Viewing archives for Archive

Ongoing acts of terrorism such as those we have seen in Paris recently should not dictate religious education policy and pedagogy. However, they are likely to. After 9/11 and 7/7 religious education research, policy, curriculum, practice and popular discourse were saturated with references to terrorism. At worst, religious educationists used the tragedies to lobby political support for the subject, while some initiatives for ‘social cohesion’ were simplistic and even stigmatising (see Moulin, 2012).

I do not question the importance of religious education in creating flourishing, safe, open and vibrant societies. I just assert that this is best done through a genuine theological education. If religious education becomes merely a forum for identity politics, or conceived primarily as a way of preventing terrorism or promoting social cohesion, it will unavoidably perpetuate the shallow binaries and stereotypes already ascribed to religious minorities by the media. There is plenty of evidence for this in regards to the experience of Muslim and Jewish students (see Moulin 2015a, 2015b). If one group of people is represented negatively in wider society and in schools this representation is challenged by using the same systems of representation, all that happens is the same power inequalities, identity boundaries and negative attributions are reinforced. There are plenty of examples in other domains of how this can happen. When we need to break down barriers and get to the heart of the matter of religions, we need to do theology. We cannot dispense with it.

Theology has much to offer RE and this is too often ignored. The instrumentalism prompted by geo-political incidents is a contemporary problem. But there has been a lack of dialogue between RE and theologians for at least thirty years. This divorce has its historic causes in the need for RE to move from a subject of Christian nurture fifty years ago. Since then pedagogical innovation in England has shown distinctly anti-theological trends. For example, post-modern approaches claim theologies ‘marginalise’ the learner (Erricker & Erricker, 2000). Ethnographic pedagogies as a form of informed interpretative anthropology pay no attention to theology, and in these approaches there is an assumption that theological approaches to RE are redundant due to secularisation (Jackson, 1997). The ‘religious literacy’ approach which suggests a philosophical basis of pedagogy as a form of ‘critical realism’ is also overtly critical of theology (Barnes & Wright, 2006).

I do not seek to give a definition of ‘theology.’ When I use the term, I merely wish to point to a way of thinking that deals with the questions raised by religion, or a way of investigating God or the divine, which is fundamentally preoccupied with the pursuit of greater truths, and engages with what Alister McGrath identifies as the ‘four sources of theology’: scripture, reason, tradition and experience (1997, 181). And I mean here of course theologies across the religions – all of which have distinctive traditions of using and understanding scripture, reason, tradition and experience.

These elements are open to a multitude of interpretations and subject to on-going debates, but without recourse to them, I would contend, students and adults alike, have little chance of understanding religions – particularly the Abrahamic religions. RE pedagogy, curriculum content and teacher education would benefit from a consideration of, and greater relationship with theology. The four sources allow for a range of questions and issues to be examined by learners by: 1) a consideration of the meaning and interpretation of scripture; 2) the use of reason, critique and rational argument; 3) the understanding of the importance of tradition, both liturgical, intellectual and cultural; and by 4) exploring the phenomenon of religious experience.

The divorce of RE from theology has not been beneficial. On the face of it, it may seem essential to get rid of theology to make RE inclusive and acceptable to all for teaching in today’s multi-faith society. However, it is the very presupposition that a neutral approach is possible or desirable in RE that I wish to challenge. Quite simply, nothing is neutral and our only solution is to teach young people to think through things themselves. The dispassionate study of religion can seem irrelevant to children. The study of more than one religion raises the inevitable question of the validity of a religion or religions. In particular, it raises the ‘inclusivist’ and’ ‘exclusivist’ debate. But this debate is of a theological nature and requires the resources and insights of theology.

A kind of theology will take place when students study religions from any paradigm. This is because, like all human beings, for students, the claims of religions are immediate and compelling, or indeed, repelling. Religions make universal claims about humanity, not just about their current adherents. Religions are not neutral objects: they demand a response from the observer. And with this response, even if profoundly negative, I argue, theologising in the classroom begins. The question is: will we support students in their theologising by giving the insights and tools developed by religious traditions over millennia?

I do not think we should limit the conclusions that students come to in the classroom. Religious educators should always aim to be inclusive, and respectful of the principle of the freedom of belief. However, I do not see this as shying away from controversy, argument and challenging students’ preconceptions. Theology has always been about debate, critique, personal disagreement or even liberation from prevailing dogma. Knowing theology means you know that traditions are diverse.

RE has often conveyed a reified view of religions as distinct monolithic entities. This has led to religions being presented in their most bizarre forms, and as supposedly neutral objects that cannot to be evaluated by students. Present circumstances demand a more sophisticated approach.

In the world of interreligious dialogue, theology has proven itself. One of the most successful methods is scriptural reasoning. This, in short, involves getting different texts from Abrahamic scriptures around a particular theme and adherents of those religions to discuss their meaning. This has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with a good theological conversation. The problem with this approach is having enough theologically informed people around. Because with little theology having been studied – including by RE teachers brought up on religious studies and philosophy – who knows their theology enough to interpret religious scripture?

And for those feeling the need to engage with political questions in RE, theology also deals with them the most appropriately. ‘A common word’ – an initiative among Christian and Muslim theologians and scholars – addresses central questions about the differences and similarities between the two religions, including their teachings on coexistence and peace.

References

Barnes, L.P. & A. Wright (2006) Romanticism, representations of religion and critical religious education. British Journal of Religious Education 28, no. 1: 65–77.

Erricker C. & J. (2000) ‘The Children and Worldviews Project: A Narrative Pedagogy of Religious Education’ in Grimmitt, M., ed., 2000. Pedagogies of Religious Education. Great Wakering: McCrimmons p.188-206

Jackson, R. (1997) Religious Education: an interpretive approach, London: Hodder & Stoughton

McGrath, A. (1997) Christian Theology, An introduction Oxford: Blackwells

Ongoing acts of terrorism such as those we have seen in Paris recently should not dictate religious education policy and pedagogy. However, they are likely to. After 9/11 and 7/7 religious education research, policy, curriculum, practice and popular discourse were saturated with references to terrorism. At worst, religious educationists used the tragedies to lobby political support for the subject, while some initiatives for ‘social cohesion’ were simplistic and even stigmatising (see Moulin, 2012).

I do not question the importance of religious education in creating flourishing, safe, open and vibrant societies. I just assert that this is best done through a genuine theological education. If religious education becomes merely a forum for identity politics, or conceived primarily as a way of preventing terrorism or promoting social cohesion, it will unavoidably perpetuate the shallow binaries and stereotypes already ascribed to religious minorities by the media. There is plenty of evidence for this in regards to the experience of Muslim and Jewish students (see Moulin 2015a, 2015b). If one group of people is represented negatively in wider society and in schools this representation is challenged by using the same systems of representation, all that happens is the same power inequalities, identity boundaries and negative attributions are reinforced. There are plenty of examples in other domains of how this can happen. When we need to break down barriers and get to the heart of the matter of religions, we need to do theology. We cannot dispense with it.

Theology has much to offer RE and this is too often ignored. The instrumentalism prompted by geo-political incidents is a contemporary problem. But there has been a lack of dialogue between RE and theologians for at least thirty years. This divorce has its historic causes in the need for RE to move from a subject of Christian nurture fifty years ago. Since then pedagogical innovation in England has shown distinctly anti-theological trends. For example, post-modern approaches claim theologies ‘marginalise’ the learner (Erricker & Erricker, 2000). Ethnographic pedagogies as a form of informed interpretative anthropology pay no attention to theology, and in these approaches there is an assumption that theological approaches to RE are redundant due to secularisation (Jackson, 1997). The ‘religious literacy’ approach which suggests a philosophical basis of pedagogy as a form of ‘critical realism’ is also overtly critical of theology (Barnes & Wright, 2006).

I do not seek to give a definition of ‘theology.’ When I use the term, I merely wish to point to a way of thinking that deals with the questions raised by religion, or a way of investigating God or the divine, which is fundamentally preoccupied with the pursuit of greater truths, and engages with what Alister McGrath identifies as the ‘four sources of theology’: scripture, reason, tradition and experience (1997, 181). And I mean here of course theologies across the religions – all of which have distinctive traditions of using and understanding scripture, reason, tradition and experience.

These elements are open to a multitude of interpretations and subject to on-going debates, but without recourse to them, I would contend, students and adults alike, have little chance of understanding religions – particularly the Abrahamic religions. RE pedagogy, curriculum content and teacher education would benefit from a consideration of, and greater relationship with theology. The four sources allow for a range of questions and issues to be examined by learners by: 1) a consideration of the meaning and interpretation of scripture; 2) the use of reason, critique and rational argument; 3) the understanding of the importance of tradition, both liturgical, intellectual and cultural; and by 4) exploring the phenomenon of religious experience.

The divorce of RE from theology has not been beneficial. On the face of it, it may seem essential to get rid of theology to make RE inclusive and acceptable to all for teaching in today’s multi-faith society. However, it is the very presupposition that a neutral approach is possible or desirable in RE that I wish to challenge. Quite simply, nothing is neutral and our only solution is to teach young people to think through things themselves. The dispassionate study of religion can seem irrelevant to children. The study of more than one religion raises the inevitable question of the validity of a religion or religions. In particular, it raises the ‘inclusivist’ and’ ‘exclusivist’ debate. But this debate is of a theological nature and requires the resources and insights of theology.

A kind of theology will take place when students study religions from any paradigm. This is because, like all human beings, for students, the claims of religions are immediate and compelling, or indeed, repelling. Religions make universal claims about humanity, not just about their current adherents. Religions are not neutral objects: they demand a response from the observer. And with this response, even if profoundly negative, I argue, theologising in the classroom begins. The question is: will we support students in their theologising by giving the insights and tools developed by religious traditions over millennia?

I do not think we should limit the conclusions that students come to in the classroom. Religious educators should always aim to be inclusive, and respectful of the principle of the freedom of belief. However, I do not see this as shying away from controversy, argument and challenging students’ preconceptions. Theology has always been about debate, critique, personal disagreement or even liberation from prevailing dogma. Knowing theology means you know that traditions are diverse.

RE has often conveyed a reified view of religions as distinct monolithic entities. This has led to religions being presented in their most bizarre forms, and as supposedly neutral objects that cannot to be evaluated by students. Present circumstances demand a more sophisticated approach.

In the world of interreligious dialogue, theology has proven itself. One of the most successful methods is scriptural reasoning. This, in short, involves getting different texts from Abrahamic scriptures around a particular theme and adherents of those religions to discuss their meaning. This has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with a good theological conversation. The problem with this approach is having enough theologically informed people around. Because with little theology having been studied – including by RE teachers brought up on religious studies and philosophy – who knows their theology enough to interpret religious scripture?

And for those feeling the need to engage with political questions in RE, theology also deals with them the most appropriately. ‘A common word’ – an initiative among Christian and Muslim theologians and scholars – addresses central questions about the differences and similarities between the two religions, including their teachings on coexistence and peace.

References

Barnes, L.P. & A. Wright (2006) Romanticism, representations of religion and critical religious education. British Journal of Religious Education 28, no. 1: 65–77.

Erricker C. & J. (2000) ‘The Children and Worldviews Project: A Narrative Pedagogy of Religious Education’ in Grimmitt, M., ed., 2000. Pedagogies of Religious Education. Great Wakering: McCrimmons p.188-206

Jackson, R. (1997) Religious Education: an interpretive approach, London: Hodder & Stoughton

McGrath, A. (1997) Christian Theology, An introduction Oxford: Blackwells

Moulin, D. (2012) ‘Religious Education in England After 9/11’ Religious Education, 107:2, 158-173, DOI: 10.1080/00344087.2012.660418

Moulin, D. (2015a) ‘Religious identity choices in English secondary schools’ British Educational Research Journal, 41: 489–504. doi: 10.1002/berj.3151

Last weekend was an odd affair. The Radio 4 Sunday programme were in touch wanting to run items on the latest report (see https://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/ahrc-network-report-collective-worship-religious-observance-law-and-policy.pdf) recommending changes in the law on Collective Worship and on the debate about GCSE choices in Roman Catholic schools. These were to be the major items until the news about the attack in Paris. After that, and rightly, the item on Collective Worship was cut and the debate on GCSE downsized to accommodate discussion of the religious dimension of the terrorist attacks.

What’s interesting is the way the three issues are linked by a single debate about the place of religion in public life. By chance, and perhaps good fortune, two reports to be released in the next few weeks will focus directly on these issues.

The REforReal project (http://www.gold.ac.uk/faithsunit/reforreal/) funded by Culham St Gabriel’s Trust, led by Adam Dinham and based in the Goldsmiths College will release its report exploring the “the role of schools in equipping young people with the knowledge and skills to engage effectively with religion and belief diversity, in schools, in their communities, in future workplaces and in wider social contexts”. This work has been carried out as part of the work of the Faiths and Civil Society Unit.

At the same time we are expecting publication of the report of the Woolf Commission’s report on Religion and Belief in British Public Life http://www.corab.org.uk/ which is likely to include recommendations about RE.

So what’s the connection between Paris, collective worship reform and GCSE in faith schools? All three issues touch on the crucial question:

What is the place of religion in the public space and political policy?

One of the debates arising from the Paris attacks is whether French policy in relation to religion is one factor in the mix in trying to understand what is happening. France operates a very strong policy of secularisation in its public life. As one commentator has written, “France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state – but it does so more militantly than any other. Secularism is the closest thing the French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a basic tenet of the country’s progressive thought since the 18th Century” Henri Astier: The deep roots of French secularism.

French secularity (laïcité) is the absence of religious involvement in government affairs especially the prohibition of religious influence in the determination of state policies. This ‘militant’ secularism is reflected in the controversial policies around public display of religious symbols and, many argue, has alienated and marginalised religious minorities fuelling discontent and a sense of alienation.

In the main in the UK the state is neutral on matters of religion or belief, and guarantees the maximum freedom for all, including religious believers. On the whole, the view is that no one should be privileged or disadvantaged on grounds of their religious or non-religious beliefs.

Public policy towards religion and belief in the UK has been more fudged and ambiguous. It is arguable that the UK is largely committed to secularism – to the principle that, in a plural, open society where people follow many different religious and non-religious ways of life, the state-funded communal institutions should provide a neutral public space where we meet on equal terms.

However there are key ways we do not operate as a secular society. We still have an established church with the monarch as its Head; bishops in the Lords; prayers in public life; opt outs for religious groups from some areas of legislation (e.g. some employment policies and same sex marriage) etc.

AND, from our perspective:

The place of RE in the curriculum, a state funded network of faith schools, and a requirement for ‘broadly’ Christian worship on the statute book. These features of our UK education system reflect our very particular and ambiguous approach to the place of religion and belief in public life.

The Clarke/Woodhead report on A New Settlement began to open up the debate about whether changes in the landscape of religious life since 1944 mean we need to re-examine this issue of the place of religion in public education.

As RE practitioners we need to remain in touch with these discussions. By Christmas, or even before Hannukah, we should see two important new reports make a significant contribution to the debate: so we need to look out for them:

REforReal Project report and Woolf Commission’s report on Religion and Belief in British Public Life

I’ve made the case that RE research refers to public research on a broad range of topics about and for RE, and that all teachers should be research literate (i.e. aware of emergent research and able to refer to it or reflect it in their teaching if they think it’s appropriate). This means that teachers should be engaging with potentially an enormous amount of research literature emerging from universities, trusts, think tanks, government departments etc. This is clearly impossible. The time required for an individual to seek out and read all of this material would be beyond anything any teacher could spare. In the real world, the issue of time is compounded by issues of access and the fact that much research is published in academic journals and held behind often absurdly expensive pay walls. Therefore, some mechanisms need to be put in place to bring relevant RE research directly to teachers in an accessible form that takes into account the busy realities of teachers’ lives.

As already mentioned above, in his review of educational research, Ben Goldacre understandably compares the teaching professional to doctors and argues that most doctors do not have time to read original papers in academic journals. Instead they read the British Medical Journal (BMJ) which has short articles summarising important international research. He suggests something similar for the world of education in the UK, citing What Works Clearing House (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/default.aspx), a web project by the US Government aimed at sharing educational research, as a potential model. Although excellent in theory, anyone who has actually tried to find anything on the What Works Clearing House will quickly appreciate its practical shortcomings. However, the principles behind it arguably offer a good starting point for the RE world.

When conceptualising an appropriate mechanism it’s important to remember that there are two key stakeholders in any system that gets put in place: researchers and teachers. An effective solution will benefit both parties: researchers want their work to reach and help the wider community and, particularly importantly for those working in universities, need to be able to show evidence of impact to their funders and departments as part of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). Having research directly influencing teachers’ professional practice at a national level is potentially an excellent way of showing the impact of that research. Teachers on the other hand want easy access to a range of relevant research presented in a way that quickly makes it clear how it might feature in their professional practice or improve their subject knowledge.

As part of my role as a lecturer in educational technology at Oxford University and my work as knowledge and online manager at Culham St Gabriel’s, I’ve spent a lot of time discussing the issue of research dissemination with various stakeholders and thinking about possible solutions to the problem. So, as this is my blog, I’m now going come of the fence and to take the bold step of outlining a system that I think would properly facilitate the sharing of research in the RE world. Given that I’ve made a career out of working in educational technology, it’s probably not surprising that I am proposing an innovative website as a key part (but not the only part) of this system.

This site would have three core functions: first, following careful collaboration with teachers, consultants, etc., it would provide a template that helps researchers to summarise their work in a way that is appropriately tailored to the needs of teachers. Second, the site would use these short summary reports to automatically produce accessible and visually appealing newsletters, which would then be distributed directly to teachers through an integrated mailing list. Third, the site would collect analytical data on the reach of these newsletters and engagement with them by end users (for example, by recording clicks on links to research project websites and by integrating feedback forms to generate qualitative data on classroom impact and allow teachers to suggest new areas of research). Researchers could then log in to view this data, which they could then use as evidence of direct impact for the REF and funders and, particularly in relation to qualitative data, think about new avenues for research.

In the past I’ve described this model of research dissemination in terms of an hourglass: the top of the glass represents the broad range of individuals and institutions engaged in research activity feeding their work into the system; the middle of the glass is the digitally led framework that sorts and formats the research; the bottom is the distribution list of teachers who receive the research. But like any good hourglass, you can turn it upside down and the evidence of impact, qualitative feedback, ideas for new research etc flow back through the system from teachers to researcher. The idea is that both stakeholders at either end of the glass will participate in the system because both benefit from it – teachers get research and get to offer feedback and highlight new research areas, researchers get quantitative and qualitative data offering evidence of impact as well as important feedback from practitioners.

Now, with the right groundwork and partnership work with stakeholders, I think a great deal of this system can be automated once the proper networks have been established. However, it’s important not to underestimate the human element of this system. A great deal of networking skills would be required to develop trust in it oversight would be necessary at the dissemination stage to ensure the relevance, appropriate formatting etc of the automatically generated newsletters. I think NATRE has a key role to play in all these areas. If the organization took ownership of the system it could provide expert oversight and, as the RE subject organization, establish key networks by validating the system in the eyes of the researchers and teachers. Existing networks of NATRE members also provide an excellent starting point for distribution!

So where does this all leave us? Well, I would argue that it’s time for funders to get actively involved in this issue. Although I was very pleased to participate in an RE Today thinking day on research, I think it’s time to start being pro-active and investing in appropriate systems. But this involves careful thought and potentially bold innovation that goes beyond safe existing structures and ineffective relationships between researchers and teachers.

I’ve outlined a way of conceptualizing research in the RE world and a system for linking teachers and researchers and disseminating research effectively. I think this model has a lot of potential, but I’d love to hear what you think!

Read Research in RE (part 1): What is RE research? Broadening our perspectives
Read Research in RE (part 2): Why is RE research important?
Read Research in RE (part 3): Who should do RE Research?
Read Research in RE (part 4): How Should RE Research be Shared?

Dr James Robson is the Knowledge and Online Manager at Culham St Gabriel’s and a lecturer at Oxford University Department of Education where he is pathway leader for the MSc in Learning and Technology. His blog represents his personal opinions and does not reflect those of either of his employers.

So who should do research? Ok I’ll admit it, this is clearly a loaded question and one that I’ve asked as a way into critiquing current discourses emphasising that all teachers should be ‘research active’, i.e. ‘doing research’. Personally, I think all teachers should be research literate, but I don’t think asserting that all teachers should do research is terribly helpful. Active engagement in research isn’t for everyone and to demand it of every teacher risks flooding the public research space with an overload of poorly thought out and poorly implemented research done half-heartedly to fulfil professional goals. Of course I’m not saying that teacher-led research is inherently bad, I’m saying that bullying people who don’t want to do research into feeling they have to will lead to reluctant researchers which leads to poor research. It risks fatiguing participants, cementing assumptions about educational research as non-rigorous (criticisms frequently levelled at the field already) and making wading through research such an onerous task that to find good research could become almost impossible.

Arguably discourses emphasising that all teachers should do research arise from the fact that, in their everyday professional lives, teachers engage in activity that looks a lot like research. Normal professional practice necessarily involves testing what works in the classroom: what pedagogies are most effective, what technology supports teaching and learning; what kinds of formative assessment work best for progress; how professional development is best supported etc. However, as numerous academics have pointed out, this kind of work is rarely systematic, rooted in academic literature or based in any coherent research methodology; rather it is subjective and unsystematic. Though absolutely vital for individual professional practice, such work is very hard to generalise and in the public sphere is more anecdotal than rigorous.

I don’t want to diminish this crucial work, but I think it’s important to try and make a distinction between individual-focused professional research and research that is systematic, rigorous and rooted in literature, theory and a rich understandings of research methods. Perhaps a working distinction should talk of personal research that facilitates localised professional practice and public research that should enter the public sphere and has the bearing on wider professional practice. I suspect that when people use the general word ‘research’ they mean the latter.

Should all teachers be doing personal research? Absolutely it’s a key part of their professional practice and professional development! Should all teachers be doing public research? Absolutely not – this requires significant time and dedication that many teachers cannot afford to give. It requires detailed planning rooted in a firm knowledge of educational research, theory and research methods that can take years to achieve!

Making this distinction is helpful when trying to discuss teachers’ relationship with research as, all too often, the concept of personal research gets conflated with public research. This leads to unclear debates and muddy thinking. Making the distinction allows us to get to grips with the ways in which research can feature in teachers’ lives and clarifies what we mean when we talk about teachers ‘doing’ research. As such, I would argue that teachers should be literate in public research and actively engaged in personal research. Any more than that is a luxury not a professional necessity.

Read Research in RE (part 1): What is RE research? Broadening our perspectives
Read Research in RE (part 2): Why is RE research important?
Read Research in RE (part 3): Who should do RE Research?
Read Research in RE (part 4): How Should RE Research be Shared?

Dr James Robson is the Knowledge and Online Manager at Culham St Gabriel’s and a lecturer at Oxford University Department of Education where he is pathway leader for the MSc in Learning and Technology. His blog represents his personal opinions and does not reflect those of either of his employers.

Next I want to discuss the question of why we think educational research is important at all. I toyed with starting with this question, it’s clearly vital, but wanted to clarify my terms first. Why should the busy teacher, possibly a lone subject specialist in his/her school, with hundreds of students and an enormous workload, care about research? Naturally lots of people have lots of different opinions on this issue, but for me it comes down to two main reasons: practitioner-based issues and profession-based issues. At a practitioner-based level, engaging in emergent research is an excellent way for teachers to continue their professional development by staying up to date with ideas about practice, theory and subject knowledge. Furthermore, teachers who can use and discuss research are better placed to negotiate and advocate for their subject, students and colleagues in a context where management and policy makers may be drawing on research to justify decisions and changes. Being research literate can be highly empowering.

At a profession-based level teacher engagement with research has implications for the identity of the teaching profession as a whole, beyond the RE-specific context. In 2013 Ben Goldacre was commissioned to write a report on ‘Building Evidence into Education’ (http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/b/ben%20goldacre%20paper.pdf). Although personally I disagree with his positivist and reductionist view of educational research as simply something that answers the question of ‘what works’, the wider aim of turning teaching into an evidence based profession is important. In this report Goldacre describes the way in which, prior to the 1970s, medical practice was primarily dominated by charismatic experts advocating particular procedures based on their own experience, with little large-scale generalisable evidence. It was only through the determined work of Cochrane, the promotion of randomised control trials and the sharing of evidence that many procedures were shown to be damaging to patients. Since then medicine has become evidence based with large-scale trials on what works best guiding practice and appropriate mechanisms put in place to ensure that all practitioners work in accordance with the evidence.

Goldacre argues that the teaching profession is currently at the stage medicine was at in the 1970s: too much practice is based on assumptions and opinions of self-appointed experts with little evidence to back it up. In some cases practice actively goes against existing research evidence. A good example of this is the now fairly well discredited Brain Gym intervention that, at a substantial cost to schools implementing it, advocates that students rub ‘brain buttons’ and drink water through the roof of their mouths for rapid absorption, among other exercises with pseudo-scientific explanations! The popularity of Brain Gym is fortunately on the wane, but it still exists in pockets of the education system despite the fact that there is no evidence of its effectiveness and many of its techniques fly in the face of medical and biological sciences.

Personally, I think it is a noble aim to move guidance on education and teaching practice away from the clutches of gurus, experts and commercial companies (almost all with some kind of financial stake) and base professional practice on research evidence. This is what I mean by research being important at a profession-based level. By understanding and using educational research in everyday practice, teachers can not only avoid getting involved in dubious pseudo-scientific fads, but also contribute to a shift in the identity of the profession, making it truly evidence-based and so more effective.

Of course this is necessarily utopian and in the messy realities of the RE world it is questionable whether the kind of evidence Goldacre demands actually exists. Regrettably a great deal of research both about and for RE is small scale and often qualitative in nature. As a researcher myself who has primarily undertaken small-scale qualitative studies, I think these are extremely valuable. However, I also think it’s time for academics, funders and teachers to be bolder in the kinds of research projects undertaken; to work collaboratively to put together large-scale (and probably very expensive) projects that will generate evidence that will really help teachers. We all need to ask key questions about RE and be brave enough to attempt to answer these questions in a generalizable way that embraces innovative research methodologies. Everyone has a part to play in this, but if we are going to shift our research culture, I think it’s important for funders in the RE world to reflect carefully on what they mean by ‘impact’ (a key part of any funding proposal) and consider whether greater impact could be achieved through funding a small number of large-scale ambitious research projects each year rather than a large number of small ones.

Read Research in RE (part 1): What is RE research? Broadening our perspectives
Read Research in RE (part 2): Why is RE research important?
Read Research in RE (part 3): Who should do RE Research?
Read Research in RE (part 4): How Should RE Research be Shared?

Dr James Robson is the Knowledge and Online Manager at Culham St Gabriels and a lecturer at Oxford University Department of Education where he is pathway leader for the MSc in Learning and Technology. His blog represents his personal opinions and does not reflect those of either of his employers.

Research in RE

Research in RE, and in education in general, is a hot topic at the moment. The word gets bandied around an awful lot and there seems to be a growing discourse at all levels, from policy makers and commentators to consultants and practitioners, that teachers should be research active and research informed. Unfortunately, what this actually means in practice isn’t always particularly clear. It’s very easy to engage in research rhetoric – repeating stock phrases about a need to ‘embed research in the profession’ and ensuring practice is ‘evidence based’. However, without a rich reflective discussion about what we actually mean, there’s a real danger that this kind of language sounds at best empty and at worst extremely patronising.

Therefore, as a starting point, I’m going use this blog to begin thinking about four questions that I believe are key to the whole debate about the place of research in RE: what is RE research; why is it important; who should be doing it; how should it be shared?

What is RE research? Broadening our perspectives.

There are two ways in which we can understand RE research: research about RE and research for RE. Research about RE clearly refers to those research projects that tend to come from within the RE world and focus on specific RE issues. These can be broad questions like ‘does RE work’ (Conroy), structural discussions (Aldridge), historical studies (Parker and Freathy), investigations of RE teachers’ experiences (Everington), as well as teacher led action research. However, there is a tendency in this area to focus in on key issues of teaching and learning in RE, i.e. pedagogy and teaching methods (Wright, Jackson, Gearon etc.).

In contrast research for RE can be thought of in terms of research from a wider group of subject areas and disciplines, beyond the narrow confines of the RE world, that has some bearing on the way we think about and engage with our subject. This could include work from educational studies – for example, research on assessment, pedagogy, and educational technology – or it could be related to RE subject knowledge emerging from, for example, theology, religious studies, anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy etc.

In my experience a great deal of discussion on RE research often has a narrow focus – usually understanding it in terms of research about RE. Regrettably a number of academics, teachers and funders are all guilty of this narrow focus, at least to some degree. This area, of course, is extremely important, but it is arguable that maintaining such a narrow focus is too limiting and risks RE research and professional communities becoming overly inward looking and closed off to outside innovation (a criticism not entirely new to the RE world). In contrast, if we engage with wider research that comes from outside RE, teachers, academics and professionals can stay up to date in wider educational and subject knowledge related debates.

Therefore, when we talk about RE research we should be careful with our language and ensure that we avoid embedding narrow definitions of the term, instead embracing a broad understanding that encompasses research both about and for RE. This is particularly important for teachers, teacher trainers and academics who may want to review the kinds of research they think might be relevant to their practice. However, it is equally important for funders in the RE world to consider whether too narrow a view of RE research can restrict educational innovation. They should reflect on whether funding criteria related to RE research, if understood only in terms of research about RE, close the door on innovative interdisciplinary projects that could significantly benefit the RE community. One way forward for funders might involve an increase in partnership working where RE focused trusts work with other grant giving bodies to fund RE specific posts on more general educational or subject knowledge related projects – employing RE experts to highlight RE relevance and ‘translate’ it for the subject specific audience of the RE world.

Read Research in RE (part 1): What is RE research? Broadening our perspectives
Read Research in RE (part 2): Why is RE research important?
Read Research in RE (part 3): Who should do RE Research?
Read Research in RE (part 4): How Should RE Research be Shared?

Dr James Robson is the Knowledge and Online Manager at Culham St Gabriels and a lecturer at Oxford University Department of Education where he is pathway leader for the MSc in Learning and Technology. His blog represents his personal opinions and does not reflect those of either of his employers.

The headline was shocking ….. and the subsequent debate on social media tormented!

“A new exposé of Mother Teresa shows that she—and the Vatican—were even worse than we thought”

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/a-new-expose-on-mother-teresa-shows-that-she-and-the-vatican-were-even-worse-than-we-thought/

What is rather bizarre is the way old articles like this (2013??) suddenly resurface and become ‘news’…. and the way the RE social media reacted to the discussion.

For some this was typical of negative journalism bringing down the efforts of good people to help others. Some highlighted that Teresa recognised her own imperfection and that ‘only God is perfect’. As one person said it would be better for the journalists, “to take the plank out of their own eye prior to trying to remove the splinter from Mother Teresa’s. Perhaps it would be better for her critics to focus their wasted energy on the evil acts committed in the world rather than those who work with the poorest on the world”.

For others, Teresa represented the problems when faith ‘gets it wrong’ by allowing religious ideas to undermine and distort charitable work. To quote another thread: “She refused medical treatment to people who desperately needed it and tried to explain it as suffering which brought people closer to Christ. In most discussions of ethics, the decision not to act in a situation where you could give help is evil. And, talking of money, what happened to all the millions of donations she was given?”

I don’t want to get drawn into the detail of the debate. I am much more interested in exploring the wider implications of all this for our teaching in RE.

I can see opportunities and dangers.

What are the opportunities here for RE? There is a rich area of enquiry here.

One of the characteristics of religions (and indeed non-religious ideologies) is the tendency to elevate particular human beings into ‘sources of salvation, inspiration or revelation’. Concepts like sacred, saint, saviour, prophet, Christ, messiah, son of God are part of this process of sanctification. No doubt all of us have people who have inspired us (my Dad) but in religions this subjective experience is often translated into an objective reality. Some kind of divine status is projected onto the individual. Jesus is not just ‘my saviour’; he is saviour of the world. That’s why the great Patti Smith lyric is so controversial: “Jesus died for somebody’s sins, but not mine” (Gloria on the ‘Horses’ album). He either died for everyone’s or no-one’s!

How and why do religions develop this process of ‘sanctification’? We see this question being explored in the debate about the Jesus of History v The Christ of Faith. It is reflected in the elevation of Muhammad into the status of the Final Prophet. We see it in the practice of canonisation where someone lived and died in such an exemplary and holy way that he or she is worthy to be venerated as a saint. For those within the religion this process often takes the person out of the normal process of critical historical, biographical investigation.

This could be part of an enquiry into concepts like ‘the sacred’. How/Why do particular historical figures come to hold a ‘sacred’ status? What mechanisms are involved? Why is this idea so important in religion? Is it true of all religions? How does a religion cope/react when historical evidence challenges that sacred, elevated status? Good enquiry material.

What are the dangers for RE?

There is still a tendency amongst some to teach about ‘people of inspiration’ in order to ‘uplift pupils spiritually’. The constant danger is that the drive to be respectful or promote ‘personal qualities’ undermines the academic standing of RE and the process of open enquiry. Rarely do these topics extend to critically examine the concept of ‘inspiring people’. It is part of the lingering confessionalism that still plagues much RE.

As Linz Wilkinson suggested in one of the most helpful social media posts about the Teresa debate: “Surely when new evidence comes to light the most important thing is to read it objectively, not simply stick our heads in the sand and carry on believing what we previously thought just because it makes us uncomfortable, or disgusted, whatever, to find our views challenged.”

One of this month’s #BlogSyncRE topics is about Islam and what students need to know. I hope others will share thoughts and experience identifying ideas around students’ learning about Islam.

I’d like to offer a slightly different perspective. We don’t want to keep ‘problematizing’ Islam in the eyes of students but it is important to help them develop critical questioning and enquiry in their study of religion and belief. And…..it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Islam in the 21^stC brings controversy.

As students develop religious literacy, the ability to ask more sophisticated and challenging questions is essential. One of the skills of effective RE is asking the right questions at the right time! Christianity has had 200+ years to respond to the challenging questions raised by history and the social sciences.

Islam has, with some noble exceptions, struggled to embrace that kind of critical thinking. BUT, because Islam is so newsworthy it is an excellent context for enlarging students’ understanding of the social reality of religion in the modern world.

In schools where Islam is a selected religion in upper Key Stage 3 and 4, helping students to begin to ask and explore challenging questions is crucial if we are to help them make sense of the tensions facing Muslims in the modern world. Sadly, the new GCSE criteria do not actively encourage these lines of enquiry but I’m sure many teachers might enjoy going a little ‘off piste’!

Ideally we would start with ways the Muslim community itself is grappling with those questions. One of the most challenging writers on Islam today is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Raised a Muslim but now working outside the faith, Ali has written widely on the theme. At times her books have an uncomfortable populist edge and many challenge some of her scholarship – but she does offer ideas about interesting lines of enquiry. One of her most recent books is:

‘Heretic – Why Islam needs a reformation now’. (Harper 2015)

The book’s title already suggests one obvious line of questioning which students might explore: Does Islam need to be reformed in the modern world?

The book offers five Islamic ideas which she thinks need reform:

• The literalist reading of the Quran and Muhammad’s semi-divine and infallible status
• The investment in life after death instead of life before death
• How Sharia shackles Muslims and keeps them stuck in the 7^th C
• How the practice of enforcing social control by commanding right and forbidding wrong limits freedom of thought
• The imperative to wage jihad

These are highly controversial issues and we can all think of ways in which her questioning betrays a particular and partial reading of contemporary Islam. We all know about ‘lesser’ and ‘greater’ jihad.

Her point is that while, of course, some Muslims would not recognise this picture of Islam, many of the core beliefs of the religion ‘exist in an uneasy tension with modernity – the complex of economic, cultural, and political innovations that not only reshaped the Western world but also dramatically transformed the developing world as the West exported it’ (Ali 2015).

What Ali offers us, as teachers of RE, are ideas about potential lines of questioning and enquiry which students could explore. Would questions like these, skilfully used when appropriate, help crystalize ideas which might well be bubbling under the surface of many students’ thinking?

• Is the Qur’an the word of God or a human creation? Who really wrote the Qur’an?
• Is Muhammad a prophet of God or a skilled politician using religion to achieve his political ends and strengthen Arab identity?er point Her What
• Is Islam pre-occupied with life after death? Is this pre-occupation healthy?
• Does sharia still operate? Is it fit for purpose in the modern world? Should we base laws on religious authority?
• Do some forms of Islam reinforce social control rather than encouraging freedom of thought and open questioning?
• Is the use of the idea of jihad a charter for the extremism we see in some parts of the Islam world?

Massive note of caution!

To repeat the point made earlier: One of the skills of effective RE is asking the right questions at the right time! If this is true of the student it is even truer of the teacher. We must be wary of problematizing Islam in ways that reinforce islamophobia.

In a way Hirsi Ali gives us permission to ask these questions. They are not random questions; they are questions being asked by those at the heart of the debate about Islam in the modern world. But they need to be used skilfully and sensitively; when the time is right and when students can engage with them in a mature way; when the students have developed the skills of balancing respect for others with the ability to ask critical questions.

A vision for a better RE future

Yes, RE is sometimes brilliantly taught, and is essential to the curriculum; but its quality is too often undermined by a range of factors. The RE community cannot allow these factors to continue damaging the subject’s quality: we need change in our standards and our structures.

My vision for RE is that it produces pupils who are religiously literate and who function well in a theologically and philosophically diverse world. Imagine an Ofsted survey report on RE in 2020: it reports that 7 out of 10 teachers are clear that the core purpose of RE is to promote religious literacy; that teaching is usually good or outstanding and based on a clear progression pathway; that there is excellent support for primary and secondary teachers of RE; that local bodies help to resource RE and national expectations are consistent and clear; and that RE is an entitlement for all pupils up to 16, parents having accepted the nature of RE and seeing no need to withdraw their children.

This piece describes why change is needed to get to that vision, why it is urgent, who needs to be involved, and how we could get there.

Why is change needed in RE?

Now I’m going to invite you to consider what RE will be like in 2020 if it does not change: marginalized status, outmoded and decaying structures, muddled purpose, and low standards. I wish to place the learning of pupils and students, and the professional needs of teachers, at the heart of the discussion: nothing else is more important. Many teachers, and trainee teachers, are saying that the current structures are not working. Here are some of the reasons why the structures need to change:

• The current rules on RE are so complicated that Heads, governors, Ofsted itself and even civil servants get it wrong. RE is statutory but not national curriculum; compulsory, but you can withdraw; local, but not that local; different if you are an academy; populated by 151 syllabuses, all broadly similar in content, but in form and structure so different and complex that it takes an army of advisers and consultants to interpret – an army we no longer have. The SACRE system created in 1944 is falling apart under the pressure of factors beyond RE’s control.
• Many syllabuses are more prescriptive than NC documents: this makes local determination a restricting factor, not a liberating one. In some cases, the syllabuses contribute to low standards in RE by being too complex and defining RE’s purposes too widely and incoherently. Many trainees struggle to work with the multiplicity and complexity of syllabuses.
• The agreed syllabus system is profoundly out of step with school-led educational reform; it is called local determination, but it is not local enough to allow for school autonomy; it was a local authority monopoly, which is now broken permanently and not coming back. It is also wasteful, intellectually and financially. There will be little if anything left of the system by 2020; it reflects a view of the UK’s religious landscape that was accurate 70 years ago. If we cling to it, we will sink. If we create something new, we can survive and prosper.

Why is the moment now?

This is urgent because the continued weakening of RE’s infrastructure is already damaging the provision of RE in schools. RE lessons are being reduced, RE specialists are hard to find, RE’s quality is inconsistent, and RE’s credibility is confused and contested. If RE continues as it is, by 2020 there will be little left of it outside schools with a religious character. There is a need to act now to prepare a viable future for RE. This means a change in the legal arrangements, and a more simple, straightforward purpose for the subject. Sooner or later, this change has to be made. It will either be a change created by the RE profession and its stakeholders – or a change forced on them by expediency.

Change by 2020, if it involves legislation, needs to be planned from now. From the government point of view, legislation should not take place too close to a general election in 2020. Therefore, a Bill would optimally pass through parliament in 2017-18. For this to be fully prepared and inclusively debated, the work needs to start this year and continue through 2016-17.

We in the RE profession need to start thinking now about the change we want, in time for it to become a reality by 2020. If we work with each other to be clear and united on what we want, we can get it. As a professional community, we have the scholarly knowledge and leadership capacity to create a new future for our subject, on a secure professional educational footing. But we have to start by facing these difficult realities now.

Who needs to be involved?

I am a professional RE teacher, speaking with the experience of one who has the responsibility of working within the present system to strengthen young people’s understanding of religion and belief. I and many other teachers want something better for RE; I want to be in dialogue with those who share this vision and those who do not.

How would it be if Chairs of RE organisations, local and national policy makers, academy providers, churches and other faith/belief communities, worked together with teachers in shaping a model that better served children and teachers? And how would it be if other stakeholders, such as parents, heads, governors, universities, unions, employers, and experts in human rights and democratic participation, less immediately concerned with RE but still relevant, were to lend us their expertise? I, you, we must take ownership of a national discussion about better standards and structures in RE. We must ensure that this discussion is informed and inclusive.

How can we get there?

RE needs to move from the current situation of low status, weak and decaying structures, confused purpose, and low standards, to a better future for RE learners: high status, modern structures, rigour and engagement, and better alignment with the exciting real world of religion and belief in the 21c.

All pupils are entitled to a high quality RE which enables them to encounter and understand the diversity of religion and belief and makes them religiously literate. We need a nationally defined legal entitlement for all pupils, which each school can contextualise and mediate to suit its own situation, ethos and character.

Up till now, the discussion has tended to polarize ‘local’ and ‘national’. But RE is bigger than ‘local or national’: we need to break this binary assumption. RE is global and national and local. Young people encounter religion and belief as a global reality and in their immediate locality. As a nation concerned with excellence, we have a right to set national expectations in RE for every child. As a nation concerned with peace, justice, security and our changing cultural heritage, we also see a need for national expectations. Local communities identify how these expectations could take many different forms at school and community level. RE can have a new settlement that reflects the best of global, national and truly local inputs. We can create this together, focusing on what is best for teachers and pupils.

There should be a national commission to look into the place of RE within our education system. It should focus on the law on RE and propose a new settlement, to support a new vision for the place of RE within the curriculum. It should also propose other initiatives to promote high quality RE. The commission should first gather evidence comprehensively from teachers and other stakeholders. The exact task of the commission has yet to be defined; it could take the form of three questions, such as:

• To what extent are the present legal arrangements for RE fit for the purposes of providing a curriculum of academic challenge and interest for pupils, and creating citizens capable of living effectively in a diverse nation?
• What new legal arrangements and structures should be enacted to promote RE as an academically rigorous subject that contributes to a positive public understanding of religious diversity?
• What forms of training, support, resourcing, and voluntary association would benefit teachers and trainers in providing excellent RE in the classroom?

An alternative set of questions might be:

• How can the quality of the pupils’ learning experience in RE be improved in English schools?
• What legal and structural factors create barriers to excellence in RE, and what changes are needed?
• What additional forms of training, support, resourcing, and voluntary association would benefit teachers, and how can they be provided?

Working in the context of an inclusive, informed and dynamic national debate, the commission’s task would be to answer the above questions, based on the evidence they have gathered and their own expert interpretation necessary to give coherence to the evidence. The commission should take up to 12 months, in time for this government to legislate in mid-term, ie 2017-18, at the point of lowest political risk for them. This is a window of opportunity that might not come again.

RE needs a settlement that will be evidentially based, and will having staying power through years of political change. Therefore, the commission needs to be independent of the current government, while having observers from the government and opposition parties. It should be an open, inclusive process: high challenge, low threat.

These questions have to be answered for the pupils and teachers of now and the future. Many RE teachers are clear and determined that we can do better than the present arrangements, but we do not have all the answers. RE is a subject that is ready to govern itself by new rules.

Conclusion – and invitation to conversation

I want an RE which has real intellectual integrity, reflects the reality of religion and belief in the modern world , and makes an excellent contribution to pupils’ education. RE needs the structures that can deliver this. I am not critical of the people who operate in the present structures. I am only able to teach and to present these ideas because of the great work done by leading RE people in the past and present. I owe them my thanks. It is the system that is broken and indefensible, because it is not serving teachers and pupils well enough. I appreciate that change is a challenge for people who have invested time, talent and reputation in the present system. To go for change may well feel like a betrayal, or a risk. But surely the greater risk, the greater betrayal, would be to recognise that our structures are failing, and leading our subject to weakness and irrelevance, to know that we could do better – and to do nothing? What will the teachers who come after us say to us then? The historical moment is on us now. It is dangerous to do nothing and left the situation drift. I hope we will have an informed and inclusive conversation in order to shape our future.