Viewing archives for Archive

We have seen some lively debates in the social media in recent months about the relationship between faith schools and RE. I suspect we have seen more heat than light.

I want to say at the outset that the notion that the future existence of faith schools is under any immediate threat can be set aside. They are too popular and are perceived to be too successful. There is no likelihood of any Government in the foreseeable future entertaining the idea of their abolition.

In part, the RE social media debates were stimulated by the recent Clarke/Woodhead pamphlet ‘A New Settlement’

When I saw an early draft I responded to Charles Clarke by suggesting that it might be best to focus just on RE and leave the faith school discussion to a later publication. But it was clear that Charles wanted to deal with all the issues related to religion in education as a whole. On reflection I now think he was right but the issues need to be dealt with very carefully and sensitively.

At the heart of the pamphlet is the discussion of how the place of religion in our schools should respond to the significant changes we have seen in the landscape of religion and belief in modern Britain since 1944 when the legislation behind the current dual (faith/non-faith) school system and RE was established. As Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the BHA, said in his comment on the pamphlet, “Every area of our education system that intesects with questions of religion and belief needs urgent review”.

Clarke and Woodhead make it very clear that they do not challenge the continued existence of faith schools. What is interesting is the issue of what expectations we might reasonably have of faith schools in relation to RE given the changed nature of the religious landscape of the UK. We have already seen two significant recent changes in those expectations:

–  The new requirement that all GCSE courses must include the study of two religions means that, for the first time, central government is defining some of the expectations of RE in faith schools.

– In addition, the recent Ofsted emphasis on promoting pupils’ ‘interest in exploring, improving understanding of, and showing respect for, different faiths and cultural diversity’, has focused attention in how far all schools, including faith schools, need to take account of religious diversity.

The call for a national curriculum for RE which would include a common minimum entitlement for all pupils in all schools is one of Clarke/Woodhead’s core proposals. It would mean that all pupils, including those in faith schools, would receive a shared programme for RE to reflect the changed landscape of religion and belief in the UK.

There are many reasons why this proposal makes good sense. I offer two as a contribution to the discussion:

1.  In 1944 any faith nurture-based RE programme in faith schools appeared relatively benign. There was a high level of confidence that religious communities (predominantly the CofE) would offer a programme of RE broadly aligned with the wider values of British society, particularly in the aftermath of WW2. There was reasonable confidence in the mechanisms for quality assuring the RE provision in faith schools. As the pattern of faith school provision has become increasingly diverse, this degree of confidence that the RE provision will be ‘benign’ in all faith schools has become less secure. The increasing diversity of religion and belief has placed strain on community cohesion. The religious education of our children has become much more important as a factor in ‘improving understanding of, and showing respect for, different faiths and cultural diversity’. For this reason it is important to give serious consideration to the notion of national curriculum for RE which defines a minimum shared RE entitlement for all pupils in all schools.

2.  One of the key characteristics of the landscape of religion and belief in the 21st Century UK is its increasing complexity. Crucially we have seen a significant growth in the number of young people who do not identify with any particular religion: the ‘nones’. We are seeing more young people who do not adopt the religion or belief of their parents. This presents a challenge to any faith nurture-based model of RE in schools. We need to question the notion that parents have the right to determine the religious education of their children. We need to consider the rights of the child to an education which promotes open enquiry into the rich and diverse landscape of religion and belief. This is a second key reason why it is important to give serious consideration to the notion of national curriculum for RE which defines a minimum shared RE entitlement for all pupils in all schools.

Clarke and Woodhead’s proposals in this area were modest. They suggested the government should discuss with faith school providers the merits of ‘adopting this nationally-agreed syllabus and…consider legislating to require all maintained schools to adopt this syllabus’. I think we should actively support this call for discussion. Faith schools are state schools funded by the tax payer and they need to respect the request for public discussion of their provision. We need open debate about the expectations we might reasonably have of faith schools in relation to RE given the changed nature of the religious landscape of the UK.

One of this month’s chosen blog topics is: The unique challenges of being an RE teacher. As ever I want to go off at a slight tangent.

And….. last week we had this great quote from Nick Gibb about teacher recruitment . What crisis – there’s no crisis! Lethal use of the word ‘managing’!! It will come back to bite him.

So to paraphrase Mr Gibb:

“Do we believe there is a crisis in RE… or are there challenges which we are managing?”

2014/15 has been the year in which blogging came centre stage in RE. For me, this was the starting point last September, and I still recommend the novel:

“The idea of writing a regular blog came as I read Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s recent novel Americanah. It was the book I most enjoyed over the summer ………… full of fascinating insights into the world of what she refers to as the ‘blogosphere’. ……..As I read the novel my enthusiasm for this form of social media grew. Blogging – somewhere between proper research (which sounds too much like hard work) and tweeting (a form of low life to which I find myself mildly addicted!).

As the school year draws towards its end, I am asking that question. “Do we believe there is a crisis in RE… or are there challenges which we are managing?” To put it another way:

Is the situation we are facing cyclical or systemic?

RE’s success as a subject waxes and wanes. We had good years in the noughties: a sense of optimism; GCSE flourishing; strong national support for RE from QCDA and Ofsted; consensus around the 2004 Framework etc. From 2010 onwards we have had a leaner time: no support from the Government; abolition of QCDA; Ofsted lost interest; GCSE under threat; RE showing signs of fragmenting; a sense of anxiety about the future.

I don’t think there is much doubt that the public face of this Government is turned away from RE. Despite the fact that ‘religion’ is very high priority on the Government’s agenda as part of the extremism scare, they have shown little interest in investing in RE. £3.5 million for projects to support ‘character development’ in schools including the use of rugby coaches …. but no money to support RE!!!

Is this part of a cycle or does it reflect a more fundamental systemic crisis for our subject?

If it’s a cycle, we wait for the wheel to turn and things will improve. A future Government will value the subject again and the good times will be back. We batten down the hatches. We work together and support each other to manage the bad times, knowing good times will return. We don’t panic, we don’t despair. We manage the challenge!

If it’s systemic and RE is facing terminal damage, we need more radical treatment; we might need surgery to prevent the patient from dying. Dramatic metaphors but when we hear from teachers about RE being slashed from the curriculum in many academies and schools, there is a real sense of crisis. If RE starts to disappear and the sky doesn’t fall down, we may find that this statutory subject begins to become ‘optional’ – strong in faith schools and where there is SLT support, but absent in many other places! Remember classics and Latin used to be core parts of the curriculum!!

So which is it? Well, we don’t really know for sure. We have a lot of anecdotes but Ofsted’s mechanisms for collecting evidence have been shut down. NATRE are doing a great job analysing information to see what it tells us. And their survey is up and running again:

http://www.natre.org.uk/news/latest-news/2015-natre-secondary-survey/

The picture is fuzzy. But there are indications that the problems are systemic and need radical solutions:

• A further expansion of the academies programme will place huge strain on the ability of local authorities and SACREs to support RE – the basic principle of local determination could collapse.
• The principle that all pupils have an equal entitlement to RE will be under threat if more and more schools abandon the subject
• Although we are seeing a fantastic explosion of debates about RE on social media, in the background is a sense that the subject is losing its way and becoming more and more confused about its purpose – but with no obvious mechanism for achieving agreement and consensus.

There is real optimism from some unusual quarters outside the normal RE professional community. Three reports published or on the horizon will support calls to re-assert the importance of RE:

-We have already seen Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead’s really important pamphlet: A New Settlement http://faithdebates.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/A-New-Settlement-for-Religion-and-Belief-in-schools.pdf

-Next up should be the report of the RE for REAL project http://www.gold.ac.uk/faithsunit/reforreal/

-Followed by the report from the Butler Sloss Commission on R&B in public life http://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/practice/commission-on-religion-and-belief.asp

One thing you can do. Help NATRE collect more evidence: COMPLETE THE SURVEY by July 31

2015 NATRE Secondary Survey

Theological enquiry is now a buzzword in the discussions about what we want to achieve in RE. It is focused on Christianity but reflects concern that in teaching about any religion we need to help pupils explore some of the core beliefs. If we want pupils to get beyond externals, they need to examine those beliefs and how they influence the way some people sense of the world.

But …. as well as knowing the beliefs, we also need to consider how religious believers interpret those beliefs. What do believers believe about their beliefs… and of course, they don’t agree!! It is one of the conundrums that makes RE so tricky. Everything is contested and controversial.

Let’s stick with Christianity. I want to take the unusual step of quoting at length from a writer whose work has influenced the way many think about Christianity. He will be familiar to many, and I apologise in advance for the heavily gendered language:

“The whole conception of the world… in the New Testament is mythological: i.e.

– the conception of the world as being structured in three stories, heaven, earth, hell;

– the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the course of events;

– and the conception of miracles, especially of the intervention of supernatural powers in the inner life of the soul, the conception that men (sic) can be tempted and corrupted by the devil and possessed by evil spirits.

This conception of the world we call mythological because it is different from the conception… formed and developed by science since its inception in ancient Greece and which is accepted by all modern men… modern science does not believe that the course of nature can be interrupted or, so to speak, perforated by supernatural powers.

The same is true of the modern study of history, which does not take into account any intervention of God or of the devil or of demons in the course of history. Instead, the course of history is considered to be an unbroken whole, complete in itself… Of course, there are still many superstitions among modern men, but they are exceptions or even anomalies. Modern men take it for granted that the course of nature and of history, like their own inner life and their practical life, is nowhere interrupted by the intervention of supernatural powers…

For modern man the mythological conception of the world, the conceptions of eschatology, of redeemer and of redemption , are over and done with. Is it possible to expect that we shall make a sacrifice of understanding, sacrificium intellectus, in order to accept what we cannot sincerely consider true?” Jesus Christ and Mythology (SCM Press 1958)

So no angels, no virgin births, no miracles, no incarnations, no resurrections, no ascensions – those ideas are all part of a mythological world we no longer inhabit and to which we cannot return. We all now inhabit a way of living and being in the world which is radically secular. Being secular is not an intellectual choice we make – it is who we are.

Some might assume that the writer is a non-Christian, maybe an atheist.

But not true of course. He is Rudolf Bultmann, one of the leading 20th century Christian theologians.

His writing raises many crucial questions for RE. We think with a secular mind across the wider curriculum and across most of our life. We cannot leave that mind set outside the RE room. In Bultmann’s terms, we cannot sacrifice our intellect when we reach the RE lesson. This raises big questions about the way the study religions and how we handle theological concepts with pupils. What do we tell them?

First in relation to the study of religion, his point about the study of history also applies to the study of religion. If we are to make sense of human religious life we cannot take into account the intervention of Gods or supernatural powers. We wouldn’t take that intervention into account in the study of any other aspects of human life, so we shouldn’t take it into account when we study religion.

‘God’ is not a legitimate explanatory concept when we try to make sense of religion in RE! Paradoxical to some – but an absolutely crucial principle.

Second, we have to recognise that there are huge differences of viewpoint within Christianity about theological concepts. For example, many Christians will agree with Bultmann that most theological language is part of a mythological conception of the world which is no longer part of our mindset. If pupils are to make sense of theological language, do they need to understand that they ‘thought differently back then’? It’s not that they believed in weird stuff – they just read the world differently.

When we engage pupils with biblical and theological language we are taking then into the world of mythology.

Or are we? Other Christians might not agree.. As teachers all we can do is notice the debates and be curious about them. But it is probably not enough to say ‘some think this/others think this’.

What is clear is that as we press for clarity about the content of the RE curriculum these issues cannot be ducked. Teachers will need a deal of support to help them work through the complexities. All at the very moment when we know we need to make RE more straightforward and accessible to the teacher.

The core spiritual value of religious literacy

In thinking about religious literacy, I wonder what virtues you might consider essential? Is there a core spiritual value lying at the heart of great RE?

Respect? – possibly, except there are some forms of religion and belief that are very hard to respect.

Empathy? – yes, important but quite a tricky and subjective thing to achieve.

Discernment? – again, invaluable but perhaps rather too challenging.

A sense of awe and wonder? – great cross-curricular value which needs to be embedded in every subject.

Faith? – NO – not a spiritual virtue for the RE classroom.

Curiosity as RE’s core spiritual value

Helping pupils develop curiosity about the world of religion and belief, about questions of meaning and purpose, seems like the ‘non-negotiable’ for RE. I think a reason why Dawkins and other people with certainty sometimes are such bad models for religious educators is because they seem to lack curiosity.

Is curiosity is THE spiritual quality which it is reasonable to expect all teachers will bring to their RE teaching? It’s hard to demand that teachers bring discernment, faith or wisdom to the classroom, but asking them to be curious seems a fundamental part of what it means to be an educator.

Curiosity has the open, enquiring quality essential for good RE. We all know the tricky debates around the values of neutrality and objectivity. We can never be totally neutral or completely objective. But it is reasonable to ask anyone embarking on the profession of teaching to make curiosity a core aspiration.

And curiosity is infectious. One of my worries is the current view that some teachers want more ethical and social issues because students aren’t interested in religion. I understand this but wonder why they can’t find or communicate their curiosity about religion – what is it we are doing that inhibits this curiosity from developing? Maybe some of us as teachers are reluctant to model that curiosity. Maybe we haven’t found the triggers that will foster and sustain being curious about religion and belief. If it is the case that there is no curiosity about religion and belief, then RE is a lost cause.

Curiosity is negotiated. Developing curiosity demands a dialogue with the pupils. RE, perhaps more than many other subjects, needs to start with the pupils but then nurture and direct their curiosity. What they find curious is critical. What we do as teachers to foster and focus that curiosity is essential. But teachers need clarity about the content of that curiosity! (see below).

One key to interpreting the term ‘religious literacy’ is that it is about developing the breadth, depth and intensity of pupils’ curiosity about R&B. Pupils have a natural curiosity but it does need educating. We can’t just rely on pupils ‘being curious’. As our landscape of understanding grows, so our curiosity grows. So we have the paradox – we more we understand about any subject, the more curious we become. At least in theory!

What is it that we want pupils to be curious about when they do RE?

I think we can demand that teachers deploy the quality of curiosity in their RE teaching; but I think teachers can rightly demand clarity about the CONTENT of that curiosity.

This remains the big debate. This is the issue we must resolve if the subject is to improve and secure credibility in the curriculum. At the moment there is still insufficient agreement about the focus, boundaries and range of curiosity within RE.

As so often said: The RE space is too poorly defined, too contested and too often colonised by all and sundry. We are too seduced by being curious about everything!

We return to the core question which has dominated our discussions around religious literacy and the Clarke/Woodhead pamphlet on A New Settlement. I have been very struck by some of Andy Lewis’ reflections from the vantage point of teaching in the Catholic sector. He has challenged the wider RE community. The curriculum in the RC sector is very clearly defined by the Catholic Curriculum Directory. That is clear about content. Why would the RC world give up some of their time to a ‘core entitlement curriculum for all’ if that entitlement is still confused? It is a fair question. That RC curriculum, at least in its official authoritative statements if not on the ground, is far too narrowly defined, makes too many assumptions and is far too confessional in its approach. But why give up clarity for something that is unclear and ill-defined.

So YES to curiosity as the core spiritual value of RE – but still much work to do in defining the boundaries of that curiosity.

So it’s published. The long awaited, at least by me, publication of ‘A New Settlement: Religion and Belief in Schools’ by Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead. This is a ground-breaking review which has the potential to shape the future of our subject. If the document is to have the impact it deserves it needs to be understood, debated and supported by the RE community. Supported not in every detail but in terms of its big picture and the opportunity it offers to do something! Things of this stature don’t come along often in RE.

Charles is one the most respected politicians of our times. A Privy Councillor, his interest in RE was fuelled during his time as Secretary of State for Education when he was actively involved in developing the 2004 non- statutory National Framework for RE. Linda has an international reputation as a leader in the field of religion in modern society.

Crucially – we need to focus on the big picture in the report rather than the detail. There are things I don’t agree with but the overall ambition and direction of the report is right. And it is not just an interesting intellectual piece just for us to debate; it is call for change and if we diss it we will miss the opportunity it could provide.

Why do I like it?

8 reasons:

-Its focus is unremittingly on the needs of children, young people and those who teach them. The authors are not in the business of protecting structures, interest groups or traditions just for their own sake. It is focused on establishing a shared minimum entitlement for all young people to an RE that will meet their needs regardless of which school they find themselves.

-It is grounded in the reality of religion and belief in the modern world. It has a vision for where children and young people are in that world. It embraces the best social research into the changing patterns of religion and belief today where the largest group are ‘nones’ – and don’t necessarily identify with any particular religion or belief.

-It is strategic and could have leverage. It has that blend of realism and vision that are needed to secure change. Maybe not all the recommendations are quite right but the direction is It believes change is possible if the arguments are developed well. The art of the possible is in play! AND ….. Charles is a ‘big beast’, a Privy Councillor who commands respect. Linda carries great academic authority. People will listen.

-It is open and reflective. The authors know they don’t have all the answers. It debates with itself, sharing differences of perspective. What is on offer is a discussion starter but it provides an excellent landscape of the issues we face and ways in which we could move forward.

-It is left field. Neither Charles nor Linda has any particular vested interests. They aren’t in any of the usual RE camps that so often undermine our debates. This helps give the pamphlet the authority which might just overcome the disputes that plague our community and make Government wary of engaging with RE.

-It is radical.  It recognises that RE ‘cannot go on as it is’ – we need a systemic change which enhances teachers’ capacity to teach good RE. It recognises the challenges facing us and the need to re-establish the credibility and status of RE by normalising its place in school life. The settlement on which RE is based was agreed in 1944. It needs to be looked at again and brought into the 21c.

-It is ours. This is not some set of Government proposals from on high imposed upon us that we have to take or leave. It is being offered to us as a profession. It offers the opportunity to work together to create the future. It’s not about waiting for ‘them’ to do it to ‘us’.

-Finally, it is serious. The authors are passionate. Not as classroom practitioners or part of the RE community, but as people for whom three things matter: children and young people, teachers, and the importance of religion and belief in schools.

Ok, sermon over. There is passion here. I genuinely think that this pamphlet, hopefully joined by some others later this year, offers the best opportunity in years to take our subject forward. The price of failure could be serious. My genuine fear is that the current problems facing our subject in many, many schools are not part of a cycle where all recovers in time; I fear the problems are systemic and need radical solutions!

A crucial paragraph from the report is worth quoting again:

“..the whole area of religious education has suffered from being treated very differently from other subjects. Sometimes it has been treated as less important, sometimes as more important. It has been freighted with too little significance or too much. The consequences have been negative and have inhibited reform. We believe that the subject should be put on a similar footing to other subjects, and no longer be treated as an exceptional case.” Pg 7

The last few days has seen some lively blogging around the issue of religious literacy. Some themes are emerging which will need time to consider. It is clear that it is a complex and challenging issue – but one which needs clear and straightforward resolution if we are going to improve RE. We cannot leave teachers stranded in a fascinated but confused state.

One issue, hinted at but not made explicit, is the relationship between the way we define religious literacy and the Dual System. We all know the background to this system – what feels like ancient legislation dividing schools into two broad camps – either with or without a religious character. It remains a contested system with some actively questioning the presence of ‘faith’ schools within state funded education.

RE lies at the heart of this dual system. Separate arrangements for RE with, in some cases, quite distinct approaches, aims, content and exam specifications. It’s not a straightforward duality. It has a rather different character depending on which religion/denomination is involved. While the Catholic and Jewish sectors have tended to defend their separation from the ‘non-faith’ sector, the Church of England has often sought to bridge the divide.

One interesting example of these difference has been the degree of ‘sign-up’ to the 2004 and 2013 non-statutory national Frameworks for RE. While, for example, the Catholic sector officially supported the Framework, in practice their pattern of RE has gone its own way. I am also very aware that there can be a big difference between official policy and actual classroom practice; to use that great phrase some are ‘a long way from Rome’!

A positive outcome of the growth of social media has been the opportunity for discussion across the traditional divide in the RE world characterised by this Dual System. We are hearing voices from all sectors, although the range of those voices is still rather limited and there is a danger of the debate being driven by a few vocal individuals (mea culpa).

One of the differences within the dual system can be the amount of time and resources allocated, and the status given, to the subject. Some have suggested that the priority given to RE within some ‘faith schools’ will secure a higher level of religious literacy. But this clearly depends on what we mean by…..

A key question in relation to religious literacy is whether a common approach or definition is possible. Religious literacy is a contested term. Its application in the context of RE is not yet clear. There are a number of quite basic questions which remain unresolved and which relate to whether there is there a single definition/approach to religious literacy which can bridge the divide in the Dual System:

• Is the process of ‘promoting religious literacy’ primarily a religious or secular activity?
• Does religious literacy involve developing pupils’ ability to use a range of approaches to ‘read’ the complex, contested world of religion and belief OR is it to do with fostering pupils’ ability to ‘read’ their own experience of the world through a religious lens?
• Is a level of ‘religious sensibility’ needed in order to help foster pupils’ religious literacy?
• Can you develop religious literacy if you find much religious language ‘meaningless’?

How we answer these questions has great significance for the way we define religious literacy. It will go a long way in helping identify those core/threshold concepts which we hope pupils will be able to ‘read’. It will enable us to decide which perspectives in the study of religion we choose to adopt and how we balance them. Ben Wood’s excellent post highlights some of the issues: https://themyopictortoise.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/what-is-religious-literacy-part-2/

To illustrate at a very personal level. I recently attended a church where the service began with a proclamation: ‘Praise the Lord, Christ is risen’. I think I am a reasonably religiously literate person. I understand the theological significance and context of this phrase. I understand the highly contentious nature of the claim being made. I know something of the debates within the Church and the wider community of scholars about the meaning/origin of the language. I have my own views about how the phrase came to have credibility within the early church. However, I am also aware that for me existentially the language is meaningless; it simply does not function as a meaningful phrase in my life. I do not participate in that particular language game. Am I religiously literate? Answers on a postcard to…..

The issue of the Dual System is critical here. It is possible that a deep divide within the RE world, which is often quietly overlooked for pragmatic purposes, will be exposed by this debate. For example, the concept of religious literacy within Catholic schools is quite tightly controlled by an approach to RE which others find very difficult to come to terms with. RE is clearly seen as an extension of the work of the Church. These quotes from the Religious Education Curriculum Directory (3-19) for Catholic Schools and Colleges in England and Wales illustrate the issue:

“The primary purpose of Catholic Religious Education is to come to know and understand God’s revelation which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school is ‘a clear educational project of which Christ is the foundation.’ In the person of Christ, the deepest meaning of what it is to be human — that we are created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his Incarnation — is discovered.”

“The outcome of excellent Religious Education is religiously literate and engaged young people who have the knowledge, understanding and skills – appropriate to their age and capacity – to reflect spiritually, and think ethically and theologically, and who are aware of the demands of religious commitment in everyday life.”

“The methods employed in Religious Education are always aimed at opening up for the pupil the mystery of God’s saving action in Jesus Christ.”

This approach to religious literacy is one that many in the world of RE simply could not accept. We may need to recognise that these divisions exist and that here is a danger of trying to fudge the issues.

Why don’t great primary teachers teach great RE!

It’s one of the huge frustrations of RE, that the high quality of primary teaching does not translate into high quality RE. Why do so many give away responsibility for RE through PPA arrangements when they would never do that in history or geography!

We know there is no one simple explanation. We can list the various factors in play: poor primary ITE provision; low status; scary and controversial content; limited access to high quality CPD; the statutory oddness of RE which marginalises its position in the curriculum etc etc. Some of these are outside the control of our community. Some are part of the vicious circle of:

poor standards leading to low status resulting in weak provision leading to poor standards …….

But I remain convinced that there is one key reason for the conundrum of ‘good teachers teaching lacklustre RE’ that is within our control as an RE community. We have made RE too complicated!

There seem to me to be two schools of thought around this issue:

The first school of thought argues that we should be highly ambitious for RE. They argue we should be looking to RE as having the potential to engage pupils with deep wisdom, transform lives, inspire spiritual growth and personal development. This approach tries to promote models of pedagogy that will address these densely complex, multi-layered objectives. They recognise that there is not enough training and CPD to enable teachers to plan for themselves. So they do two things: they argue for the need for more training AND, in the meanwhile, they offer teachers detailed schemes of work to support their classroom practice. Indeed some argue that it is a sign of how much better off teachers are in RE compared with history and geography because they have access to so much detailed support!!

BUT – there are real problems with this approach. First – it doesn’t seem to be having the desired impact! But more specifically, it disempowers teachers, it detaches RE from the norms of planning and it distorts the process of open enquiry. Open enquiry should be the hallmark of good RE. But it is undermined if you have too many over-complex objectives; if you overplan, the process of learning becomes too prescribed and convoluted. The paradox is that by supplying too much detailed planning support you disempower the teacher. They have no ownership of the subject.

A major recent culprit is the 2013 National Framework for RE. Many have commented that the Framework is light on content BUT more worrying it is too heavy on the process of learning. I have discussed this elsewhere but these are some of the offending phrases in the way the Framework describes the aims of RE:

– ‘respond to questions posed and responses offered by …sources of wisdom’

– ‘express with increasing discernment their personal reflections and critical responses’

– ‘appreciate and appraise … different ways of life and ways of expressing meaning’

– ‘investigate key concepts and questions of belonging, meaning, purpose of truth, responding creatively’

This kind of language leads to over-complex learning processes which confuse, defeat and disempower most primary teachers. It asks too much and fails to recognise that many (most?) teachers are bewildered by these kinds of demands. The language undermines a straightforward enquiry-based approach to planning and learning.

The second school of thought is not so well-established but advocates a much more modest and straightforward approach to the subject. It is less densely textured and layered. Some will see this approach as too simplistic. RE, in this model, would be primarily concerned with developing pupils’ knowledge and understanding of the world of religion and belief. It would be about developing their skills of investigating that world. It would deploy a straightforward enquiry model of learning. It would also include opportunities to investigate questions of belief, truth and values using that same model of enquiry. The curriculum would be driven by clear straightforward questions which enable teachers to design open enquiries to structure an open learning process.

The key language I would associate with this model is also the language we find in the wider curriculum. It is much more accessible and straightforward for classroom teachers to understand. It is challenging without being obscure or esoteric. On this model, for example, pupils would:

• develop secure knowledge and understanding of religions and beliefs
• understand and use subject-specific vocabulary
• make connections and see contrasts between different religions and beliefs
• ask and answer appropriate probing questions about religion and belief
• draw informed conclusions, selecting and organising relevant information about religion and belief
• use skills of interpretation when investigating subject material
• use fieldwork to observe, interpret, record, present findings about religion and belief

A clear, straightforward enquiry model of RE will reconnect our subject with the rest of the curriculum and enable great primary teachers teach better RE.

What does the next five years hold in store for RE?

The electorate has spoken – five years of unbridled Tory education policy lie before us.

We need two things: we need to remain upbeat about RE’s successes and potential AND we need an honest analysis of the political context in which we find ourselves.

Reasons to be cheerful:

• The lively energy and determination within the RE community
• The blogging/hubbing/networking to share ideas and overcome isolation
• The continued growth in GCSE numbers
• Relevance coming from the increasingly complex and challenging world of religion and belief

Reasons to be cautious as well as cheerful:

• The quality of RE remains far too variable – at levels unacceptable in most other subjects
• Public understanding of RE remains weak with too many heads accepting poor provision.
• State of RE in primary – largely not as engaged in the energy and networking
• Unregulated nature of social networking and CPD
• Continued uncertainty and confusion around the purpose of RE

So – what about the election fallout?

What are the implications of future Tory education policy for RE? We have had 5 years of neglect with a refusal of ministers to recognise the negative impact on RE of changes in wider education policy. Occasionally there was some acknowledgement of damage done –but no serious engagement with the issue.

So now what?

Some things are unclear: how fast will the academisation process move, especially in primary? Will they really introduce compulsory EBacc? What is the future for teacher education?

What we are likely to see is a continuation of the strange mix of freedom and compulsion which characterised the last 5 years of policy. The mix has trapped RE which seems to be damaged by both elements – RE has not been able to benefit from the freedoms and has been punished by the compulsions. I remain convinced that the statutory oddness of RE is an increasing problem which threatens to undermine our future.

How does this strange mix of freedom and compulsion play out?

• The new freedoms and independence through the rapid growth of academies and free schools ….. BUT…… the restrictions on the role of local authorities (perceived as expensive and ineffective) and the threat of being compelled to become an academy if you aren’t good enough or just coasting along.
• The freedom of a slimmed down, level-free national curriculum (espc. for Foundation subjects) bringing clarity about content but leaving teachers free to decide HOW to teach, and the freedom for academies and free schools to ignore the NC …..BUT …… the compulsion of the EBacc and teaching British values with Ofsted enforcing compliance. And add …. the interference of ministers in the review of the RS GCSE criteria with negative results.

Why is this mix of freedom and compulsion so bad for RE?

We know most of this but we are likely to see increasing damage over the next five years.

Our problems are seven-fold:

1. Most fundamentally, RE remains saddled with a set of outdated and convoluted statutory requirements which are lethal in a period when the balance of freedom and compliance in education is so volatile.
2. RE was excluded from the discipline and freedoms brought by the NC Review. As a result, we failed to develop the straightforward, slimmed down, mastery-based curriculum that has benefited subjects like history and geography. The 2013 REC Framework is too complicated, lacks authority and doesn’t help teachers understand what they should be teaching.
3. There remains confusion about the requirements for RE in academies and free schools – with no NC for RE to provide an effective baseline and consensus about RE.
4. There is a continuing undermining and marginalising of the crucial ingredients of local determination – LAs and SACREs.
5. Schools are increasingly free to make their own decisions about RE but there is a lack of any effective mechanism for monitoring the provision and quality of RE.
6. RE remains excluded from the EBacc requirement because of its statutory position at KS4 and the policy of many schools to require all pupils to take GCSE RS.
7. There will be an increase in ‘faith-based’ academies and free schools as an extension of ‘freedom of choice’ in relation to religious upbringing of children; this is likely to bring more ‘confessional’ RE and a further fudging around the purpose and approach of our subject.

So what do we need to do?

-Make sure we understand and monitor emerging Tory policy and its likely impact on RE.

-Develop a clear, agreed set of policies and plans to address the situation. We need to be honest about the potential problems in securing agreement. There are vested interested which could make agreement difficult. We will need to be disciplined, collaborative and willing to compromise.

-Open up avenues of dialogue with the DfE and ministers – educating them about RE and the complex impact of wider education policy on our subject.

-Be pragmatic – find any ways we can to keep the subject alive in our own context and protect the RE space in the curriculum.

-Get up a viable model of RE in School Direct, using the Teach:RE Course (http://www.teachre.co.uk/teach-re-course/), and ensuring that the course is well known and well used in case University based ITE disappears.

I am very gratefully to Dawn ‘Missy’ Cox for the stimulus she has provided to explore the idea of Threshold concepts in RE. https://missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/threshold-concepts-in-re-or-the-bits-that-hurt-the-brain/

When the 2013 Framework for RE was being developed we discussed using ‘threshold concepts’ as a key to unlock the content of our subject. At risk of endlessly repeating myself, we were searching for Tim Oates’ goal of doing: fewer things in greater depth so students really master the central concepts and ideas in the subject. And crucially Oates argues that assessment 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’

I fear that two years ago we were not successful and the issue of core subject content was never properly addressed in the 2013 Framework.

As so often, I am grateful to Dawn and Mary Myatt for pointing me to a recent blog from David Didau in which he discusses threshold concepts. You can read his full piece here:

http://www.learningspy.co.uk/english-gcse/using-threshold-concepts-to-design-a-ks4-english-curriculum/

I am going to shamelessly quote from his blog and then think in terms of RE.

Didau begins by offering an explanation of threshold concepts:

“What makes a Threshold Concept different from, say, a ‘key concept’? Well, it appears that the areas of a subject at which students get stuck seem to be the most important bits. Further, more advanced ideas depend on the understanding of certain important fundamentals. In all subject domains and disciplines there are points which lead us into “previously inaccessible ways of thinking”. If a concept is a way of organising and making sense of what is known in a particular field, a threshold concept organises the knowledge and experience which makes an epiphany or ‘eureka moment’ possible.”

Didau goes on to say that a threshold concept will possess certain important qualities:

• Integrative: Once learned, they are likely to bring together different parts of the subject which you hadn’t previously seen as connected.
• Transformative: Once understood, they change the way you see the subject and yourself.
• Irreversible: They are difficult to unlearn – once you’ve passed through it’s difficult to see how it was possible not to have understood before.
• Reconstitutive: They may shift your sense of self over time. This is initially more likely to be noticed by others, usually teachers.
• Troublesome: They are likely to present you with a degree of difficulty and may sometimes seem incoherent or counter-intuitive.
• Discursive: The student’s ability to use the language associated with that subject changes as they change. It’s the change from using scientific keywords in everyday language to being able to fluently communicate in the academic language of science.

Jan Meyer and Ray Land, “Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines”, ETL Project, Occasional Report 4, May 2003

If you want to explore further, this talk by Ray Land is excellent: https://vimeo.com/91920616 Thanks to Dawn for this link.

So how can we identify the threshold concepts of RE? Didau suggests they will be: “most obviously, the places students commonly get stuck”. He asks:

“What are the knots of your subject? The bits that give you the most trouble in communicating to classes? Often, these areas are the points at which many, seemingly unrelated, pieces of knowledge coalesce into meaning. With this as our starting point we can start to map out what these concepts might be for a particular subject area.”

SO, what might they be in RE? I would invite further thoughts on this.

I assume that they will be expressed differently at different stages of a child’s education – but the level of mastery at each stage will be the key to assessment!!!

For RE, some of the threshold concepts might be:

• Understanding the core ideas which lie at the heart of any religious or non-religious traidtion: sin/incarnation/ resurrection; tawhid/ummah/shariah; etc. etc.
• Understanding that human experience throws up questions of meaning and purpose
• Understanding the relationship between experience, belief, practice and values
• Understanding the dynamic between religion and spirituality
• Understanding the contested nature of religion and belief
• Understanding the diversity of interpretation within and across religions and beliefs
• Understanding the way religious or belief commitment affects people’s lives
• Understanding the metaphorical/ symbolic nature of religious/belief language

The argument would be that whenever pupils are engaging in any work in RE the learning needs to lead towards extending and deepening their grasp of one or more of these threshold concepts.

I became interested in the perspectives and experiences of religious students in RE as a teacher working in a comprehensive school. I use the term ‘religious’ here as this was the label used by students. Aware of the strangeness of being ‘religious’ to most of the students, I began to notice how the minority of religious students were treated. Perhaps the most obvious cases were bullying or abusive slurs concerned with racial and ethnic identities. For example, I encountered anti-Semitic and Islamophobic sentiments. These were based on recognized stereotypes, such as connecting the actions of the state of Israel with Judaism and the Nazis, and Islam with terrorism (See Runnymede Trust 1994, 1997; Iganski & Sweiry, 2009). Sometimes these were directed at individuals (Jewish and Muslim students were extreme minorities in the schools in which I taught), at other times these were just general comments I overheard.

As I became more and more interested in these issues I began to take an interest in research about RE and religion in English society. At this time I read Terence Copley’s Indoctrination, Education and God (2005). In it Terence suggests that secular indoctrination could be taking place in RE. He based this argument on the findings of research about the use of the Bible in schools (Copley et al., 2004). One question arising from my reading of Copley’s book was that if RE were biased towards secular interpretations of religion, how then is it perceived by religious students, and what impact may it have on them?

I was extremely lucky to be able to research these issues as part of a Farmington Fellowship, then for an ESRC funded MSc and doctorate at Oxford University. I conducted group and individual interviews in places of worship with Christians, Jews and Muslims. I chose to interview in Churches, Mosques and Synagogues so I could recruit participants who practiced a religion, and also so participants could be interviewed outside of school.

My first study (Moulin 2011) explored reported experiences of RE specifically. The perspectives of Christians and Jews resonated with observations and criticism of RE professionals and academics about the varying quality of RE, and the potential of lessons to exacerbate some of the problems of prejudice that they were intended to solve.

While conducting interviews, I found that the participants also wanted to talk about more general issues of schooling, including bullying. I became interested in the participants’ explanations of the strategies they employed to cope with the challenges schools presented to them. For example, some participants said they wanted no one to know their religious affiliations, while other participants wanted to be more open about their religion in order to educate their peers.

I undertook a larger study that explored the reported schooling experiences of adolescent Christians, Jews and Muslims in more general terms. From hours of interviews with 99 participants who attended places of worship affiliated to the Catholic, Baptist and Anglican Churches; Orthodox, Reform and Liberal Synagogues; Mosques and Islamic community centres; and Mormon and Quaker meetings, I explored what it was like to attend a secondary school and also participate in religious activities outside of school.

By this stage, I realised that the concept of identity was essential to understand my original questions and the issues presented in the data we generated. I came to see the notion of ‘religious student’ as a completely naïve one. Instead, religious identities are actually performed and represented in all kinds of ways by individuals who have complex and dynamic relationships with religious traditions. The work of Stuart Hall, a Jamaican born cultural theorist influenced me a lot in the theoretical interpretation of how adolescents sought to negotiate their religious affiliations and identifications in schools.

The participants’ perspectives and narratives were complex and nuanced, but they constituted a rich body of data highly relevant to RE teachers. Christians, Jews and Muslims’ reported experiences of RE and schooling in general could also be often quite negative. For example, Jewish participants reported anti-Semitism and misrepresentation of Judaism in RE lessons (Moulin, 2015). I became more and more interested in the impact these challenges may have on the construction of students’ religious identities.

Analysing and re-analysing the data, I was able to construct a theory of religious identity construction in secondary schools. This is fully explained in my paper Religious identity choices in English secondary schools (Moulin 2014). The theory goes like this. In schools, students are ascribed identities by peers and teachers. These identities consist in all kinds of attributes, but include affiliations to religions and the associated attitudes and beliefs about those religions. For example, a student may be ascribed the identity of ‘Catholic’ by teachers and peers. Along with this ascription may come other connotations such as ‘believes in the virgin Mary’, or negative attitudes, such as ‘has an irrational belief system’ (put politely here – some examples given by participants were more colourful).

Identity ascriptions reported in my interviews included anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and anti-clerical slurs, and inaccurate representations of religions in RE. Ascriptions in RE consisted of negative or out-of- date resources, comments made by teachers, or assumptions in the curriculum that were at odds with students’ beliefs, such as the focus on philosophy of religion and its challenges to Christian faith.

In response to ascriptions, participants reported to seek and act to define and represent themselves, sometimes in order to change other people’s perceptions of them. I put these strategies in three groups, drawing on concepts used in other studies (these are cited in the paper): identity seeking, identity masking, and identity declaration.

Identity seeking takes place when a student looks for answers to the challenges presented by schools from within a religious tradition, usually by asking community leaders or parents outside of school. Identity masking is the strategy of not telling, or not being seen to be affiliated to a religion. This was a typical response among some participants, particularly those fearful of bullying or criticism about their religion. Identity declaration, on the other hand, is the opposite strategy to masking. It is aimed at tackling criticism and negative comments or actions, by attempting to educate peers and teachers about a religion.

Over time, the process of understanding oneself to be, or seeking to be recognised, or representing oneself in a particular way, according to these strategies, contributes to religious identity construction – the identification with, rejection of, or partial or full integration, or presentation of elements of a religious tradition (or ties with members of that religious tradition) with an individual’s worldview, lifestyle, beliefs, practices, actions.

According to this theory, what happens in RE lessons can affect the attitudes and beliefs students have about religion(s). While professionals talk about being non-confessional, the theory of identity construction supported by the interview data show that RE impacts on students in complex and nuanced ways. I think therefore, the findings of the study can help us think about RE and improve it. I give a summary of these suggestions below.

1) RE teachers need to be aware that their lessons and actions act as a system of representation and ascription of the religious identities of some of their students.

Religious adolescents could be critical of how their own religious traditions were represented in Religious Education lessons. This resounds with the findings of a number of other studies. At worse, Religious Education was considered to reinforce stereotypes and inaccuracies rather than promote understanding. Acute examples of inaccurate and inauthentic representations of traditions were given by Christians, Jews and Muslims – who could see little resemblance between their own understanding of their tradition and that of its presentation at school.

2) RE teachers need to be aware of how religious identities are formed and their own potential impact on students’ identity construction.

RE teachers should be aware that adolescents’ religious identities are rarely formed as the result of philosophical or rational enquiry, but through processes of cultural identification, identity ascription, and socialization according to the values and practices of students’ homes and communities. RE teachers need to understand the importance of role models and affinity with adults to the identity construction process, and that therefore their own actions can have an impact on the beliefs of students, as they cannot avoid being a potential role model that holds a particular view.

3) RE teachers should be aware of a potential problem with ‘difference blind liberalism.’

RE can sometimes constitute a form of ‘difference blind liberalism.’ That is, it actually reflects particular cultural views and assumptions, rather than allowing for equality of representation and the accommodation of plural views. There would seem to be a prevalent assertion about the political value of ‘learning about others’ in literature about pedagogy – an aim accepted by the participants of the study – but that stated aim does not necessarily result in classrooms that actually account for, and engage with, or even tolerate the authentic beliefs and traditions of those ‘others.’

4) RE teachers need to be aware of the problems of using the philosophy of religion when teaching about Christianity.

Related to point 3 above, adolescent Christians could perceive a secular bias in Religious Education that undermined the legitimacy and possibility of the existence of God. Young Christians felt they did not have the knowledge to rebut the challenges to their faith presented in RE, such as the problem of evil. This meant that some believed they were under ‘attack’ and their non-philosophical reasons for identifying with a religious tradition unacknowledged. Furthermore, this kind of pedagogical approach failed to communicate the nature of their religious identity to their peers.

5) RE teachers need to be aware of peers’ negative attitudes towards religions and religious prejudices and the implications of these for pedagogy.

The existence of prejudice show that a genuine, high quality Religious Education may be needed to combat religious stereotypes and misunderstanding – not between adolescents of different religions perhaps inasmuch as between religious adolescents and their secular peers. However, the ascription of religious identities, religious prejudice among peers and the phenomenon of religious identity masking – as found in this study – raise problems for the vision of the classroom as a place where adolescents can always share their own experiences and perspectives as part of the representation of religious traditions in RE. Because of the hostility of their peers, and ignorance or bias of their teachers, the classroom was not always a safe place to be open about their religious identity. Moreover, pedagogical approaches that favour the exploration of religious identity by examining the perspectives of students, may fail to equip religious adolescents and their peers with suitable knowledge and understanding to undertake such a venture.

6) Good teachers with excellent subject knowledge are extremely important.

Related to point 5 above, the perspectives of participants suggest that the most important aspect of the provision of quality RE are knowledgeable teachers who understand the complexities of religious traditions, their adolescent members, and have a greater subject knowledge than their students. They also suggest that religious adolescents may benefit from being provided with resources and arguments in classrooms that help them defend or support their religious beliefs and traditions. This is, of course, a great challenge to educators in the context of a radically plural society where there may be students from communities representing traditional, new and historical religious minorities – thus multiplying the number of traditions that teachers need to competently represent and understand.

References

Copley, T., Freathy, R. and Walshe, K. (2004) Teaching Biblical Narrative: a summary of the main findings of the Biblos project 1996-2004 Exeter: University of Exeter http://www.biblesociety.org.uk/uploads/content/news/files/Phase-3-Summary-Report.pdf

Copley, T. (2005) Indoctrination, Education and God. London: SPCK.

Iganski, P. and Sweiry, A. (2009) Understanding and addressing the Nazi card. London: European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism http://www.brandeiscenter.com/images/uploads/articleuploads/nazicard.pdf

Moulin D (2011) Giving voice to silent minority: the experiences of religious students in secondary school religious education lessons. British Journal of Religious Education 33: 313-326. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01416200.2011.595916#.VS9kRPmsW0I

Moulin D (2014) Religious identity choices in English secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal. (Early view) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.3151/abstract

Moulin D (2015) Reported schooling experiences of adolescent Jews attending non-Jewish secondary schools in England. Race, Ethnicity and Education. (Early view) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13613324.2015.1013459?journalCode=cree20#.VS9j-PmsW0I

Runnymede Trust (1994) A Very Light Sleeper: the Persistence and Dangers of Anti-Semitism. London: Runnymede Trust http://www.runnymedetrust.org/index.php?mact=CompanyDirectory,cntnt01,details,0&cntnt01companyid=33&cntnt01returnid=74

Runnymede Trust (1997) Islamophobia – a Challenge for Us All. London: Runnymede Trust

http://www.runnymedetrust.org/publications/17/32.html