims of RE is such a contested field that this will help to give some structure and guidance for my planning.

Whilst writing this it is the summer holidays, which means I’m also fairly time-poor when it comes to school work. This means I’m focusing only on KS4 (and in particular those students doing the GCSE exam) we are also in a position where from September we will have two-year groups starting the GCSE course, Year 9 as they start a 3-year GCSE and Year 10 on a traditional 2-year GCSE. So, whilst my focus is on them, I still want to create a bigger picture of how the whole of a ‘perfect’ Religious Education course would look for KS3, KS4 and KS5 and to map out the key knowledge and skills that I feel that pupils need to give them a robust curriculum that they deserve.

How is this going to fit with the locally agreed syllabus?
Rethinking the curriculum has allowed me to re-engage with the locally agreed syllabus, something which I’ve seen ignored many times in SoW that I’ve seen for other schools. There’s a lot of great stuff in there and means that (provided others have been following it) that there will be some real consistency going across all key stages and that will lead to some really powerful knowledge and will avoid the problem of the hands popping up saying that they’ve already learnt about it in primary (which reminds me, I need to write a blog about all the wonderful stuff that happens in primary RE that too often goes unnoticed by us in secondary who inherit pupils with good religious literacy but ignore the hard work that has gone in before).

How is it going to prepare pupils for what we will be looking at in GCSE?
Something that I really want to avoid is boiling down the GCSE specification into a GCSE-lite, sure it might boost some grades, but the process would be artificial and boring. Exam boards publish guidance on how many hours a GCSE should be studied on, I think it’s wrong to start prolonging that and doubling, or tripling, the amount of time that students spend studying the material. That’s what leads to a school becoming an exams factory.

I want students to be prepared, but I want that knowledge and skills acquisition to be a cumulative process as well as leading to them developing a strong religious literacy. At GCSE for example they have to have a knowledge of different denominations within a religion. I could start drilling it into them in Year 7 that there are different denominations, or I could start with understanding and recognising that there are different points of view, then that there are different denominations and then why there are different denominations. That would see me building on existing knowledge, but also giving pupils a much wider knowledge and understanding. It also allows them to apply that knowledge in different situations, allowing them to build links and overall a much greater understanding that stretches way beyond the syllabus of the subject.

How will it prepare pupils for their GCSE exams, but avoid the subject being an exams-factory?
One of my biggest fears is that an excessive focus on the exams and exam technique starts to take focus away from the amazing subject that I teach and reduces it to a grade on a piece of paper. Yes, I want my pupils to succeed and get the best grade that they can, but I also want them to get so much more from it, the ability to engage with and discuss new and different ideas, the ability to have a sense of wonder when thinking about the big ideas. How am I going to maintain that, whilst at the same time prepare them for exams?

How am I going to assess pupils?
This is one of the areas that I spent a long time scratching my head on. I want something that is specific and clear to pupils, with the clear steps of progression as they work through Key Stages, I also want something that allows for pupils to clearly see what they need to do to improve and therefore has consistency throughout the assessments. I also want something that reduces the work that I have to do (because if you’re anything like me, then you’ve got more work than hours in the day).

Now I’m a keen reader of Dawn Cox’s blog, luckily she has posted something recently (https://missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/21/constructing-a-coherent-key-stage-3-assessment-system/) which coincided with this dilemma that I’m having. I’ve lent heavily upon this in what I’m creating. I think that what Dawn has presented is incredibly clear to both the pupil and teacher (or parent) as to how a pupil is performing. In distilling it down to a series of key skills there is clarity and consistency across assessments as well as an easy way of monitoring how well a pupil is progressing and therefore what support they may need. I believe that it is also straight-forward enough that pupils would become quite fluent in using it themselves, not only to assess themselves and each other, but to be able to set themselves targets on what they need to do to improve.

Do I try to cover more topics in the same time to give breadth, or do I cover less but give depth?
Traditionally we’ve broken the year up into the six half terms and structured the SoW around those. I am less and less convinced that this makes any sense as very few topics that I teach neatly fit into that pattern and it would lead to stretching topics out or under-doing others. The potential benefit of this pattern perhaps lies in the clarity for pupils around when topics start or end – but even then, we all have classes where you have to carry topics over for one reason another. I’m sure there could be other reasons for this termly pattern (which I would love to hear), but in redesigning the curriculum it seems like the perfect opportunity to move away from this pattern if it makes sense to.

How do I ensure that the lessons and teaching are research-informed, rather than just doing what we’ve always done?
This can be tough, but at the same time incredibly rewarding and motivating. Since my PGCE I have thought that research-informed teaching was fundamental, and I was fortunate enough to benefit from the 3forRE scheme which gave me funding towards study for a Masters, which I have blogged about (https://www.reonline.org.uk/news/an-offer-you-cannot-refuse/). However, it isn’t always easy, quite often you get caught up in the process of doing what has worked before or being suckered in by something slick and fancy looking. Rethinking the curriculum is really giving me the opportunity to reflect and implement some key findings from my own research. The difficulty sometime can be trying to distil what the research says into what it really means and what implications it has for the classroom. There are some great books out there, but something even easier is RE:Online’s ResearchforRE website (https://researchforre.reonline.org.uk/) it is easy to navigate, with a wealth of information and knowledge on there. At the very least, it’s the beginning of your research-informed curriculum.

How do I make my life easier?
A question that sometimes feels redundant when you’re teaching, especially when those pinch points in the year appear. I believe that a SoW is only going to be good if you, as a teacher, are in a situation where you aren’t exhausted and can teach to the best of your ability. So how am I going to structure it so that once it’s up and running that it pretty much takes care of itself? For this I’m probably going to want to frontload the work – having all the lessons planned and ready before I start teaching them (though within limit – as I might want to adapt a few things as I go along) is an obvious idea, but one thing I normally find myself forgetting about is the assessments.

If I move the burden of marking those assessments from myself onto some technology (I’m a big fan of Plickers and QuickKey, but there are other great tools out there) then I can drastically reduce my workload and maximise the impact of the feedback that I’ll then be able to give to pupils. The great thing about these tools (and in particular something like Plickers is that you can receive real-time feedback on pupil performance and respond to their needs immediately. It then allows you to easily keep track of which material/questions you might want to refer to again in the future). This was an area that I focussed on during my Masters, and it has transformed my teaching and my work-life balance.

How do I create something that is academically rigorous, but can still be taught by non-specialists?
This is a really tricky one, I have a lot of trust in the non-specialists that teach what we currently do, but I know from my own experience that when I teach another subject I don’t have quite the same fluency with the material that I would with my own subject.

At the same time, I don’t want to reduce the rigour of the material being studied. I want a curriculum that means that it can do the best that it possibly can do whatever the circumstances, regardless of who is teaching. Now this is probably an unrealistic expectation. We know we can’t just produce scripts and then anyone can teach it. But I want something which means that whoever teaches it, can do to the best of their ability and at the same time with a clarity of information that pupils still get the best out of their learning.

So, what now?
At this point in the summer holidays, this can be a really tricky question. I’m seeing this is as the beginning of the journey (and it is likely to be a long one). There’s little chance I’ll get it right first time around and it’ll need adapting as I go along, but it is a process that has really lit a fire within me. I’m really excited about the potential to start again. There is something liberating (as well as terrifying) in starting afresh. It’s not to say that I’m not going to use material and topics that we’ve used before, but it’s about restructuring, adapting and making something that works, from top to bottom.

Right now, I don’t know how this will turn out and what the final ‘product’ will look like. What I do know though, is that it will be an exciting journey and an evolving process. I’ll keep you informed of my progress. To all teachers well done for the incredible work you’ve done this year, I hope your students performed brilliantly in their GCSE and A-Level exams and enjoy the rest of your summer holidays, you deserve them!

This month’s blog looks over two recent conferences, a research report and a research idea. There’s been plenty of debate (and some controversy) about whether non-religious world views such as Humanism should be included in the RE curriculum. I think the debate is largely settled in favour, given RE’s democratic, inclusive credentials and the need for young people to investigate difference, and I sense that the discussion is moving from whether to how.

It isn’t just a recent issue. Through the 1970s and 1980s, Ninian Smart pressed gently and genially for a redefinition of Religious Studies as World-View Analysis. He saw Marxism, for example, as comparable to religious traditions, in some ways, and thought that it might be profitably studied in the same framework as them. In RE, Linda Rudge wrote about the ‘I am Nothing’ generation as a silent majority whose generalised spirituality should not be ignored by the subject. The article first appeared in 1998 but is even more relevant now.

I don’t think Linda’s convinced by the vogue for ‘Nones’. The term has some unfortunate effects, not least sounding as if people are actually discussing nuns. There’s a problem with identifying those of no particular religious or world-view abode, though: there isn’t a category that works. As Neil McKain pointed out at the July 10 Humanists UK conference, atheist, secularist and humanist are neither synonymous nor necessarily opposed.

Moreover, if you look at Ben Clements’ research on whether religious belief has declined in the UK, you’ll quickly see how mixed the situation is. He covers the decades since 1981 and uses survey data to show that although belief in God has declined, belief in life after death hasn’t. Another finding is that women are significantly more likely than men to believe in God, life after death and heaven. The big evidence base, attention to detail and problematising of some too-neat assumptions make this my research of the month and I would recommend it to all readers. The Research for RE link is given at the end. I must add that I don’t see non-religious world-views as simply the removal of religion. It’s more that Ben Clements’ research may blur the line between religion and non-religion and affect the way it’s drawn across society.

Some of my questions at the June LTLRE Bath conference seemed to result in a bit of tension. However, I’m not trying to create obstacles. I want to understand what good practice looks like. I wonder about how to handle the complications, and whether to present non-religious world-views in the same way as we present religions, given that we need to represent them with integrity. I wonder how the term world-view fits in, too, since there are people who don’t see Science as one amongst several world-views.

I thought that the Humanists UK conference carried promise. Sophie Colligan is someone very capable of communicating the lived experience of Humanism at the personal level, with the added advantage that she can do so to younger children. At the organisational level, Humanists UK is, well, an organisation, formed in 1896 and with a tradition to draw on and stories to tell. There’s a profound ritual dimension, with celebrants conducting naming ceremonies, weddings and funerals (I’m hoping to provoke a response on whether ritual or celebration is the right word). The ‘happy human’ logo offers symbolism, and at the level of Humanist belief, there’s a clear connection to experience – that is, several speakers spoke of how beliefs should be formed through reflection on human experience, including mortality. Humanists UK have provided a range of lesson plans and resources for all key stages on their website (again, the link’s at the end).

I hope it’s clear by now that I’m far from categorising all those with non-religious world-views as humanists. Rather, as far as I can see, Humanism offers the best starting-point for research on good RE practice on non-religious world-views. I’ve seen the lesson plans and resources; next, I’d like there to be a kind of forum on what are the features of good teaching and learning about Humanism. This would be followed by some visits to schools for observation and documentation of good practice, for sharing with the profession. My research idea is posted at https://researchforre.reonline.org.uk/research_idea/good-teaching-and-learning-about-humanism-in-re/?show_me=&about=&taxes=; if you’d like to help get the research going or take part, the link to express interest is in the same post.

See Ben Clements’ research at Has religious belief declined in the UK? Which kinds of people are more likely to hold religious beliefs?

The Humanists UK website is at https://understandinghumanism.org.uk/

I haven’t been teaching for long, but during my PGCE I remember it being a time full of reflection, questioning and often self-doubt around what I was doing and whether I was actually making the impact that I thought that I was. During my NQT, as the pressure kicked in and I focused on the things that worked. Well, at least I think they worked. At the very least they worked well enough. But actually, I wasn’t interested in what worked ‘well enough’, I wanted to know what was working the best and I started yearning again for the academic vigour that had been a requisite of my PGCE course.

I knew of a few people who had completed a Masters in Education, but when I thought of myself in the same situation I had those imposter syndrome feelings, those people who could do a Masters at the same time as working full-time were superstars in my eyes and on top of that the cost of the courses seemed out of reach for someone new to the teaching profession. I resigned myself to the fact that it was a nice idea, but probably not for me.

Then one morning whilst checking my emails, something I always do just before checking the football transfer gossip (a habit I’m not entirely sure how I got into) and sat there in my inbox was an email (probably the last email I can distinctly remember receiving that didn’t have ‘GDPR’ in the subject line), it was from Culham St Gabriel’s Trust and it was advertising their 3forRE scheme. I had already benefited from their funding during my PGCE, without which I may never have been able to afford teacher training in the first place, and this time it seemed like an even more remarkable offer.

The scheme works with an agreement between Culham St Gabriel’s Trust, your school and yourself. The agreement means Culham St Gabriel’s and your school agree to part of the funding and you fund the remaining amount. Whilst there is an obvious financial benefit to this agreement, it also means that the school is invested and will directly benefit from the research that you are completing throughout your masters course. The process and procedure is incredibly straightforward. There is a selection of Universities that are associated and aware of the funding arrangement, so you still need to ensure that you have secured yourself a place on one of these courses to actually benefit from the funding.

I’d already completed my PGCE at the University of Oxford, knew the Masters course director from then and still lived ‘locally’ so it was the natural choice for me to apply for the MSc Learning and Teaching. The course is well structured around the professional commitments of a full-time working teacher. That’s not to say that other courses are not, I’ve just no personal experience of them and others that I have known who have completed Masters at other establishments have absolutely loved their course.

Now, the obvious question is why would I need a Masters just to reflect more on my teaching practice, couldn’t I just take the time myself and to critically reflect and engage with research in my own time? Well, yes. However, the reality is that sometimes we need a nudge or additional incentive to do so when our teaching loads are so high and the additional workload at times feeling insurmountable. Most importantly for me, however, was the ability to learn from and interact with experts on a range of educational issues and to receive high-quality supervision to ensure that I could engage with the research as effectively as possible. On top of that, the course gives you the ideal opportunities to share and reflect on the teaching practice and research of professionals in the same situation as you.

This isn’t to say that opportunities like this aren’t available to you outside of a course such as this, we’ve all worked with teachers who are well versed in the latest research and are keen to reflect upon and develop their own practice, but we also know teachers who will scoff at the idea that research bears any relevance to the realities of the classroom and therefore they won’t be taking part.

The course ran for two years part-time, the first year my research was focused on the perspectives of Hindu pupils in the teaching of Religious Studies, it fitted my school context well and allowed for real developments in the teaching of the subject, addressing concerns about misrepresentations within religions. My second-year piece represents the piece of work, to date, that I am most proud of ever completing. I tackled the under-researched role of EdTech in Religious Education (for those who are interested, my exact title being ‘The role of technology in the assessment of RE’ Find it on the ResearchforRE website at http://researchforre.reonline.org.uk/research_report/the-role-of-technology-in-the-assessment-of-re/).

The research was fun, rewarding and informative, the write-up was one of the most labour intensive things I have ever done and there are many people who I am thankful to during times at which I may have neglected them to focus on the work. My teaching practice and the implications for the school have been enormously beneficial, I have led CPD sessions, I’ve been asked to blog and speak at a range of events and asked to work on different research projects. Throughout I’ve met a range of fantastic people, from fellow course-mates, to academics and importantly the supervisors that I was given.

After all the hard work that went into this, the saddest part was submitting my dissertation, psychologically that felt like the end and I hadn’t been prepared for the change of intensive study to an email of recognition that my assignment had been received. The wait for the result was nerve-wracking, initially I was convinced that I’d have failed (the imposter syndrome sneaking back in), then I managed to acknowledge that this was a much better piece than my first assignment, so it must be a pass, surely…

On what I’m now certain was the first day that I’d not woken up with the MLT on my mind, I started my day like normal, breakfast, football gossip while I let the coffee brew, then the short cycle to work. At lunchtime I checked my phone, the battery was low, so I’d had to manually refresh the emails, I dragged down the screen and in my inbox appeared a few emails, one from a major high street sports retailer informing me of their latest sales, one from a major online retailer suggesting products that I might be interested in, the last from the Education department at the University, my result was ready.

A tense few moments as my phone struggled to download the attachment and I had to log back in to my computer, this time the attachment loads, I read it through once but cannot take it all in, so I have to go through a second and then a third time. This time it sinks in, I hadn’t failed, nor had I only just passed, I’d managed to get a distinction for my dissertation and I was speechless.

A few months later and I was getting ready for my graduation. When I’d graduated from my Undergraduate degree it had rained, really hard, the only pictures are taken in an overcrowded marquee. This time I managed to graduate in the snow (the man in the shop where I hired the gown claimed that it had been the first graduation in the snow in all the time that he had worked there in 30 years – I’m not sure if that’s true, but it is certainly the account that I’m going with). Graduating at Oxford is unlike anything I’ve done before in my life, it really is a special place (not one that I thought I’d ever be graduating from). It topped off an experience in my life that was brilliant in so many ways.

The point is that the Masters course was, professionally and intellectually speaking, the most rewarding thing I have ever done in my life and personally one of the most rewarding things (I have to play it safe there, some of my family and friends read these blogs). I cannot recommend doing a Masters enough, it will challenge and excite you in so many ways and the support from Culham St Gabriel’s (and the two schools I worked in during the course) through the 3forRE scheme was invaluable in helping me to achieve so much. It is a kind and supportive offer that I fully encourage you to take advantage of.

Sam McKavanagh teaches RE and Philosophy at a secondary school in Oxfordshire and regularly blogs on his website My Teaching Life (http://www.myteachinglife.co.uk). He’s passionate about teaching and keen to try out tech and new teaching ideas.

For more information on the 3forRE Master’s Funding see http://www.cstg.org.uk/how-we-help/3forre/

Religion is hard to understand. What does it mean to be a Buddhist, a Christian or a Muslim, living your life by your faith? Most of the time we have to ask pupils to answer the question from an outsider perspective, which increases the difficulty. Still, as teachers, there are tricks of the RE trade that we can use to help them.

One is to explain the spiritual ideals held by religious adherents and ask pupils to imagine problems that those people might face when putting the ideals into practice in today’s world. This gives a real-life aspect to the discussion, engages the imagination and brings out ethical issues that the pupils can also weigh up for themselves.

Research into lived religion gives us rich resources for this kind of pedagogy. My RE research of the month for July is a case in point. During 2011, the American religious studies scholar Daniel Capper spent sixty days in a Buddhist monastery in Mississippi, participating in its various activities and interviewing its monks. He uncovered complications faced by Buddhists when they tried to put very pure spiritual ideals into practice. You can read a report of Daniel Capper’s research, together with a link to the original article, at http://researchforre.reonline.org.uk/research_report/how-eco-friendly-is-buddhism-really/

The monastery in question was founded by the Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, who taught that every Buddhist practitioner should be a protector of the environment, because everything in the universe is interconnected, humans are equal partners in a larger system and no distinction should be made between inanimate and animate beings. The Buddhists in the monastery saw natural beings as enlightened and as spiritual teachers to people. They tried to consume little, their diet was vegan and they strove to avoid harming any living beings, even those normally regarded as pests. When they practiced walking meditation, this included an attitude of deep appreciation for the surrounding natural environment.

Yet Daniel Capper points out how there are various Buddhist beliefs which offer slightly different attitudes to nature and the place of human beings within it. In Thailand, trees have been symbolically ordained as monks; but still, Buddhists are taught that for purposes of attaining enlightenment, a human rebirth is the most favourable of all.

Do these differences underlie the compromises that were sometimes made in the monastery studied? For example: two stray dogs who were interfering with the contemplative atmosphere were eventually removed. The researcher himself was asked to do this, though it might be considered that for purposes of karma, asking somebody to do something is not very different from doing it yourself; in a compromised act such as this one, it may be worse. In another case, pesticides were used against red fire ants whose bites are very painful and can be fatal.

These acts can be seen as last resorts, but the Buddhists ultimately placed their own human comfort and safety higher than the intrinsic value of the dogs or ants. Sometimes their ecological lifestyle seemed to be motivated by their own spiritual wishes.

Nevertheless, Daniel Capper’s tone is far from judgemental. The issues are not simple. I would add that within the complexity lies the RE potential. The material challenges and assists pupils to understand and to engage critically.

In an outline teaching plan derived from it, they could first be asked to suggest possible practical difficulties in leading a life based on the principle that all living beings are equal. They could then be introduced to Daniel Capper’s ‘story’, perhaps also looking up the monastery online at http://magnoliagrovemonastery.org/ Finally, some general questions might be debated, also forming bases for extended writing where older or more able pupils are concerned. If you believe that all of life is equal and interconnected, can the use of pesticides be justified? If you believe that all of life is equal and interconnected, must you have a vegan diet? And in the final analysis, is it possible to live in a way that truly and completely reflects a belief that all of life is equal and interconnected?

Enjoy Daniel Capper’s research on the Research for RE site and please remember to leave your feedback there. If you happen to try out the teaching ideas suggested above, we would be delighted to hear about how these have gone and to include your reflections in future blogs, so do get in touch. We are also looking for nominations for future RE research of the month features, so if there is a research report which you have found particularly interesting or useful, email details to Kevin@cstg.org.uk

The question of demarcation appears in most academic disciplines, and indeed, many areas of human endeavour. By what criteria should we separate science from non-science, for example? This is one of the most enduring problems in the philosophy of science, not only because it represents a question of pressing import itself, but because it is also a question which brings into focus further problems in the philosophy of science, such as how scientific knowledge is rightfully achieved, and to what extent that kind of knowledge may represent reality. Two of my favourite questions of demarcation are what should constitute an Olympic sport, and perhaps more controversial, what is the difference between a cake and a pie? Synchronised swimming seems to me to lack many of things required of a sport, whereas tug-of-war, now discontinued, would perhaps better epitomize the Olympian ideal than sailing. Cheesecake, on the other hand, is most definitely a category mistake.

The question of demarcation between the religious and the secular is another perplexing distinction. This is of continued importance to religious education, always there but perhaps raised most obviously by the wit at the back of the class that always proclaims Jedi as his or her religion.

Sociologically, many things take on characteristics of what we would commonly identify as religion. Sport provides opportunities for public ritual, identity, loyalty, and the enhanced emotional mental states of participants and audiences (just observe people watching the World Cup over the next few days). Indeed, the Olympics of classical Greece was religious in a fuller sense than the modern movement, held in honour of the god Zeus in the temple complex of Olympia. When trying extrapolate the necessary features of all religions, scholars have often found that their criteria admit what some may consider as obviously secular, like soviet communism, for example.

Is stadium rock religious or secular? When you consider the background culture from which it emerged, the beliefs of its innovators and the behaviour of its initiates, you could reasonably say it is more the former than the latter. What else would explain such a weird phenomenon? This example brings to the fore another important factor affecting demarcation: that the secular and the religious are relative concepts. By that I mean what you think is one is defined by what you think is the other. For some the idea of stadium rock being religious is ridiculous, for ‘religious’ is neatly defined as commitment to holy orders. (On this definition, a Catholic parish priest is secular in that he does not belong to a religious order, i.e. he is not a monk or friar). However, for the committed atheist, Bono is religious on the account he professes, on occasion, some kind of identification with Christianity. Added to this complexity is that in culture lurk everywhere things that have some oblique connection to religion. Recently, on a budget airline – the most austere and cultureless place I thought I could find – I tested this theory. Looking around me I looked for some traces of religion in the lurid colours, advertising and basic service. At first I thought any implicit religion had been vanquished in favour of ever-decreasing prices. But no, the mineral water was named after a Christian saint and one of the airline’s official charities had religious origins. Finally, as we took an unusually precipitous bump down onto the tarmac, I saw someone sighing, putting their hands together, and looking heavenwards in thanks.

Trying to separate religion from non-religion is a valuable exercise in trying to understand religion, even if we accept there may be fuzzy boundaries. (Just as learning what makes cake, cake and pies, pies may help you to be a better baker). Demarcation is also a useful heuristic to use to understand individual religious movements. What makes Christianity, Christian? Are Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Quakers, Christians? Asking this question brings us to the other concept I wish to introduce and scrutinize in this blog: authority.

Authority and demarcation are always linked. Someone somewhere decides if darts are an Olympic sport, or if pizza is a kind of bread (quite important to VAT calculations and medal counts alike). ‘Religion’, as a word derived from Latin – rooted in classical Roman religion, and then Western Christianity – tends to pick out things that are comparable to Christianity as defined by that tradition. That is, religions should pertain to God, have doctrines, systems of ethics, sacred places, defined commitments, hierarchies and rituals. These assumptions led to many errors in the understanding of non-Christian cultures, such as the mistakes made by the British colonials in the censuses of occupied India. Administrators presumed the population would identify with one or other religion, just like the denominational sectarianism of Europe. In actual fact, many ‘Hindus’ and ‘Muslims’ were devoted, or connected, to both traditions. Shrines were holy because they were holy, not because they belonged to anyone in particular.

When it comes to problems of demarcation, an authority sets the criteria of admission and exclusion. This makes it possible to get things done. Should a chocolate biscuit be a food stuff exempt from VAT, or sweet confectionary? The government makes the call. Likewise, in religious affairs, some authority makes a working definition. For example, the Evangelical Alliance, which brings together thousands of evangelical churches under one umbrella, has various stipulations about what Christianity is (that it is Trinitarian in nature, for instance). Such rules make religious communities and organisations possible. Non-Trinitarian Christian movements, such as those previously mentioned, equally centre around their own self-definitions.

But what authority decides the demarcation of religion and religions in the religious education classroom? This has implications for what is considered a legitimate religion for study. Presumably when the legislation for RE was created, this was to be a coalition of accepted (or ‘acceptable’) religions, with a bias towards the Established Church. But RE has evolved much since then in many ways, not least in the diminishing authority of Standing Advisory Committees for Religious Education (SACREs) in determining syllabuses. In addition to this, British society has changed since the 1944 Act, and indeed, since the 1988 Act too, with an exponentially increasing diversity of religious positions and practices. (Of course, you may say that Yoga, for example, is not a religious practice in any sense, but like cheesecake, things are not always as they seem).

Teachers are therefore often the arbiters of the demarcation problem in RE. And this is why I think the challenges of demarcation and authority should be left open. By this I mean the questions of ‘what is religion?’ and ‘who decides?’ should be posed to students, and a variety of reasonable answers considered. My reason for this position is not that, because the dividing line on the continuum between the religious and secular is relative to each concept, we should therefore let students decide for themselves. Rather, my argument is that because demarcation criteria are set by religious authorities we should let those authorities speak for themselves. On whose authority does the RE teacher decide what is religion, and what is not? Instead of working on our own definitions – as many religious educators have done and continue to do – we can do ourselves a favour and point students to sources of authority that went before us, and will continue long after our retirements. The study of various sources and forms of authority, and the categories of belonging they demarcate, comprise one essential aspect of the study of religion (so self-defined).

Whilst I’m not a total advocate of philosophical approaches to RE, their benefits are undeniable. The subject can’t do without a critical layer. Though religious beliefs and practices shouldn’t be conflated with philosophical ideas – the nature of religious beliefs and practices can, often, be very different from that of the rationally worked-through principles found in philosophy – in approaching what we might call the formal claims on truth made by different religious traditions, some engagement with the philosophy of religion seems necessary.

I enjoyed philosophy of religion as a university student and even more as a teacher. Questions about the existence or qualities of God, religious experience, miracles or the problem of evil appear to engage and stretch the minds of upper secondary age students in powerful ways. I guess this explains the phenomenal recent success story of Religious Studies A level. In 2017, 23,856 entries were recorded, compared to 11,132 in 2003. This is an increase of 114%, greater than for any arts, humanities or social science subject. 23.3% of entries for Religious Studies A level were awarded an A or an A*. [1]

Many of you will be busy preparing to teach Religious Studies A level lessons and, given the curiosity and appetite of your students, looking for enhancement material beyond that provided by the standard textbooks. Well, the Research for RE website contains a very varied set of materials, relevant in different ways to different aspects of RE, including research that can be applied directly to Religious Studies A level teaching. The definition of research adopted for the website is broad, including the kind of scholarly or philosophical activity highlighted in this blog post. This month I’m featuring research by the philosopher Patrick Todd. [2]

The new generation of Religious Studies A level specifications continue to include philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. Research for RE reports an article in which Patrick Todd demonstrates how God can’t have qualities which are impossible to have. [3] This point affects arguments against the existence of God in important ways. Let me elaborate. An argument against theism could be that God is supposed to possess a certain quality, such as omniscience; but that having the relevant quality is impossible (no being knows everything: it would include knowing that you knew everything, but this knowledge would be based on your knowing everything, and something cannot be based on itself). Therefore God does not exist. But Patrick Todd sees such arguments as ineffective. If having a given quality is impossible, and God is the greatest possible being, God need not have that quality.

There are better ways of arguing for atheism, continues Patrick Todd. You could argue that God would have to have a quality (e.g. perfect goodness) in order to be God; then prove that its possession is impossible. Or that an existent God would have to have a certain quality, and prove this to be inconsistent with the facts of the world. Evil, for instance, is a fact of the world, incompatible with a good, all-knowing, all-powerful God. Patrick Todd introduces some interesting vocabulary. An ‘OmniGod’ possesses all ideal qualities. A ‘MaximalGod’ possesses only those ideal qualities that are possible. Nevertheless, a ‘MaximalGod’ is no solution to the problem of evil: the existence of the greatest possible being is still brought into question by the existence of evil.

You could give your A level students a bit of an edge by getting them to register on Research for RE, read the report of Patrick Todd’s research and perhaps consult the original article. A print-out of the Research for RE report gives you an excellent lesson plan and resource, moreover. In its ‘How RE teachers might make use of it’ section, we are advising that teachers of A level Religious Studies could use the material directly with students, when teaching about the nature of God, or arguments for and against the nature of God. The students could, for example, evaluate the ‘OmniGod’ / ‘MaximalGod’ distinction. Is ‘MaximalGod’ an adequate concept of God? How far is it compatible with other important beliefs such as creatio ex nihilo or miracles? Is Patrick Todd correct to argue that ‘MaximalGod’ is no solution to the problem of evil? In these ways, the students would deepen their understanding of the issues, extend their subject specialist language and be challenged to be critical.

We would be very interested indeed to hear about how it goes. You are encouraged, of course, to leave feedback on Patrick Todd’s research on the Research for RE website. Additionally, if you leave comments below, or email them to Kevin@cstg.org.uk , we will follow them up; we hope in future to publish case studies of how Research for RE reports are being used by teachers or other RE professionals. Finally, if you have found a Research for RE report to be particularly interesting or useful, you may wish to nominate it to be featured as RE Research of the Month – again, don’t hesitate to get in touch.

1 https://www.religiouseducationcouncil.org.uk/news/a-level-religious-studies-entries-remain-high/

2 You can meet Patrick Todd virtually at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmi5d4tibXY

3 Read the report at God can’t have qualities which are impossible to have  (you can also find a link to the original article there).

This short piece was given during the Association of University Lecturers in Religion and Education (AULRE) annual conference on Friday 11 May 2018, in a panel discussion on Barbara Wintersgill’s report on Big Ideas.

What is the opposite of a big idea in RE? It is always useful to ask this question for verifiability. There may be two possible answers: a curriculum design opposite, and a learning opposite.

In curriculum design terms, the opposite of a big idea is the inchoate mass of segmented information and experiential wanderings that constitutes many RE syllabuses, lacking any outline shape, any skeletal frame that could bring coherence and the tension that leads to progress. Barbara’s report speaks of big ideas pointing to the core or central concerns of the subject, as criteria for selecting and prioritising subject knowledge, as ‘constants’, cutting across subject knowledge.

In learning terms, the opposite of a big idea may be ‘pupils not getting it’ repeatedly – a series of misconceptions – failed pieces of basic understanding that never get fixed, no matter how much RE is taught. Barbara’s paper speaks of big ideas helping pupils to make sense of information and experiences; they provide lenses; they are memorable. Today I’d like to explore those misconceptions, and suggest how they could be put to good use as the shadow side of big ideas.

In RE we have too often been blind to the self-evident truth that pupils can make common mistakes recurrently, and that the mistakes are quite easy to fix. There are several factors behind this blindness: it is ideologically determined by multiculturalist pressure to prioritise respect for identities, and by child-centred pressure to make the child, not the belief system, the central subject. The blindness is also structurally driven by multiple religious stakeholdership in the system we call local determination. These factors have proved to be enemies of promise in RE: they are part of the reason why the quest to raise standards in RE must include some structural changes, as well as more CPD.

Recurrent pupil mistakes are straightforward to fix, if the above factors are addressed or neutralised. But if the misconceptions are not fixed – if, out of a well-intentioned desire to be inclusive of all points of view, the mistakes remain unchallenged – or if, out of haste in a desire to cover a breadth of religions and beliefs, there is no time set aside for challenging mistakes – then those errors will impede progress and set learners adrift from the constant disciplined accompaniment of the six big ideas. Those unchallenged misconceptions will blight learning. They will sit there like a rusting tractor in a farmyard, neither beautiful nor useful.

So let us explore the big ideas themselves as design principles, and match them to our own experience of mistakes in teaching and learning, to see what the common misconceptions might be.

Here I shall take each of the six big ideas, and turn it on its head to identify a common misconception in RE.

1. Continuity, change and diversity: There is an amazing variety of religions, non-religious worldviews and ways of life in the world, each being characterised by continuity and change, and internal consistency and diversity.
Misconception: Religions and worldviews are all the same at heart. The outward doctrinal differences and ritual variations are unimportant: at their core, all religions and worldviews are one.

2. Words and beyond: People use both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication, literal and figurative, to express beliefs, values, experiences and identities.
Misconception: Myth and ritual were created by people who knew less than we do. We live in a more rational age.

3. A good life: There are many ways in which religious and non-religious worldviews provide guidance on how to be a good person and live a good life.
Misconception: Sacred texts are magical books that show us how to live.

4. Making sense of life’s experiences: Religions and worldviews are about experience as much as belief, and they can help individuals interpret their experiences.
Misconception: Religions and worldviews are all about their beliefs and should be studied propositionally and cognitively.

5. Influence, community, culture and power: Religious and non-religious worldviews interact with the wider communities and cultures, affecting and affected by politics, artistic and cultural life, social values and traditional rituals, sometimes having considerable power and influence beyond their own adherents.
Misconception: Religion and belief is a private matter. I am entitled to have my views respected, whatever they are. There is no such thing as a wrong answer in RE.

6. The big picture: Religious and non-religious worldviews provide coherent overall accounts, or ‘grand narratives’, of the nature of reality – life, the universe and everything.
Misconception: In RE, it’s all about relevance. If I don’t believe something, it’s not worth studying.

Imagine if the big ideas, and their shadow side, the common misconceptions, were as sharply profiled as much content is. Imagine how that could transform curriculum design, teaching and learning. Imagine an RE classroom where the teacher has put up bunting across the room, showing ‘big ideas in RE’ on one side, and ‘common misconceptions in RE’ on the other. Imagine the pupils seeing those every day as a reference point.

As an undergraduate of Study of Religions at Bath Spa University I engaged in dialogue with people and experienced ‘participant observation’ across a wide range of traditions. These experiences offered a level of insight into the lived reality of religions that reading articles and books could not. The children I teach also enjoy and benefit from meeting and engaging with faith visitors and going on trips to places of worship, but I was to discover that such practice was exceptional.

National RE experts and SIAMS inspectors I spoke to suggested that maybe only 5% of schools had a programme for trips and visitors beyond visiting the local church. This was supported by surveys of teachers and responses from subject leaders at training events and on social media -and these teachers were probably more dedicated to RE than most. Issues cited with running trips included: costs; excessive workload; dull, didactic presentations; a lack of response from places of worship and, for others, a paucity of diverse religious communities in their locale. Of those who did make the effort to broaden the experiences of their pupils, visits to synagogues were the most common and those that were used tended to be very busy. Visits to mosques followed closely but these could be marred by a few pupils being withdrawn by their parents.

What are the experiences of people who host encounters with schools?

I surveyed twenty-nine local faith reps via online questionnaire, in person or by telephone. Over 75% of all of those surveyed reported that they would like to do more work with schools, none felt over-subscribed. However, only 17% of the respondents were aware of the locally agreed syllabus and those who were very familiar were usually members of SACREs. About 30% liaised in detail with teachers about content before the visit and 70% would have liked to have more support with their outreach work. Discussions with faith reps in other areas of the country showed a similar pattern. More experienced faith reps often insisted on the children having studied the basics of their faith before an encounter in order to make the most of the experience. Sometimes the local syllabus could affect visits, especially if the faith was only covered in Key Stage 1.

What is happening during encounters with people of faith?

I observed eighteen encounters between pupils and faith reps, about half in places of worship with other schools and the rest with classes from my own school. In observations I was looking for interest levels and involvement of pupils; relevance in terms of their academic needs as well as their ability to engage with others to aid the development of a functional religious literacy ‘preparing students for the practical task of engagement with the rich variety of religion and belief encounters in everyday, ordinary life’ (Dinham and Shaw, 2017).

Where there were activities to engage children (even if just demonstrations) the visits were more successful. Didactic presentations failed to engage the children and, on occasions, had far too much coverage. Too frequently opportunities to share the realities of living the faith were missed. There were notable differences when pupils had been primed with the basics of the faith in preparation for the visit. Children were able to build on their learning in class and often able to ask high quality questions. Discussions featured in the most productive encounters, both in terms of engagement and impact. This allowed opportunities to develop a greater sense of empathy for the way their faith affected their lives. This was notable when, during a mosque visit, the host sat on the floor with the children and discussed his experiences, not just of practicing his faith, but also the impact of Islamophobia and accounts of how his faith moved him and affected his life. A similarly high quality experience was enjoyed by pupils at a Buddhist centre when the host was able to discuss their personal experiences of becoming a Buddhist and how their family reacted. The experience of stilling was one which some pupils reported had a significant positive effect on them.

Clearly there is a need for greater liaison between teachers and faith reps prior to the visit as well as honest, constructive feedback from teachers to help develop practice. -But how else could the use of trips and visitors be made more engaging and experiential?

Case study 1: ‘Participant observation’ as a research methodology for pupils?

Few of the pupils in our rural CEVC primary school have meaningful contact with people of faith outside of their RE lessons. Very few attend a church or other place of worship, even infrequently, and the majority are agnostic or atheist. This makes it difficult for them to gain an understanding of the nature of worship or the profound effect that faith can have on a devout person. Despite that many of them still join in with Collective Worship and prayers.

A special church visit was arranged for two classes, Year 4 studying Easter and Year 5 learning about the importance of the Bible to Christians. The vicar and ten parishioners kindly agreed to hold a ‘mini service’ for them in place of their regular Collective Worship. The children were prepared by watching and discussing a video clip of an Anglican service, they recorded questions for the congregation.

Case study 2: Diversity in Christianity

The following term Year 4 were conducting a local study. Guests were invited from four different denominations in our community. In preparation I visited them and observed worship and discussed their faith and practice(s) with them. I was clear about the aspects of their faith that I wanted them to focus on. I also took pictures of their places of worship. The faith reps they encountered were four ‘Quakers’, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Salvationist and three Charismatic Christians. Pupils had a worksheet for notes with sections about the place of worship; style of worship; core beliefs, and faith in action as well as room for any other issues of interest.

The essentials of four denominations, their practices and lived experiences had been conveyed effectively to the children. In assessments they showed understanding of the similarities and differences between the denominations and even the relationships between them. Issues such as pacifism, Biblical literalism, faith in action and even glossolalia were within the understanding of the children (a demonstration was a highlight of that particular encounter).

The children completed questionnaires after the last visit to give feedback on which visitors had expressed the lived experience of their faith the most effectively and why, it also asked them about whether and how their understanding of Christianity had changed because of the experiences.

The children’s experience of meeting with the four ‘Quakers’ was notable in that it was very conversational. Children preferred this way of meeting and getting to know people; it was also very clear that four people from the same denomination had different answers to the same questions. The experiential nature of worship was put across very well by the Charismatics. For the children this understanding that faith was diverse within denominations as well as between them was a revelation. Their understanding of the lived reality of religious people had increased dramatically.

The experience raised important questions such as ‘who are the real Christians?’ and ‘what does being a Christian actually mean?’ Clearly these are issues that could be deliberated upon by somebody at any age, not just 9 year olds.

Sharing practice:

Apart from seminars and conferences I was invited to discuss my research on Beyond Belief. I have supported visitors and hosts to help them develop their practice; they help support teacher training sessions that I run as part of LTLRE. South Gloucestershire SACRE offers a ‘WIRE Award’ (Widening Inclusion in Religious Education) offering grants to support schools with the cost of trips to places of worship. I maintain a sizeable database of trips and visitors for teachers in the Bristol / South Glos area to support this.

The full report is available by request from The Farmington Institute