Viewing archives for

A Reminder of the Problem

Earlier this year I wrote a blog titled ‘Why GCSE RE Fails Pupils.’ It illustrated how poor content and perverse assessment in popular GCSE RE courses, neglect and distort religion, and argued that the number of routes available to achieve a GCSE in RE has encouraged a race to the bottom and rendered the notion of it as a qualification meaningless. Yet, whilst the current GCSE situation may be indefensible, it is not without its perks for some. It is therefore, no surprise, that as proposals for a future, more rigorous GCSE emerge, previously masked fears and vulnerabilities are surfacing.

A Head of RE once recounted to me how at the start of year INSET, her headteacher had given her a bottle of wine and praised her. The reason for this was that both she personally and also her RE department, had achieved the best GCSE residuals in the school. Requests to observe her soon poured in from other teachers asking ‘how do you get such great results in an hour a week?’ ‘How do you get the children so engaged in your subject?’ After weeks of dodging observation requests, and pretending that she possessed some sort of magic beans, she decided to come clean. Whenever a colleague asked if they could observe her GCSE lessons, she gave them an exam paper and mark scheme and told them that if they still wanted to watch her after reading it, they would be welcome. No one came. Whilst admirably, this teacher was honest, others have ridden the wave of dumbed down courses, in order to enhance their reputation and responsibilities, and even to elevate themselves into senior leadership roles. These are the Deputy Heads, who wink at the RE teachers on GCSE results day, insiders on the secret, the great charade.

Courses which are ‘accessible’ (by which I mean easy) and ‘relevant’ (by which I mean don’t have much to do with religion) have masked a multitude of sins. Entry numbers have remained healthy, but pupils have remained religiously illiterate. Pupils have achieved A*s, but no real knowledge of religion. Artificially high results have refuted the argument that RE needs more curriculum time. Pick ‘n’ mix scripture and social studies have created the very caricatures of religion that RE should confront. School leavers have been left unable to navigate a world permeated by religion and belief. We should not mourn their passing; these courses have done us no real favours.

Where are we now?

Though not without fault, the criteria’s desire for more rigour and a serious study of two religions, is an improvement and it provides a better platform for further study. However, my concerns are twofold.

Firstly, in the response to the criteria there is a familiar negative discourse that the study of religion is boring. This only ever undermines RE, and there is a risk that it could both compromise the final criteria and negatively influence subsequent decisions of exam boards. However, I fear there are points at which the criteria give ammunition to this rhetoric, by failing to go deep enough below the surface of the nuts and bolts of religions.

Secondly, the failure to integrate Textual Studies and also Philosophy and Ethics into the study of religion means that not enough has been done to prevent Exam Boards from constructing courses that are incoherent, unchallenging and crude caricatures of RE.

1. A Discomforting Discourse: Religion is Boring

Years of dumbed down courses have contributed to a view amongst many RE teachers that the study of religion is boring for pupils, and that RE should focus on contemporary issues. On social media, some people have lamented the dry, dour focus of the new criteria and the lack of ‘sexy RE.’ Though I am not overly familiar with the notion of ‘sexy RE,’ from what I can work out it doesn’t involve learning much about religion. Perhaps it is a phrase that Ofsted encountered, when Subject Leaders repeatedly explained to them that they had “moved to study social and ethical issues because they could not see a way of making the direct study of religion challenging and engaging.”

The study of religion has great value. This controversial and ever changing force has, and continues to direct our human story. Barbaric at times, beautiful at others, but never boring; it is our failure of imagination that is so. Religion is not some subculture, in need of replacing by philosophy, it remains a driving force for the vast majority of the human population.

When I hear RE teachers complaining about the focus on religion in the criteria, I wonder what it is they were expecting to teach when they became an RE teacher. It is like complaining there is too much chocolate in one’s chocolate bar. It is not the study of religion that will bore pupils and turn them off the subject; it is a teacher who thinks religion is boring. My experience is that pupils greatly enjoy discussing abortion and animal testing. They also enjoy discussing x-box and football, but as I have written here, enjoyment is not the purpose of education. Our responsibility is not to pander to limited, parochial interests of pupils but to take pupils beyond them, widening their horizons through access to a richer world of ideas.

Contemporary issues may be provocative, but if they are not related to religion, then they aren’t ours to touch. ‘Sexy’ they may be, but RE they are not. RE should not be a ragbag of the waifs and strays of the curriculum unable to find a home elsewhere. Our survival requires distinctive disciplinary integrity. RE will not die out because it focuses on religion, it will cease to be RE if it does not.

An Alternative Discourse

As has said, what we should be asking is whether the content and structure of the criteria captures the fascinating nature and restless energy of religion and religions enough. Basic facts are vital building blocks of coherent understanding, but does the criteria scratch deeply enough beneath the surface of religions to more challenging concepts and tensions? Does it explore how these have played out both in history and in our present world? Does the content encourage exam boards to create courses that strike at the real heart and meaning of religions, addressing their inherently provocative ideas, concepts and challenges? Is the chocolate in the chocolate bar chocolatey enough?

2. Interdisciplinary Tension and Unclear Identity

The relationship at GCSE RE between Religion and Philosophy and Ethics (P+E) needs clear definition. This interdisciplinary tension has not been confronted adequately by the new criteria. It has dislocated the study of religion from Textual Studies and P+E, by designating them as separate sections, and suggested that “Awarding Organisations can develop, combine or cross reference the required content in any way appropriate to the specification.” I fear that this is where problems will arise.

There is an acknowledgement of the concerns of subject experts, Ofsted and Ofqual over the nature of Philosophy and Ethics in current GCSEs, but the criteria reduces the concerns to a problem of too much ‘personal response’ in place of ‘religious teachings.’ Whilst this is part of it, the problem is much bigger as I have illustrated here. What we call ‘Philosophy and Ethics’ in GCSE is predominantly social studies with tenuously linked religious references bolted on. In its distortion and misrepresentation of religion, it is bad theology. It certainly does not constitute philosophy, and it is academically undemanding.

Despite acknowledging concerns over P+E, the criteria fail to confront the deeper issue, in fact it simply describes it. It states that pupil responses to contemporary issues should be ‘grounded in religion’ with ‘scope for the study of critiques of religion and of non-religious beliefs’ and also ‘include a study of different philosophical and ethical arguments and their impact and influence in the modern world.’ This is an overloaded, conflicting and incoherent pseudo-academic discipline. If P+E is going to be academically demanding then it needs to be, either real Philosophy, or be an integral part of the study of religion, which emerges from it.

If P+E is Philosophy, then it is a separate subject that involves the study of philosophers, uncompromised by having to crassly name-check religious and non-religious worldviews. If, as I hope, P+E is meant to be part of RE, then it needs to be clearly integrated in the study of religion along with Textual Studies. This would still allow pupils to consider secular challenges to religious ideas.

Despite the requirement to understand beliefs and teachings in Part A, there is still a risk of Exam Boards either making P+E RE’s ‘bit on the side,’ or forcing religion into a dumbed down P+E framework. Under the false guise of P+E, unchallenging pathways through the qualification could be created, which would be comparably easier than more intellectually robust alternatives. For example, if a course is weighted 50% P+E with no Textual Studies, what relevant religious source will pupils be applying? Their answers will lack depth, compared to a course in which the weighting was 25% Textual Studies and 25% P+E. The temptation for Exam Boards will be to ‘creatively’ integrate already existing material from Part A to Part B, not to add more. This could continue the existing problem, where for example, the theologically rich creation narratives of Genesis are simply used as a means of illustrating that global warming is wrong, or that Christians should not be racist.

An Alternative Proposal

The way in which the currently dislocated areas are integrated is pivotal to the success of future GCSEs. Therefore, their epistemological relationship needs to be clearly defined in the criteria. History shows it would be naïve and irresponsible, for those forming the criteria, to shirk from this challenging task, leaving this epistemological issue in the hands of commercially motivated exam boards. Neither should is it be passed off as a matter for Ofqual further down the line. The criteria’s suggested weighting of each part acts as useful guidance, but if it is to prevent religion from becoming fodder for social studies, it is vital that the current dislocation is replaced with greater integration of the different content areas. The criteria’s diversity should be in content, not discipline.

In a more holistic or integrated approach, philosophical and ethical issues would be explored, because they naturally arise out of the religion being studied, not simply because they seem relevant or provocative in their own right. If philosophical and ethical study is to be academically challenging and avoid misrepresenting religion, there need to be specific texts, genuine arguments relating to the issue, and strong examples of engagement with the issue from the religious community being studied. A more integrated, cumulative approach would allow for deeper mastery and progression within areas of study. Pupils would be drawing upon and applying a rich understanding of beliefs, practices, texts, tensions and contemporary challenges, and expressing genuine theological insight to issues of genuine relevance and concern to the religion being studied. This would far better meet Ofqual’s much improved proposed assessment objectives.

Concluding Thoughts

As Mark Chater has already said, we have a golden opportunity to restore “the academic and professional kudos of our subject.” For RE teachers to argue against putting religion at the core of a more rigorous GCSE is counter productive. The spirit of the criteria is right, but the devil is in the detail, and that detail needs some careful attention.

David Ashton is a secondary school RE teacher. He blogs about RE on thegoldencalfre.wordpress.comhttp://thegoldencalfre.wordpress.com

Follow David on Twitter @thegoldencalfre

The debate about the proposed GCSE criteria for RS has been professional, lively and engaging – but it has opened up some deep divisions and disagreements within our community.

It is crucial to remember that so far we have been presented with criteria not course specifications and the exam boards have the opportunity to be creative. And there is still plenty of time to respond to the consultation.

I am not sure whether we can rely on the Boards to be creative OR how far we need to amend the criteria to foster that creativity – both I suspect. What follows is a general contribution to the discussions.

My previous blog https://www.reonline.org.uk/blog/those-gcse-proposals-a-lament-for-lucy-jo/ suggested areas that need to be improved – particularly around reducing the massive content overload, making the study of the religions more exciting and challenging, forging stronger links between the study of religions and philosophy/ethics, and incorporating more themes which explore the nature, purpose and value of religion itself.

My purpose in the next three blogs is to try to map the landscape of the debate a little more and maybe help us come closer together in our thinking.

There are three areas I want to touch on over the next few days:

• The inclusion of humanism
• The ‘problem’ of philosophy and ethics
• The resistance to studying religion

The Inclusion of humanism

First let me put my cards on the table. I would describe myself as a humanist and come from a very strongly humanist family background. In that personal capacity I have thrown my support behind the inclusion of humanism in the subject content at GCSE alongside the study of religions.

However, I think there are alternative ways of thinking about the inclusion of humanism at GCSE. Two points:

1. Even amongst the strong supporters of the place of humanism within RE, there is concern that if humanism is included as an option to study as one of the two ‘religions and beliefs’ it would have the effect of unbalancing the overall intention of the proposals. If humanism were selected, students would only study one of the major world religions (probably in most cases Christianity or Islam). This would restrict students’ understanding of the distinctive, complex, controversial and diverse world of religion. Humanists are clear they are not a religion – as such they don’t have some of the features which characterise religions. Humanism is light on myths and rituals, patterns of devotion, the use of symbolic language to represent the idea of the divine etc.

2. But far more important – Studying humanist and secular thought shouldn’t be optional at GCSE – it should be a requirement! Humanist and secular thought permeates modern life. Our scientific, political, economic, social and educational discourses are now radically secular and humanistic. Crucially, you cannot make sense of religion in modern Britain and beyond unless you understand how much contemporary religious thinking and practice is a response to the humanist and secular worldview that permeates our life. In some cases religions have sought to embrace that worldview; in other cases, they have sought to challenge and ‘do battle’. In the end, most contemporary religious debates are about the relationship between the religion and that humanist, secular worldview. You can’t study religion in the modern world properly if you don’t grasp the key features of humanist, secular thinking. So a unit of humanist and secular thought should be a required feature of any GCSE in religious studies – I would suggest as a compulsory theme in Part 2 of the subject content. Its nearly there in the theme on ‘dialogue within and between religious and non-religious beliefs’ – but that’s an option and not quite strong enough.

Religious Education GCSE reforms have been causing a stir even before they were released for consultation. The big issue for the papers, members of the cabinet and some religious groups is the compulsory study of two religions. However, what about from the point of view of the RE teacher: will this requirement improve RE?

The requirement to teach two religions is not in place because it is good RE, although sensible practitioners can certainly make it good RE. The stated aims remind us where the requirement stems from, in describing an RE which will ‘challenge students to reflect on and develop their own values, beliefs and attitudes  in the light of what they have learnt and contribute to their preparation for adult life  in a pluralistic society and global community’. It is anxiety about some schools’ failure to prepare their young people for adult life in a pluralistic society, for example some of the Trojan Horse schools, which has inspired this move.

Why shouldn’t RE prepare young people for life in a pluralistic society as well as being an academically meaningful subject? In fact, why have we accepted an RE for so long that has been decontextualized and idealised? I am firmly in support of the study of any religion being rooted in the world we all inhabit, and this has been the conviction behind the socially and politically switched-on RE I have tried to develop in my own classroom. My one reservation is simply that I do not share the political convictions of the administration that have initiated this move. Tribal allegiances aside, what does this requirement mean for RE?

As a teacher who has only ever delivered the Philosophy and Ethics papers at GCSE, from three exam boards over 11 years, this new requirement comes as something of a shock. There is so much theology! It demands textual analysis and historical contextualisation in more than one religion, as well as the ability to draw comparisons both within and between traditions. Since I have been complaining about the bad theology, bad ethics and bad philosophy of the papers I have taught, I have to admit this is what I have been waiting for. On closer analysis, a lot of the content I already use can be reworked to fit the new routes and pathways, but my subject knowledge is going to have to go deeper, a welcome development. It is going to take more mental exertions on my part, but it is going to be rigorous, much more valuable for students, and, I suspect, more exciting to teach once we have all got our heads around it.

Another requirement states that students will, ‘apply knowledge and understanding in order to analyse questions related to religious beliefs and values’. I hope this expectation is imagined along the lines of the NCFRE’s suggestion that students analyse religious beliefs and traditions according to the discipline’s own tools, such as historical or textual methods of analysis. Some elements are very familiar but have been refreshingly re-worked. Consider this new articulation of why students learn to analyse and evaluate at all: to, ‘construct well-informed and balanced arguments on matters concerned with religious beliefs and values’. No more earning an A-grades using the same five bible quotes – surely this is good news!

So in summary, wary of being a political football while having to admit that the RE described by this new spec is pretty good quality. We must maximise what we do well, which is RE, and build on this opportunity to develop and grow. The next ball that rolls our way might not be so helpful, and we may have to boot it off the pitch. This means we must continue to grow in voice and confidence. Welcoming this new spec won’t hurt us at all, it will make us stronger.

What’s not to like? The new criteria for GCSE are a great opportunity to raise standards in RE, thus restoring the academic and professional kudos of our subject. These draft criteria will, once approved, create a sufficiently flexible regulatory framework in which the Awarding Bodies will provide a range of specifications.

Five things to welcome in the criteria:

– Coherence: the criteria are consistent with the RE Council’s 2013 National Curriculum Framework for RE. The aims follow on coherently from KS3, and build up the possibility of good progression.

– Continuity: the range of religions to be studied, and the strands that will organise content, are familiar to most RE teachers. It is sensible to offer this kind of continuity and minimise the extra work involved in change.

– Rigour: there’s more theology in these criteria. The widely held concerns about current GCSE specs – that they lack rigour and fail to promote theological literacy – have been effectively addressed.

– Integration: the links between Part 1 (study of religions) and Part 2 (textual and/or philosophical and ethical studies) are strong. Part 2 constantly refers back to the religious content studied in Part 1, and requires attention to internal diversity as well as the nature of religion and belief.

– And perhaps most important of all: All candidates must study two religions. This is an historic breakthrough.

What could be better? Including the systematic study of non-religious world views, in line with the National Curriculum Framework, would be highly appropriate and easy to do within the design frame. To promote religious literacy we need pupils to engage in a well-informed and critical study of religious and non-religious views.

Spare a thought this week for Lucy Jo Olorenshaw. Having read the DfE’s GCSE proposals, she posted: “I give up! The decision to leave teaching and open a vintage tea room in Cornwall is becoming ever closer”. Do you need a pastry chef, Lucy? I regularly watch Bake off! Don’t give up quite yet!

Just in case you haven’t seen them the consultation documents are here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/gcse-and-a-level-reform-religious-studies

Here I want to focus on GCSE – but there are further issues around A level which are concerning.

Ofsted, of course, is to blame! Who else? Yes, the last Ofsted report called for a thorough review of GCSE; for more ‘religion’ in religious studies; for more challenge; it did question the way the dominance of philosophical, ethical and social issues was distorting learning in RE.

What we needed was a careful look at the idea of religious literacy. And, to repeat my favourite quotes from Tim Oates, … doing fewer things in more depth so students really master fundamental concepts in subject; securing deep learning in the central concepts and ideas in the subject.

So the good news in the proposals: two religions – good but no humanism; determination to raise challenge  – good but no more RS timetabling on the cheap;  more ‘religion’ – good but it needs to be ‘done right’; still some Phil and Ethics – good but not properly integrated into the whole.

Big reminder: these are criteria – they often look dull. It is for the exam boards to work with these criteria to create the examination course specifications. That’s when it should get interesting.

 Elsewhere I have put my support behind the BHA campaign to include humanism as a major worldview.

What’s the problem? The danger of draining the lifeblood from religious studies

I must constrain myself to 3 points:

-Most generally – religion is a highly contested, ambiguous, inspiring, dangerous, controversial, bewildering and exciting dimension of human life. As they stand these proposals appear to drain all the lifeblood out of the subject. The danger is: Dull, dull, dull!

-The study of religions in Part ONE is burdened by far too much undifferentiated content. There is TOO MUCH STUFF! Annex A is depressingly familiar with content just put under the four tedious old headings of Beliefs and Teachings; Sources of Wisdom and Authority; Practices; and Forms of Expression. No dynamic, no energy, no controversy. There is no sense of that principle of ‘do fewer things in greater depth’. No sense of the importance of ‘central concepts and ideas’. A real concern that this is where the students and teachers will lose the will to live.  I can see Lucy off to Cornwall! I think the criteria themselves could encourage a more creative approach – but it will be up to those exam boards to try to turn the stuff into exciting courses.

-The section in Part TWO ‘Religious, philosophical and ethical studies in the modern world’ (RPES) brings us to a critical point.  Studies D-J are the crucial ones. Looks like familiar fare. Hopefully the stronger study of religion in Part One will give this more credence and avoid the problems of ‘tacking on’ poorly understood religious perspectives. Hopefully – but I am doubtful. BUT crucially what is missing is the really interesting study of religion itself!  I am still waiting for a Religious Studies GCSE that attempts a serious study of religion – What is it? What’s happening to it? Is it changing? Is it a force for good or bad?? Does it contain any wisdom or is it largely fanciful superstition?

How could it be improved?

I think I would suggest 5 things:

1.  Crucially – cut down and differentiate the content in Part 1. What is the core knowledge to be explored in depth? What is peripheral and only useful to exemplify the core? Cut out much of the KS2 and KS3 stuff about practices etc.

2.  Create a more interesting structure to energise the study of religions in Part 1. How about:

• What are the core beliefs and ideas of the religion? With an on-going question about whether there is any real agreement about those core ideas.
• How are these ideas expressed and interpreted in different ways within the religion?
• How is the religion affected by life in the modern world?
• What are the areas of contention and debate within the religion?

3.  Integrate aspects of Part Two within Part One – this might still be possible by examining areas of debate WITHIN the religion that relate to wider social and ethical concerns. Why do some Christians reject evolution? What is the approach of Islam to gender equality? What are the debates within Judaism about Zionism? etc etc….

4.  Re-configure the ‘issues’ themes in Part 2 to include opportunity for some study of religion itself.  Maybe themes around:

• The changing pattern of religious life in the modern world/in Britain today and a contrasting country?
• New patterns of religious life and modern alternative forms of spirituality
• A study of humanist/secular views of religion and being spiritual without religion!
• Religion and spirituality. E.g. Do religions foster or undermine the human spirit? What is spirituality?
• Making sense of the language of religion – linked to religion and science
• Religious issues in the modern world – religion and politics

5.  I would also call for a clear split of Short course from Full course. The accredited ‘RE for all’ programme needs to focus on issues all pupils find interesting and not try to be a watered down ‘religious studies’ approach.

Is there a way out?

The consultation may achieve something …………….but I fear it will result in a very fragmented and contradictory set of responses which will not confront the vested groups who want to fudge the issues for their own interests.

The exam boards could produce some highly creative ways of using the ‘subject content’ to produce exciting and innovative GCSE courses (specifications)……………….but don’t hold your breath. They will be chasing profits and numbers in the competitive market. However, I am hopeful that some boards will try something different – maybe re-introducing the ill-fated OCR course Specification C which looked at religion in the contemporary world. We need to put strong support behind the exam boards to encourage them to be creative. The initial set of pathways (on page 4 of the main document) offers flexibility and may be a way in which Boards can be creative.

We will find pragmatic solutions and we may now need to brace ourselves for a decline in GCSE numbers. It is difficult to see how this can be delivered on the truncated 1 period a week model that is being used in some schools. Is that a good thing or bad thing?

We knew what we had to do. We had to try to make more sense of the ‘R’ in religious studies; we had to make the study of religion more challenging and exciting; we had to build better bridges between the study of religions and philosophical/ethical/social issues; and, we had to keep the punters interested.  We have gone some way but it will take considerable creativity from the exam boards to turn these criteria into exciting specifications. The criteria themselves need to be improved to really encourage that creativity.

My dream – an exciting challenging optional subject that attracts those with an interest in this area of life but allows others to get on with the subjects they find exciting. I just thank goodness for the subjects I was allowed to drop at KS4 – art, music and design/technology!

The bigger picture: _you may say I’m dreamer but I’m not the only one!

GCSE is a crude instrument. In the case of RE/RS this crudeness is made worse by the need to do too many things and serve too many masters. We remain saddled with the need to try to offer:

• an exciting, rigorous GCSE studying religion and its place in the contemporary world and its relationship with issues that matter (an academic subject of interest to some but not all)
• an opportunity for students to look at big issues facing them in the contemporary world but ignored elsewhere in the curriculum (of interest to many – but it’s not religious studies!)
• A way of accrediting the compulsory nature of RE at KS4 (highly questionable as a curriculum requirement and becoming a burden)
• A qualification to satisfy ‘faith’ schools demand for a GCSE to meet their perceived needs (no comment)

What we probably need is:

-An end to compulsory RE at Key Stage 4 – dangerous but the only honest educationally justifiable position.

-A ‘new’ student entitlement in the  KS4 curriculum  (and qualification?) drawing from the best of PSHEE, RE and Citizenship looking at those big philosophical, ethical, political, economic and social issues which are important to all pupils (including some matters related to religion, diversity, values etc)

-A strong optional Religious Studies GCSE inside the EBacc – for a minority of students (maybe 25%) who want to carry their academic interest into KS4

-A second strong optional GCSE in Philosophy and Ethics – unburdened from the necessity to keep referring artificially to religious perspectives but including some aspects of philosophy of religion.

At times there appears to be a almost pathological distrust in the RE world of the word ‘content’. The suggestion that we need to define subject content seems anathema to some.

And yet that is often the thing teachers cry out for.  “Don’t tell us how to teach (we’re good at that – it’s what we were trained for).  We need guidance about what to teach.”

Again I want to offer two blogs – the first setting an agenda for change and the second (next week) offering thoughts about a way forward.

The recent review of the National Curriculum (NC) has exposed RE’s weakness here. A key driver of the NC review was the decision to be clearer about the core content that needs to be taught at each key stage. And yet when the RE Council attempted to emulate the NC review and create a new National Curriculum Framework for RE (NCFRE),  it was still woefully short of detail about content. It was full of objectives and ‘learning experiences’. But if I’m a teacher I still don’t know what I’m meant to be teaching.

As a result we missed the opportunity to address that recurring theme in recent RE reports; the need to secure greater clarity about what we should be teaching with a strong re-engagement with the notion of ‘religious literacy’.

A number of fellow bloggers have pointed out the problem the moment you compare RE with the requirements of the NC for subjects like geography or history where the content is so much clearer and more accessible.

Why is the content issue so important?

A key difficulty impeding success in RE has been confusion about content. A major problem is the way we try to do far too much:

• Christianity, the 5 other ‘big’ religions, humanism, lots of other really intriguing ‘smaller’ religions, the nature of religion itself, huge philosophical, social and ethical issues.
• All this as well as providing opportunities for pupils to reflect on their own spiritual journey.

It’s a wonderfully rich landscape – no wonder we are excited about being RE teachers. BUT we need clear guidance about how to navigate our way through this content. How do we design a curriculum for a subject whose space in the timetable is really quite modest?

Tim Oates, the main architect of the revised NC, was clear about his purpose:

Pupils need to learn:  ‘fewer things in greater depth so they really master fundamental concepts in subject. The goal is to: ‘secure deep learning in the central concepts and ideas in the subject’. He goes on to say that this transformsassessment which should be: ‘focused on whether children have understood these key concepts, these key areas of knowledge and skills rather than whether they have reached a particular level’.

So why do we duck away from defining content?

I would suggest there are three reasons which combine together in a dangerous cocktail:

The truculent response – we didn’t like Mr Gove

Teachers didn’t like Mr Gove – but RE teachers REALLY didn’t like Mr Gove. He didn’t do RE any favours so we weren’t going to go anywhere that he wanted to go. His rhetoric about a content-based curriculum was disturbing. I vividly recall one of his Ministers suggesting that it wasn’t difficult to sort out RE – just decide on the facts that needed teaching and put them in a text book for pupils to learn. Qur’an, Pentateuch and John the Baptist – sorted!

When the NC review went down the ‘content’ line, RE shuddered.  We watched as Gove used the rhetoric of a fact-driven curriculum and we backed away.

BUT, as I suggested earlier: we needed to listen to the people who really shaped the revised NC– Tim Oates in particular. A key characteristic of the new curriculum was that it offered ‘far more specific age range content with an increased expectation of attainment.’ (Beyond Levels NCTL 2014)

So – forget Gove and his crazed focus on facts. What the NC review means by content is – the key concepts in the subject and the knowledge and skills pupils need to understand those concepts.

The ostrich response – we knew we would never agree and it’s someone else’s job.

This takes us to the political dilemma at the heart of RE. RE is not part of the NC. Responsibility for making decisions about the RE is locally determined. Power in RE is highly distributed and fragmented – faith and non-faith schools; 150+ SACREs; academies/community schools.

The idea of securing agreement about the content of the RE curriculum was seen as a step too far for the NCFRE. The RE Council might agree on aims, purpose and objectives but it fought shy of trying to agree about content. It was left to others to translate the broad aims into content; but many of those ‘others’ simply do not have the resources or expertise to carry out the task. In the case of academies we effectively leave schools with the task of defining that ‘content’.

It’s the classic RE dilemma – if we were starting again we wouldn’t start from here. And yet it means that the really crucial thing teachers need – clarity about content – is not being addressed properly.

The ideological response – we don’t like the idea that RE might be primarily about ‘content’.

Let’s not dwell too long on this – I think we know the fundamental issue.

• Is the goal of RE primarily about helping pupils make sense of the world of religion and belief? (the academic approach)

OR

• Is the goal of RE primarily about helping pupils make sense of their own lives by using the resources of religion and belief? (the personal development approach)

Which of these is in the ascendency makes a huge difference to how you approach the issue of content. For some RE is primarily about personal development rather than academic enquiry. For them RE content is selected in order to stimulate or nurture that development.

I think RE must give ascendency to the first of these approaches. We need to decide on the key concepts in the subject and the knowledge and skills pupils need to understand those concepts – so pupils can make sense of the world of religion and belief.

The alternative lacks any real shape, asks too much of teachers and leaves us struggling to defend our credibility as an academic subject.

As the 2013 Ofsted report says: “In many of the schools visited, the subject was increasingly losing touch with the idea that RE should be primarily concerned with helping pupils to make sense of the world of religion and belief” Para 20 Religious Education: realising the potential (Ofsted 2013).

What’s the way forward?

In one sense it is rather alarming that we are having this discussion at all. It is one of the deep-set issues which inhibits the success of RE – that we can’t get any clear agreement about the content of the subject. It’s a fascinating debate which can keep us going for hours – but my guess is that teachers want answers as well as interesting debates!

A key clue to the way forward was included in the 2013 Ofsted report on RE when it said:

“Many RE subject leaders … commented that they did not have enough guidance about ways of developing more challenging topics about religion and belief. Too often they moved to study social and ethical issues because they could not see a way of making the direct study of religion challenging and engaging. It was rare to find topics related to, for example, the study of deeper aspects of religious belief, the controversial nature of religion, or the changing patterns of religion and belief in the contemporary world.” Para 18

The 2013 Ofsted report used the notion of ‘religious literacy’ as a key to defining the ‘content’ of the RE curriculum suggesting this would involve pupils developing:

• an ability to offer informed responses to a range of profound religious, philosophical or ethical questions
• an understanding of the way in which the beliefs, practices, values and ways of life of specific religions and non-religious world views are linked
• an understanding and interpretation of the distinctive nature of religious language
• a deepening understanding of the diverse nature of religion and belief in the contemporary world
• a more sophisticated understanding of the impact, both positive and negative, that religion and belief can have on individuals and society.

So, how to decide on content? I want to return to this in my next blog.

There is a mystery that troubles RE teachers across the country. It is oft spoken of in staffrooms and on social media, at conferences and in CPD. ‘How can we make RE more fun and exciting?’ The result of this is that ‘fun’ often becomes the grand director; the dominant principle shaping lesson planning in RE. In this piece I will explore four reasons why this is problematic.

1. Inane Activities

The pursuit of fun frequently results in crass activities which distract from or replace the subject matter. One example I recently encountered of this was a year 7 class making paper Facebook profile pages for Jesus. As I observed pupils ‘liking’ Mary, ‘poking’ John the Baptist and sending friend requests (mainly to non-biblical characters of different eras), I wondered whether they were gaining anything more than unhelpful messages from this activity. Similar things can be said of the ‘Hindu Gods Top Trumps’ resource, rated highly by its 1400+ viewers on restuff.org and ‘recommended’ with five stars on TES. In this game, pupils are given cards containing different Hindu deities. Each deity’s characteristics, for example their name, powers and method of transport, are rated out of three stars. If a pupil’s deity has more stars for a chosen characteristic than their partner’s, they gain their partner’s card. This activity is rivalled by another ‘popular’ TES resource in which GCSE pupils play snakes and ladders in order to revise Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Another widely used year 7 activity is junk modelling a place of worship out of cardboard boxes, an activity that usually spans over two or three lessons. If our aim in RE is to make pupils into better builders, then construction tasks may help, but if our aim is to engage them in a rigorous, academic enquiry into religion, pupils need greater challenge than considering whether to use a cornflake box or a toilet roll for their church spire. My doubts over this activity only increased when I saw it done in a challenging school with marshmallows and spaghetti sticks. As I glanced around the room mid activity at a pupil chewing on a half made marshmallow pew, another dodging a marshmallow door launched at him across the room, I was in no doubt that many pupils were having fun. The problem was that their combined learning wouldn’t fill a post it note and most of it had nothing to do with religion.

This problem is summed up by cognitive scientist Daniel Willingham in his phrase “memory is the residue of thought.” In other words, we remember the things we think deeply about. Rather than ‘how can we have fun?’ we should ask ourselves ‘what will pupils be thinking about at each stage in this lesson?’ or ‘how am I going to make pupils think deeply about the content in the lesson?’ With so much of worth to cover, the opportunity cost of what we do in our lessons needs careful thought. We are sometimes quick to complain about limited curriculum time, but then waste the time we do have. Whilst learning and fun are not mutually exclusive, if we want school leaders (and pupils) to take RE seriously, we should avoid activities that find their best, or even sole justification in the fact they are ‘fun.’

2. Discordance of Method and Content

The Internet is a goldmine of Simpsons inspired RE resources. These include a GCSE writing frame based on The Simpsons, ‘Flanders’ Guide To Christianity’ and a 99 page planning aid for teachers of KS3-KS5 pupils titled ‘The Wit and Wisdom of Lisa Simpson.’ Its opening statement “This series of lesson plans is based largely around the character of Lisa Simpson,” is at least honest, if misguided. Lesson plans are provided for teaching everything from Aristotle to Utilitarianism and the nature of the church to the nature of truth, all through the illuminating life of Lisa Simpson.

RE teachers are fortunate. Our subject matter is innately provocative, interesting and relevant and these features are powerful initiators of learning. Fun however, is rarely integral to our subject matter. The question often asked by RE teachers ‘how can I make this topic fun?’ makes little sense. If a topic is not inherently fun, one cannot make it so without changing its nature, one can only create a fun way of learning about it. However, in doing this there is a risk that we devalue what is integral, and impose a superficial companion to the subject matter, through distracting approaches and activities.

The successful book ‘100 Ideas For Teaching Religious Education’  gives the following advice: 

One of the banes of the RE teacher’s life is the badly thrown paper plane. Why not turn things on their head by using pupils’ interest in making them to your advantage? Give all pupils a piece of paper. At the front or on the whiteboard, show how you wish them to make a plane. On the plane, they must write a question. They will then fly their plane in the direction of another pupil who must try to answer the question posed.

The book suggests six questions including, “What question would you like to ask Muhammad?” “Why do you think there is evil and suffering in the world?” and “Do you think science disproves religion?”

If pupils are to be expected to reflect maturely and meaningfully on important questions, they need an environment that prizes thoughtful enquiry, not messing around with paper planes. We do not play to our subjects’ strengths by pursuing fun; we have more edifying educational tools, and more profound things to offer than frivolous happy highs. Activities must reflect the nature of the topic and this is particularly so when the topic requires extra sensitivity to pupils and sensitivity of content. Attempting to make a topic like the problem of evil, near death experiences, jihad or heaven and hell ‘fun’ betrays the very nature of them. We should avoid tying ourselves up in a marriage of discomfort with this unnatural partner.

3. Destructive Cross-curricular Ventures

The pursuit of fun often leads into cross-curricular ventures, where RE is subsumed by another discipline. It may result in RE being turned into DT, as in the previously described junk modelling activity. It may also cause RE to become a drama lesson in which pupils spend most of their time thinking about what accent to use, or where to stand in their role play. However, the subject that RE seems to get tangled up in and confused with most is Art. An entire section of the aforementioned ‘100 Ideas For Teaching Religious Education’ is dedicated to using art in RE, recommending activities such as making stained glass windows out of sugar paper and tissue paper.

Another way in which art absorbs RE is the popular Spirited Arts competition where pupils create a piece of art based on a broadly spiritual idea. I have no problem with the Spirited Arts competition, but it is exactly what it says it is; an art competition. The requirements for proficiency in it are heavily weighted towards art rather than RE. Pursued as an extra curricular activity it is commendable, but when considered within the context of limited time and widespread religious illiteracy, we should consider whether the genuine subject specific value offered by it, justifies the considerable amount of RE lessons it occupies in many schools.

4. A Falsely Negative View of Human Nature.

Even if lessons do not plummet to the trite form of religious edutainment in some of the examples above, the fixation with fun is misguided. It is based on an assumption that children are educational hedonists incapable of engagement, enjoyment or learning without having fun. Those who view ‘fun’ as the holy grail to learning, often attempt to hijack and monopolise terms such as ‘engagement’ and ‘enjoyment’, suggesting they are almost synonymous with, and certainly a direct result of, having fun. Their logic follows that the opposite of fun is boredom and this leads to disengagement and no learning. The stark, binary distinction of this formula is devious, leading teachers to particular conclusions. It goes without saying, no good teacher aims to bore and disengage pupils. To argue that the only alternative to a fun lesson is a boring one, is unimaginative. This damaging philosophy is based on a falsely negative view of human curiosity. It fuels low expectations and results in an impoverished intellectual experience for pupils, particularly those already educationally disadvantaged, or in challenging schools where ‘having fun’ and ‘keeping pupils engaged’ become excuses for not offering an appropriately challenging academic curriculum.

Aristotle wrote ‘all men possess by nature a craving for knowledge.’ Children are naturally inquisitive, eager to enquire, eager to discover. Their curiosity should be stretched beyond crass and unchallenging activities. Many pupils do not want a classroom where they are dodging paper aeroplanes, they want to learn and succeed, not be patronised or pandered to by a teacher’s dubious notion of ‘fun.’  They should be allowed to master appropriately demanding material, defeat problems and experience the accompanying rewards of joy, accomplishment and success. Challenging learning unlocks a desire for further learning. Having one’s mind set alight by an enquiry, which provokes even more questions, is a motivational force fuelling further discovery and enjoyment in learning. Interest creates more interest. Fun, on the other hand, is an end in itself, and if little deep learning has occurred, for the pupils it can feel like a shallow, wasteful way to have spent a lesson. It is mastery not marshmallows, success not spaghetti that feeds pupils’ desire to learn.

Planning Higher Impact Lessons

I am certainly not arguing for entirely sombre, solemn lessons that ignore pupils’ own interests. Pupils’ interests and questions should be a touchpoint, without reducing the lesson to no more than this. Furthermore, factors extraneous to the content, for example the nature of the class, or the teacher’s persona, style, interaction and relationship with them, may often create a good humoured, entertaining environment that is advantageous to learning. However when it comes to our content, we must guard its integrity. It should not be debased to a tool for having fun. To allow pupils to find enjoyment and reward through engagement in challenging subject matter, is a harder route than ‘making it fun.’ It requires truly thoughtful and imaginative planning and teaching.

The insights of cognitive science may again offer a helpful starting point. Willingham suggests building lessons around potential conflicts or big questions in the content to be studied. He writes, “start with the material you want your students to learn, and think backward to the intellectual question it poses.” When planning lessons, this insight might lead us to ask, ‘what provocative question is answered by the material I want pupils to consider?’ or ‘what conflicts are inherent in this content, which could create an interesting question to frame the learning or investigation of the lesson?’ This is not a restrictive approach or reduction of RE to a list of facts, but at the same time it acknowledges the necessity of knowledge for genuinely skilled thinking. It is an open-ended approach where as conflicts are resolved other complications arise, furthering exploration and deepening learning. Structuring lessons in this way can create a dramatic narrative and evaluative framework, which can aid pupil engagement in the actual subject matter thereby allowing them to transcend their own experience.

There are rare occasions when a teacher might consciously opt to use an inferior, fun but sensitive activity for the sake of variation. However as a general rule, rather than imposing fun on our subject where it is not present, we should draw out the interest that is intrinsic to it. With the wrong priorities in planning, we inevitably spend valuable lesson time on the wrong things, and through no lack of effort, put a cap on the impact we cam have. We can do better than ‘making it fun.’ If we dare to do so, we will offer pupils a deeper and more real critical confrontation with the heart of our subject.

David Ashton is a secondary school RE teacher. He blogs about RE on thegoldencalfre.wordpress.com

Follow David on Twitter @thegoldencalfre

An interim report on our new Secretary of State seems timely. I began the term urging us to change the public RE narrative and move towards a good news agenda.

As we approach half-term the news does look good and I think we can be cautiously optimistic. Three exciting new developments:

Teacher training numbers and the bursaries.

Teacher supply isn’t the sexiest story around but it is vital for the future of RE. The Teacher Training allocations for RE are up significantly from 468 in 2014 to 817 in 2015.

This is a big win. The changes not only go some way to addressing the shortfall of secondary RE specialists and hopefully it will secure the immediate future for some of our best PGCE departments which were under threat.  Most providers now have allocations in double figures – the key breakpoint for survival.

But almost as important, it signals a change in the mood music. It sends a clear message that the Government does value RE and is not happy to see it wither.

PGCE Bursaries are restored and teacher training numbers are increased significantly.

http://www.education.gov.uk/get-into-teaching/funding/postgraduate-funding

Two cheers on the bursaries. The amount is modest (£4000m to £9000 depending on the trainee’s prior qualification). But let’s hope this will ensure we don’t have a repeat of the awful hardship stories we have been hearing about over the last 12 months AND, crucially, that recruitment increases. Last year around 40% of RE teacher training places went unfilled.

That is our challenge now – the conditions for getting more people train to teach RE have improved significantly. We now need to encourage recruitment and promote the value of a career in RE.

RE gains purchase on the wider education agenda

Suddenly RE is back on the educational agenda. The context is not entirely comfortable and many feel uneasy about riding a Trojan Horse but the reality is that pronouncements from the centre are suddenly celebrating the value of RE. The Secretary of State’s evidence to the Education Select Committee on 15 October 2014 makes encouraging reading:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/education-committee/extremism-in-schools/oral/14396.html

A few quotes from Nicky Morgan:

“All schools will be looking at the curriculum and for the way that they teach religion and faith and acts of collective worship to be inclusive and to make sure that their young people …..are prepared for life in modern Britain, which means being aware of and exposed to other cultures.”

And earlier she said: “Does this discussion not show what a good religious studies lesson looks like? That is what we want to see in our schools, where children are exposed to lots of different ideas and learn to be tolerant of other faiths and beliefs”

And, again, in response to a question about how schools can promote British values …..“you might visit a religious studies class and see the debates that are continuing and the way that people are able to express their views.”

Add to this the emphasis that Ofsted is now placing on promoting British values through SMSC and RE and on the importance of a balanced curriculum. At the very least this should give every school serious pause for thought about the place of RE in their curriculum.

Again – a note of caution. This whole Trojan Horse agenda looks unbalanced and confused. The impact it is having on schools is NOT unambiguously positive! I worry about the effect it is having on the ecology of inspection and on schools’ confidence on Ofsted. And we need to be wary of the flipside of all this – the negative images of religion that are circulating.

BUT – perhaps the key message is that after 4 years of a Government in which it was almost impossible for RE to get purchase on its agenda, at last we have a foothold.

CPD on the move: reports from the front

This term has seen some great news from the frontline about professional development.

-‘Hubbing’ is flavour of the month. The proposal to develop a regional strategy for RE, giving teachers more opportunities to work together to promote good RE, has taken off. Across the country we are seeing teachers involved in new hub networks being set up with funding from a variety of Trusts including Culham St Gabriel’s, Keswick Hall and St Luke’s Exeter. Culham St Gabriel’s Trust, for example, has received a raft of applications this term for funds to set up new hubs across the country. What is more exciting is the diversity and energy behind this activity. No fixed model – different groups are developing their own ways of working building on existing strengths. Look here for more information about these new initiatives: http://www.cstg.org.uk/2014/09/re-regional-strategy-pilot-launched/

-Numbers registering for the excellent Teach:RE course are growing significantly. More teachers are taking advantage of this great opportunity to develop their subject expertise. If you don’t know about it here’s the link …. www.teachre.co.uk  And if you want a little more challenge, the 3for RE Masters support is worth a look www.cstg.org.uk/grants/3forre

-And on top of these exciting developments we see the continuing growth of social networking and blogging. Let’s hope the image of the solitary RE teacher isolated from the wider subject community is becoming a thing of the past.

Across the piece we are seeing ‘teachers doing it for themselves’. Maybe just maybe, this part of Gove’s vision for education is having success. Don’t rely on others to sort out problems – get struck in and build from the chalkface. (For anyone under about 40, chalk was something we used to use in the classroom!!!)

BUT more to do!!!

So lots of good news and a genuine change in the mood music; but there is more to do.

If I could identify three priorities/challenges they would be:

-Improving the quality of RE.  Obvious and urgent. This term’s Church of England report on RE in Church Schools reiterated some of the worries about the quality of RE especially, but not exclusively, in primary schools. There is still work to do to help schools clarify the purpose of RE and translate this into a really well-designed curriculum as a basis for improving teaching and learning.

-Getting GCSE right. As I write this we are still unclear where we are going with GCSE – delays, rumours, fragmentation are all in the wind. The success of GCSE are crucial for the future of RE in our secondary schools. Short Course looks very fragile but the growth in the number of pupils taking Full Course on a very tight time budget is also worrying. The renewed emphasis on the EBacc threatens. I just hope the exam boards will be given the freedom and scope to develop new exciting GCSE courses which will re-invigorate the serious study of religion and belief in the modern world.

-Sorting out the issue of the statutory position of RE – we having been bashing on about this for a long time with no success. But the situation is becoming critical. Would a return of the Tories (!!) see can further expansion of academies and at what point does the principle of local determination implode? A key question for the RE community is whether we are preparing for change. If a review of RE’s statutory provision was offered what would we want?

“RE needs to match more closely the principles set out by the DfE for the rest of curriculum. Otherwise we look like Muppets” Mary Myatt on Twitter October 14.

Last week the blog looked at some of the assessment problems of the past and the reasons why we need to celebrate the ‘beyond levels’ culture. It was great to have the thoughts of Kathryn Wright on this and to see the debates on the Save RE Facebook site.

One thing is very clear: there is no quick fix and no simple answer. Any real culture change is a bit threatening and destabilising. What follows is a hopeful contribution to the transition – it is not the answer.

This quote from the National College sets the agenda:

‘A culture shift regarding the nature, range and purpose of assessment needs to take place, in recognition of the new opportunities provided both by the new curriculum and the removal of levels’. 

Beyond Levels: alternative assessment approaches developed by teaching schools (National College of Teaching and Leadership September 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349266/beyond-levels-alternative-assessment-approaches-developed-by-teaching-schools.pdf

A culture shift

Mary Myatt’s quote above is ringing in my ears! If we don’t want to be Muppets we have to grasp what is going on in the wider curriculum. Two big themes related to assessment seem paramount:

1.  We won’t get assessment right if we don’t understand the wider changes brought about by the National Curriculum review. Forget the rhetoric of Gove – that was fodder for the Daily Mail. All that stuff about ‘learning facts’ is largely irrelevant. We need to listen to those who really shaped the new National Curriculum – Tim Oates in particular. A key characteristic of the new curriculum is that it ‘offers far more specific age range content with an increased expectation of attainment.’ (Beyond Levels NCTL 2014)

New approaches to assessment are rooted in the idea that we need to be much clearer about the content being taught at each stage of a child’s education. We need to focus our assessment on how well pupils come to terms with that content – what many refer to as ‘mastery’.

This should be music to our ears. Two recurring themes in recent reports about RE have suggested that we desperately need: a) to raise the level of challenge; and, b) much greater clarity about what we should be teaching with a strong re-engagement on the notion of ‘religious literacy’.

More Challenge and Clearer Content could be the crusade banner for RE!

The question is whether the new RE Council 2013 RE Framework has gone far enough in matching those National Curriculum principles and providing that ‘specific age range content’ and an ‘increased expectation of attainment’. We need to address this in order to ensure a model of ‘mastery’ becomes the key to a new approach to assessment. (More in my next blog!)

2.  The second theme is about the new freedom for teachers to work collaboratively to find approaches to assessment that work. The new culture offers a ‘revitalised approach to the pedagogy of assessment’ enabling teachers to ‘take back control of the process of assessment’ and giving ‘pupils ownership of their learning and progress’.  (Beyond Levels NCTL 2014) Not just ‘no levels’ but no set formula or prescribed approach to assessment!

In relation to the Foundation Subjects (let’s include RE) is that that we may need to use different assessment tools for different subjects – the demand for one standardised approach for all subjects may be both unrealistic and, more importantly, undesirable.

Senior leadership teams should be encouraging innovation; trying out different approaches; sharing ideas across subjects; but not demanding that one size fits all. Music to the ears of those secondary RE teachers frustrated about having to mark work every week and trying to devise quick solutions rather than focus on what would give ‘pupils ownership of their learning and progress’.

One of the recurring messages in the Beyond Levels report is the excitement about teachers collaborating together to develop new thinking – a great encouragement for the emerging hub activities in RE.

Wonderfully scary freedom! – could be the second crusade banner for RE.

The good news from Ofsted

Suspend belief for a moment – Ofsted could be your ally in all this!

One worry is that all this freedom and innovation is fine – but what would Ofsted say? We can’t afford to innovate when senior leaders want us to keep feeding the data monster ‘because of Ofsted’.

I get this! Ofsted does not always speak with one voice BUT an overriding message is that Ofsted has been one of the most vibrant critics of current assessment practice. The 2013 RE report , the 2012 English report ‘Moving English Forward’ and the 2013 HMCI Annual Report all criticised stultifying approaches to assessment.

Recent guidance to inspectors about assessment clearly states that in this period of culture change: “Inspectors will not expect to see a particular assessment system in place and will recognise that schools are still working towards full implementation of their preferred approach.” http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/note-for-inspectors-use-of-assessment-information-during-inspections-201415

SO –we need to exploit this. If your school insists that levels are used as an interim so be it – but inspectors will be excited if there is a sense of innovation and fresh thinking about assessment in the subject. AND repeating the last blog – I think we should strongly resist inventing new levels – that fails to grasp the culture shift.

So what’s the way forward?

“RE needs to match more closely the principles set out by the DfE for rest of curriculum. Otherwise we look like Muppets”

We need to grasp the wider picture and accept that it will take time to develop effective new models.

But there are some very clear pointers from the Beyond Levels report (the references are to some key pages in that report):

-Cross-phase collaboration across subjects and schools is crucial – because there is no juggernaut of ‘right’ answers coming from the DfE. Talk to colleagues and seek out any local hub networking. It’s about ‘teachers doing it together for themselves!’

-New approaches to assessment must be more integrated with changes to curriculum planning (throughout and page 37)

-Overwhelmingly innovative schools are moving towards a mastery or competency model of assessment using language such as ‘Emerging/Developing/Secure/Exceeding’ to describe pupils’ success in relation to the defined ‘content’ of the curriculum (page 24)

-Planning and teaching needs to include clear ‘progression objectives’ so that pupils and teachers have real ownership of the goals of the learning – making sure we all understand what it is we are trying to ‘master’ (page 14)

-Solo taxonomy models are proving worthy of further exploration – they are adaptable to the needs of different subjects but also offer a common approach so good practice can be shared across subjects(pages 12 and 22)

-Bloom’s taxonomy is useful in helping to extend thinking skills and  improve questioning for assessment but NOT to devise a new tyranny of levels (pages 13 and 23)

-New ways of designing points systems for tracking progress across cohorts and linked to the mastery model (not dissimilar to the approach used in EYFS) are being developed. These have the virtue of being much more directly related to what pupils are actually learning and are not reliant on disembodied level statements. (Page 26)

So I strongly recommend a strong cup of coffee or a favoured alcoholic beverage and a curl up with: Beyond Levels: alternative assessment approaches developed by teaching schools (National College of Teaching and Leadership September 2014) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349266/beyond-levels-alternative-assessment-approaches-developed-by-teaching-schools.pdf

I am delighted to have a ‘guest blogger’ adding their ideas to Alan’s Blog. More please. Kathryn Wright has offered a great response on the issue of assessment and that data monster. – Alan Brine

‘As a class the children had explored the Buddhist teachings about the Middle Way and were considering whether if everyone followed this path there would be a perfect world. The discussions were high level, children were challenging each other, trying to define what they meant by a perfect world, analysing the Buddhist beliefs…we then came to assessing them… we looked at the level descriptors… they just didn’t seem to fit… it all felt wrong…it was like we had to ‘put the children in a box’…the levels were stifling, too limiting, too mechanistic…’

This is part of a conversation I had with a primary school teacher last week. We were in a small group discussing assessment in RE.

A number of things strike me about this episode:

Firstly, what are we assessing?

It clear that the pupils’ understanding of a key question about Buddhist beliefs had developed. They had more knowledge about Buddhist beliefs than they did to start with. The children could analyse whether the concept of the Middle Way would lead to a perfect world if everyone was to follow it, and also debate the nature of a perfect world within this framework.

To me it seems, that if the levels didn’t fit, then either the teacher was asking the wrong question, or the levels did not measure progress in RE effectively. Personally, I think it was the latter.

Secondly, what do we mean by progress in RE?

So I asked the teacher, ’Do you think the children made progress in terms of their knowledge and understanding of the enquiry question?’Her answer was ‘yes’. The difficulty was, that the knowledge and understanding she expected them to have made was not clearly defined at the start because the assessment criteria are based on skills, not knowledge and understanding. If we are judging progress against a set of levels that are skill based then the learning may well be difficult to ‘fit’ into boxes.

Will focusing on the enquiry question help us to understand progress better?

One way we may be able to embed a more fluid approach to assessment is simply by focusing on the key question at the start of an enquiry and tracking progress against this through a scheme of learning. This may (I’m still thinking!) provide a way of tracking progress in the short term that does not stifle or hinder, and does not ‘cap’ progress or achievement.

Let me explain a little more…

The Norfolk Agreed Syllabus promotes an enquiry based approach which begins with a key question focused on a ‘big concept or belief’. For example, ‘What is the big story of salvation that lies at the heart of Christianity?’ (suggested Year 3 unit) The big idea or concept here is salvation. If the enquiry process is used effectively, by the end of this scheme of learning pupils should be able to attempt an answer to this question which is more well informed than when they began. This means that they will have explored a range of different answers to this question, perhaps learning about the reason why Christians believe salvation is needed, as well as the Christian belief in salvation through Jesus. This will no doubt include some understanding of the biblical narrative, and how salvation is expressed through Christian practice today. I have talked with colleagues about having an architects view of assessment, and to me this is partly what we are doing here. We are looking at the ‘big picture’…what is it we really want our children to know and understand by the end of this unit? The success criteria can be defined more easily because we are clear about expectations.

I think that progress will be judged in terms of whether the pupils are developing an understanding of the question and how it may be answered. This will be more specifically in terms of knowledge and understanding, through the application of skills. For example, the skill of evaluation may be used, but unlike the current level descriptors in RE, progress is not judged in terms of how well the children evaluate but in terms of how well they have used evaluation to develop their answer to the key question i.e. in terms of their developing knowledge and understanding.

Paper Chains and Maps 

This means, I think, that the focus will be more on dialogue and conversation about learning, rather than on formal pieces of assessment, and certainly won’t include levels. I came across the following couple of ideas ( can’t remember where, so if its your idea let me know!) for assessment recently which I think could more easily help us to think about progress…

Paper Chains: Either individually or as a class. Pupils write what they have learned and make the first part of the chain. The next lesson they add another ‘chain’to it. Ideally this should explain how their learning has progressed from the previous lesson.  

Mapping a Journey: A visual map of the learning journey is created showing steps along the way and the key aims and objectives of the unit/scheme in terms of learning. Pupils have ‘signposts’or ‘markers’that they place on the map to show where they think they are on the journey.

As you can see, I am still thinking…still experimenting. I am fortunate to have great teachers to work with, who humour my ideas and are willing to share their own. Let’s not rush into anything…lets see what we can learn from some other disciplines… and above all let’s think about what we are assessing because until we get that right, as a profession, WE can’t make progress!!