Viewing archives for Archive

What do you want RE to look like in five years time? Thanks to Mark Chater and Culham St Gabriels Trust, 25 leaders of RE representing a variety of groups, experience and interests had the opportunity to try to answer that question. The setting was the tranquil and peaceful Royal Foundation of St Katherine’s in London’s bustling East End. Was there consensus and agreement? What do you think?

Two groups diverged in a yellow wood…

Debates in education tend to be polarised to the point of tribalism: Progressive vs Traditionalist, Primary vs Secondary, Content vs Skills. As we stood in a line across the room forming two distinct camps I felt as if we were characters in some teenage dystopian fiction. I half expected Frankie Goes to Hollywood’s Two Tribes to start playing in the background.

We were separated by our affiliation to two contrasting ‘fake’ OFSTED reports that had been generated as a result of work during the first ‘thinking day’ a month or so earlier. These documents (attached) aimed to predict the educational landscape for RE in 2020 and set out the visions some had.

Report A – argued for a core National Curriculum document providing clear guidance as to the key/core knowledge all students in all kinds of schools should be expected to know from KS1- KS3. The annexes for the new GCSE and A Level specs have already set out the knowledge required for KS4/5.

Report B argued against a national curriculum and wished to reform and improve the current local determination.

Some felt uneasy with the split and formed a rogue C team but generally lines were drawn and the teams withdrew to work out their policy visions for the next five years.

I found myself working (unsurprisingly) with Daniel Hugill, Andy Lewis, James Robson and David Ashton. Those of you who follow us on twitter or have read our previous blogs will realise that it wasn’t a huge shock that we ended up as a group setting out a plan for Report A to become some kind of reality by 2020.

What follows is a brief summary of what we would like to see happen and some mechanisms for trying to achieve it.

July 2015 – Establish independent research into effectiveness of local determination/SACREs

Dec 2015 – Research published

Now, if being true to a research informed position we should wait for its findings before planning further. Therefore our next steps come with this caveat: If the research confirms our view that the current legal position isn’t working as well as it should then this is what should follow:

April 2016 – A writing group is established to draft NC document for RE

July 2016 – Writing group reports and doc is distributed for feedback #reconsult2.0

Sept 2016 – NC document approved/published and launched

Sept 2016 – Legal changes through Act of Parliament to remove SACREs, Locally Agreed Syllabi, Right of withdrawal.

2017 – OFSTED (if they still exist!) to use NC document to judge RE in schools and a requirement that they do so.

2017 – In classrooms NC document informs what is taught and not how. It is minimum knowledge at each KS. If teachers wish to cover more they are free to do so.

2017 – All ITE and CPD to be refocused on primacy of knowledge

During a ‘market place activity’ Daniel and I had to defend this vision in the face of serious criticism and concern from other participants of the process. The main point of contention was that by prescribing content in a national document the material included would not be relevant to students in specific local areas. In defence of our position we stated that core knowledge matters and all students regardless of geographical location and religious affiliation etc. are entitled to it. We can, and must, argue about what that knowledge should be. It won’t be easy but other subjects have managed it. RE ‘may’ play a role in things like SMSC, community cohesion, promoting British Values etc. but to say RE has an exclusive or special role to play in these areas is misguided.

This plan was drawn up in a highly pressurised environment. It is published as a vision of a possible future for RE. Is it perfect? Probably not! Can the nuances of our discussions be understood once this is out in the bloggersphere? Probably not. But the next time you see us at a meeting or a conference do come and say hello. Ask us your questions. Say why you agree or disagree. As indicated at the start of this post debates in education are polarised. But progress occurs when opposite positions interact. As Hegel, Marx and others argue, dialectical processes can often result in great change!

How do we help students ask the right questions?

A great deal of thought has been given recently to teaching about Christianity. Ofsted and Church of England reports have highlighted the ways in which Christianity is often taught badly. As a result, it’s good to know that some funded projects have been working on approaches and resources to help improve the situation. I will leave it to others to complete this important work.

One critical and challenging question that has exercised my mind recently is: How far should our teaching about Christianity be informed by 200+ years of biblical scholarship and historical criticism?

Stick with me folks!

We know that the scholarship had a huge impact on the way some, though by no means all, Christians have come to understand their faith. It is crucial to understanding the pattern of Christian belief in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. So how far should we be taking this into account when we design ways of teaching about Christianity? There are probably at least 4 approaches:

1.Ignore the issue – it’s too difficult, complex and controversial for the classroom.

2.Engage students, at appropriate points, with some study of the scholarship and historical criticism so they can see it working for themselves.

3.Take the outcomes of that scholarship and use them to shape the way we teach about Christianity and, in particular, the biblical narrative.

4.Enable students to understand that the whole area of historical criticism is highly contested within the Christian community. Evangelicals and liberals simply don’t agree!

The first is not an option – it’s dishonest and, in practice, would be pretence. That history of scholarship significantly shapes our thinking about the religion, whether we are Christians or not!

The fourth point is tricky. We need to recognise our own starting points and biases here – not to mention our confusions and misunderstandings! Do we acknowledge the danger that our own opinions may shape our approach to the debate?

We can of course go for the bland ‘some Christians think one thing/some think another’ approach but that still leaves us with the issue of how far that scholarship should actually affect what we teach. How do we take the outcomes of that scholarship seriously?

We need to consider a combination of approaches – but it needs skilful planning and good resource support! We have good examples of teaching which seek to explore some of the issues. Work seen in Key Stage 2 contrasting the two nativity narratives is one way in which younger pupils can begin to develop their own critical reading of the texts.

But this kind of work is haphazard and fragmented. We often see students in Key Stage 3 trying to evaluate the resurrection narratives with little or no understanding of the nature of the text they are studying. As a result they often end up drowning in confusion or drawing trivial, ill-informed conclusions: ‘It was the Romans wot nicked the body guv!’

Let us take one familiar biblical critical issue – the Jesus of History/Christ of Faith debate. Reza Aslan’s 2013 book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is a recent addition to the discussion. Aslan’s conclusion is interesting. The final paragraph summarises his conclusions on the basis of his reading of historical scholarship:

“Two thousand years later, the Christ of Paul’s creation has utterly subsumed the Jesus of history. The memory of the revolutionary zealot who walked across Galilee gathering an army of disciples with the goal of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, the magnetic preacher who defied the authority of the Temple Priesthood in Jerusalem, the radical Jewish nationalist who challenged the Roman occupation and lost, has been almost completely lost to history.”

The debate raises many crucial and familiar issues:

• How much historically reliable evidence is there about the life of Jesus?
• What does the evidence tell us about that historical figure?
• Is Christianity a religion ‘created’ by Jesus or by Paul and the early Christian community?
• Would Jesus have remotely recognised the claims of the early Church about his divinity?
• Are the Gospels really an account of the beliefs of the early church with little real connection to the historical figure of Jesus?
• How do we provide students with the tools, concepts and insights they need to grapple with the complex questions surrounding the origins of Christianity?
• How do we help students ask the right questions?

The debate takes us to the heart of the debate about how we help students make sense of Christianity. In almost all of my time observing RE in secondary schools I have rarely if ever seen students engaging seriously with these issues. Maybe I am just unlucky. Please tell me I am. And yet it is hard to see how students can make sense of Christianity if they haven’t begun to explore these enquiries.

At what point in the students’ enquiry into Christianity should we be including questions like these?

• Who really was Jesus? How much do we know? Who did he think he was?
• Is Christianity a religion that Jesus would recognise?
• Would Jesus endorse the idea that he was the incarnate God?
• Who invented Christianity?
• What are those resurrection stories really about?

These issues are difficult but I am not sure they can be ducked if RE wants to retain its intellectual credibility.

It seems longer, but it is only 9 months since the Birmingham Trojan Horse affair came to its climax. And only last September that Ofsted placed the promotion of British values (BV) at the heart of its inspection process. We have had time to let the dust settle. Where are we now?

Those of us in RE were wary. That BV focus seemed to offer an opportunity for RE to gain purchase within the wider educational agenda but did we feel comfortable with that agenda?

Now there is already evidence that the wheels are coming off the project:

• Ofsted owning up that the inspection of BV is proving difficult;
• the Education Select Committee questioning the way in which the whole Trojan Horse affair was handled;
• schools angry with the way inspectors are asking questions and making judgements which are inappropriate and clumsy;
• evidence to suggest the whole agenda is in danger of alienating further a Muslim community that already feels marginalised and stereotyped.

There are lessons that RE needs to learn and issues we need to address for the Horse has surely opened Pandora’s Box!

In terms of lessons to learn, I am grateful to Joyce Miller (Chair of the REC) for her thinking on the issue. Joyce (and I hope her do her justice) suggests we need to ask:

–How do we ensure that work in RE addresses critical issues around freedom of belief and human rights? Merely teaching about Islam is not enough to address issues of Islamaphobia. We need to help pupils recognise the manipulation of public language around terrorism, extremism, Islamism. How do we develop pupils’ ability to read and engage critically with the media representation of religion and the complex relationship between religion and politics?

–Is teaching pupils that they should respect the right of others to hold religious beliefs sufficient? How do we develop a deeper ability to respect ‘religiosity’; not to find religion odd; helping to normalize religious belief and behavior for pupils?

-How do we make sure we engage with ‘real’ religion; religion as a complex, diverse social reality? We need to explore the blurred boundaries of religiosity and secularity. How do we ensure we are not guilty of homogenizing, distorting and stereotyping when it comes to teaching about religion(s)?

There are also further crucial issues for the RE community related to the place of religion in education. Pandora’s Box has been opened:

-The Trojan Horse findings were critical of schools because the content of RE was narrowly focused on Islam. The schools weren’t ‘faith’ schools but the criticism appeared to question the very principle of allowing a particular religion to dominate the RE curriculum. The reason why RE dominated by Islam was problematic was not because it is illegal in community schools but because it does not ‘prepare pupils adequately for life in modern Britain’. This very obviously raises serious questions about the RE curriculum in many, though by no means all, faith schools. For the first time Ofsted has a role in questioning the RE in those schools based on the BV agenda.

-The issue of Collective Worship has been reopened. We know the complications around the law here but the Horse affair and BV agenda has added a further set of questions. Is the requirement to worship in a broadly Christian way compatible with respecting different religions and beliefs? In schools where the majority of pupils are Muslim could we conceive of the idea that we should have collective worship which is ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Muslim character’? Wouldn’t such a concept of ‘broadly Muslim’ be quite offensive to many Muslims?

-We had a situation in Birmingham where community schools with virtually 100% Muslim intake were criticised for promoting an Islamic ethos. But, potentially the RC or Jewish school down the road would be praised for their religious ethos, simply because they were designated as ‘schools with a religious character’. This is muddled and is it any surprise that the Muslim community are confused? Legal niceties around how you designate a school seem to take precedence over a debate about how you create an effective ethos which reflects the intake of a school; once again we open up the question of the place of faith schools within our education landscape.

The whole situation cries out for a thorough review of the place of religion within education in England. It won’t happen I guess; but without it we have to find ways to live with the ambiguities and confusion.

Maybe we can focus on the issues that are within the orbit of RE. I would return us to Joyce Miller’s excellent thinking:

• How do we ensure that work in RE addresses critical issues around freedom of belief and human rights?
• Is teaching pupils that they should respect the right of others to hold religious beliefs sufficient?
• How do we make sure we engage with ‘real’ religion; religion as a complex, diverse social reality?

Ten Gurus? So What?

What is going on with assessment? As one assistant head teacher in a secondary school puts it: “The situation feels akin to starting a journey with a backseat driver who insists that I use their SatNav and leave all other navigation aids behind. Then, half way through the journey, they demand the SatNav back and tell me to navigate on my own. The rest of the journey is spent trying to drive and navigate, while all the time being petrified that the backseat driver will tell me I’m going in the wrong direction” (The Teacher, NUT Magazine, Jan/Feb 2015).

A primary school special educational needs coordinator adds: “Progress and attainment do need to be measured but the introduction of the new national curriculum with a lack of clear guidance on assessing pupils is bonkers” (ibid.).

That lack of guidance means schools have been going their own way – and some have gone into overdrive, replacing the levels with horribly laborious systems of assessment that mean recording evidence of every bit of every student’s progression around six times a year.

The government thinks that children have got to KNOW something – but it has not established how knowledge and skills can be properly assessed, and hopes that something will emerge from allowing schools the freedom to try things out.

The guru of the knowledge-based curriculum, ED Hirsch, says that knowledge is key to closing the gap between the high and low achievers in educational terms.

He may have a point. Just as ignorance is not an adequate political strategy for a people, nor is it an adequate educational strategy.

But haven’t we always said that it is about skills AND content, not one or the other? In order for us to grow we need some knowledge, and, I would say, some wisdom otherwise, how will we recognise any kind of truth? Sometimes it really is a matter of life and death. As Billy Bragg says about the ‘brave men and women in uniform’, ‘they want to know what they’re fighting for’.[1]

Let’s take a school example.

A 13 year old Muslim girl responding to materials presented in a project on tolerance, sensitivity and respect, said,

‘We were in a Sikhism lesson and Mrs S told us some things which I didn’t know. First of all I never knew there were ten gurus and Sikhism’s holy book is the Guru Granth Sahib. I really enjoyed this lesson because my mate is a Sikh, and I talk to her and know a lot more things about her religion. I think people should get along with each other – we are born and will all die one day, so let’s make the most of it.’^[2]

So what learning has been demonstrated? For example, in what that girl said about the Guru Granth Sahib – how important was what she learnt ABOUT Sikhism and how important what she learnt FROM it? What she actually learnt from Sikhism isn’t clear. She may or may not have learnt something from her study of Sikhism, but she has picked something up from somewhere: that ‘people should get along with each other’ and that, because ‘we are born and will all die one day’, we should ‘make the most of it.’ All quite helpful I am sure, but here, as often is the case, the new knowledge was relevant because of the personal interest – her friend was a Sikh. What about those children who don’t have Sikh friends? They may just have learnt that Sikhs have got some very odd beliefs and practices. They’ve got 10 gurus, so what?

If we are to make assessment more effective in the future we will need to involve pupils much more individually in their own plan of learning – or they will become ‘emotional truants’ and simply not turn up ready to think. This is where a question-led curriculum can be helpful. Instead of asking pupils to ‘write out the learning objectives’, many RE teachers now start with a key question and encourage pupils to say why this might or might not be a good question. Perhaps they can arrive at a better question. How might they go about solving it? These teachers then inspire pupils through their own interest in, enthusiasm for, and desire for learning/wisdom. Now the learning can begin.

What to do? Towards a framework for assessing progress in RE

We know that new arrangements have removed the need for ‘level statements’ of attainment for national curriculum subjects. Over time, therefore, it is likely that many RE syllabuses will move away from level or ‘can-do’ statements towards assessment schemes that incorporate ideas of ‘mastery’ or ‘command’ of key elements of the subject.

RE:ONLINE has produced some tentative ideas towards how such assessment ‘benchmarks’ may be set. These combine ideas of what minimum aspects of ‘knowledge’ are needed alongside indications of the depth of understanding needed to make progress in RE. Also included are statements that are linked to pupils’ own investigations into the big questions of religion and belief.

It is very much hoped that teachers will make suggestions for improvement in the clarity of the statements and offer brief examples of how pupils might fulfil them. This can be done via the RE:ONLINE café topic, ‘New Learning Outcomes for RE’.

See what you think: http://reonline.org.uk/assessing/how/learning-outcomes/

In addition, the Culham St Gabriel’s (CSTG) Trust has set up a fund to sponsor new thinking and trialling of ideas for assessment and progression in RE: http://www.cstg.org.uk/2015/01/2015-themed-grant-call-assessment-and-progression-in-re/

In the meantime, schools and academies should continue to make use of the assessment guidance provided by the body responsible for their RE syllabus. For community and voluntary controlled schools this will be the local authority SACRE and its agreed syllabus conference. This may also be the case for free schools and academies, though they have freedom to construct their own syllabuses. Schools and academies with a religious designation often have their own syllabus, sometimes linked with the one agreed by the local authority, though advice on this will be provided by the relevant religious foundation.

For further guidance on how to make the assessment process manageable and effective, see: http://reonline.org.uk/assessing/why/

In any event, a school or academy’s approach to assessment in religious education should be linked to the key aims of the subject. Although the Religious Education Council of England and Wales (REC)’s 2013 non-statutory National Curriculum Framework for RE (NCFRE) omits reference to two attainment targets, most current syllabuses still make assessments in terms of what pupils learn ABOUT religion and belief (attainment target 1) and what they learn FROM religion and belief (attainment target 2). And it continues to be important that pupils know how they are doing in relation to these aspects of the subject so that (a) they see the value of RE to their own development as individuals living in a complex society, helping them to make the most of their lives and cope with life’s difficulties and (b) they get a sense of empowerment in being able to investigate and grasp something of the influence of religions and beliefs on the people and world around them.

That is why it is a vital part of the rationale for assessment in RE that pupils are given feedback on how well they are acquiring and applying the knowledge, understanding and skills they need to reach such targets.

Dave Francis is the Lead Consultant for RE:ONLINE. His email address is dfmayfly@icloud.com

[1] Billy Bragg, 2003, The Price of Oil, Peace Not War CD, New Internationalist.

[2] Quoted in Blaylock, L., ‘Pushing the tolerant frontier: what more can be done to fulfil RE’s aims of tolerance sensitivity and respect’, in REsource 28:2, Spring 2006, PCfRE, p.15.

At the RErethinkRE Day held in London last week, Fiona Moss opened up an important debate about whether RE should have a transformative purpose.

First – the Thinking Day was a great success. It brought together some fresh thinking about RE and some new talent to the RE arena! Congratulations to Mark Chater for the initiative which moves into a second phase after Easter.

The 2010 Ofsted report was titled ‘Transforming RE’ with an obvious double entendre. But should RE include ‘being transformative’ within its aims?

Obviously it all depends what we mean by ‘transforming’ – from what to what? This is a debate that needs to happen. It underlies many of the debates about the purpose of RE that are already ongoing.

In one sense all education is transformative. The process of teaching and learning involves a transformation, a change in the learner!

I think we can all agree that RE should bring about some changes in the learner. As a result of RE pupils should be …………. better informed about, and acquire the skills needed to, make sense of the complex world of religion and belief. They should be able to consider a range of views about religion and belief and offer their own informed perspective on those issues.

But in RE we hear voices that are saying something else. We often hear that RE should offer ‘something more’; that it is different from other subjects. This is often about the way RE is linked to a process of ‘learning from’ or deepening pupils’ spiritual development or, in schools with a religious character, to faith nurture.

We are in dangerous territory!! Should RE seek to be transformative in ways that are different from the rest of the curriculum? In faith schools we find some very clear transformative statements about RE such as the goal to draw pupils into a deeper communion with Christ in his Church! See where transformative goals can lead you!!!!

There are a wide range of agencies advocating notions of Transformative Education such as Teaching for Change: http://www.teaching4change.edu.au/node/4. The movement advocates radical change in the way we conceive teaching and learning. It places emphasis on shifts taking place within the learner that are ontological as well as epistemological.

Transformative learning is the expansion of consciousness through the transformation of basic worldviews and specific capacities of the self. Elias, D. (1997) It’s time to change our minds: An introduction to transformative learning. ReVision, 20(1).

Rather than focusing just on the development of the learner’s knowledge, understanding and skills, transformative learning involves a shift in the very being of the learner. In a definition by Edmund O’Sullivan:

Transformative learning involves experiencing a deep, structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions. It is a shift of consciousness that dramatically and irreversibly alters our way of being in the world. O’Sullivan, E. (2003) “Bringing a perspective of transformative learning to globalized consumption.” International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27 (4), 326–330

For me this raises a number of questions in relation to RE:

• What boundaries exist around how far a school can move beyond a carefully defined academic goal? To what extent is RE bound by those boundaries? Should schools/RE engage with the students’ deeper ‘ways of being in the world’?
• How far can we ask teachers to take on notions of ‘transformative learning’ in RE? Is it asking too much of teachers if a transformative approach to learning is not prevalent in the wider curriculum?
• At what point does ‘transformative learning’ in the context of RE spill over into being ‘confessional’? One could argue that the goal of religion is to seek a transformation in the life of the person. Is that a legitimate goal for RE itself? Is RE entering into dangerous ground here? If we go too far in the direction of being transformative do we have to ask very serious questions about who determines what is being transformed?
• Is RE in its claim to be different trying to compensate for a perceived lack of ‘transformative depth’ in the wider curriculum? And should it? We are just one subject alongside others – live with it!

I have argued elsewhere for a very restrained strongly cross-curricular and whole school view of ‘spiritual’ development in the public educational sphere. We are fine with notions of developing self-confidence, self-esteem, being reflective about beliefs, religious or otherwise, developing a sense of enjoyment and curiosity in learning, using imagination and creativity in learning, and being willing to reflect on experience.

Should RE be more modest? We are a subject alongside others. Like all other subjects should our goal be to ‘secure deep learning in the central concepts and ideas in the subject’? This is a primarily epistemological goal and not one about ‘experiencing a deep, structural shift in the basic premises of thought, feelings, and actions’ or ‘a shift of consciousness that dramatically and irreversibly alters our way of being in the world’.

So, the GCSE and A level criteria are published. And a new debate has begun.

If you missed it, it started with an article in the TES (20/2/15) about A.C. Grayling’s fight to fill philosophy’s ‘screaming silence’. https://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=11006441 Grayling is campaigning for a separate Philosophy GCSE but is doing so by taking side swipes at the Religious Studies GCSE. He recognises the two could be in competition but also questions the integrity of RS and the inclusion of philosophy and ethics in the RS GCSE. The article quotes a number of Heads of RE who suggest that refocussing on the study of world religions is a backward step which will not capture the interest of the punters.

Time for Bob Jackson to ride to the defence of RS in his excellent contribution to TES Comment (2/3/15): https://news.tes.co.uk/b/opinion/2015/03/02/ac-grayling-is-wrong-religious-education-and-philosophy-are-complementary-not-alternatives.aspx. Bob attacks Grayling’s trivialization of RE and questions the need for two under-resourced subjects like RS and Philosophy to go into battle with one another. As so often, we are grateful to Bob for his support.

Grayling’s argument and attitude are irritating. His cheap remarks do not help his case. But the debate raises four important issues.

-There is a case for a separate Philosophy GCSE – the quality of the philosophy within the religious studies GCSE is compromised. It is thin philosophical soup; while it does provide students with opportunities to discuss issues and develop the skills of argument and debate, it does not provide students with a coherent and thorough grounding in the essential concepts and content of philosophy.

-A serious study of religion needs to include the genuine engagement with the nature and the social reality of religion in the contemporary world – and these threads are seriously neglected in the GCSE criteria. Bob makes the crucial point that good religious studies uses a range of disciplines to explore religion, including philosophy. Bob also mentions history, literature and media studies and I would add sociology and psychology as well as ethnography. BUT, the current RS criteria do not reflect this range of approaches. The ‘issues’ component is dominated by philosophy. Some themes are properly derived from the Philosophy of Religion (such as topics related to the existence of God) but others are a rehash of the old social/ethical issues with a splash of ‘religious’ perspectives.

-So we end up with a ‘curate’s egg’ of a qualification. Two halves which do not make a whole. The criteria lack coherence. We have a low level study of 2 religions with no clear sense of which disciplines are involved – it looks like learning ‘stuff’ to me! And we have a more challenging but disconnected exploration of issues dominated by philosophy and ethics but not integrated effectively with the study of the religions.

-Finally the most disturbing issue of all. How have reached a point where the study of the complex, controversial, highly relevant, urgent study of religion and belief in the modern world is perceived to be dull and regressive? Why are those Heads of RE suggesting that refocussing on the study of world religions is a backward step which will not capture the interest of the punters? I fully understand their concerns. But how have we got into this mess? Where is the material exploring the concept of religion itself? Where are the topics going to come from which investigate controversial contemporary issues within the study of religion and religions? Where are the topics which explore the diverse changing reality of religion and belief in the contemporary world?

Sadly the development of these GCSE criteria was an exercise in compromise and pragmatism. Yes, we need to wait and see what the exam boards come up with in terms of specifications but I fear that they do not have a good basis on which to work.

Ofsted’s 2013 report on RE had called for a review of GCSE. That report concluded that “Most GCSE teaching in RE failed to achieve the core aim of the examination specifications, that is, to enable pupils to adopt an enquiring, critical and reflective approach to the study of religion”. Hidden in Grayling’s attack is a sense that the new criteria have failed to address this issue effectively.

I have just watched the Truetube clip on Jihad: https://www.truetube.co.uk/film/what-jihad

It is a very useful piece which challenges the media stereotypes around Jihad and offers a more positive image of the concept. Lots of teachers have used it with success. But I was left uneasy.

For perfectly understandable reasons the clip perpetuates a popular view that there is a simple distinction between ‘true’ real Islam and the abuse of the religion by those described as Islamists or extremists. Problem solved! Our students need to understand that the problem with Islamists is that they don’t understand their own religion!

One way of expressing this popular view is to distinguish between religion and culture. So forms of religious practice which are less palatable are consigned to ‘culture’ with the implication that we can access the true essence of a religion uncorrupted by ‘culture’.

True religion = good; religion infected with culture = often bad. The distinction looks very dubious and hides of form of ‘essentialism’. The underlying idea seems to be that there is a culturally neutral ‘essence’ of a religion to which someone in authority (who?) has access. Is this a form of ‘confessionalism’ which assumes that the religion has a divine revealed meaning which we can access and use to judge different expressions of the faith? The origins of Islam, the Quran and the Hadith are saturated by their cultural context. Is the idea of ‘culturally neutral’ form of religion remotely credible?

A few days in Morocco quickly cures you of this dangerous assumption. Immersing yourself in any Muslim context would have the same effect. Three brief anecdotes about my most recent visit will suffice.

1. In Marrakech visited seven shrines (or zaouias) containing the tombs of marabouts, holy men who are considered to possess baraka or spiritual power. Interestingly the Muslims who ‘use’ the shrines are often those marginalised by more orthodox forms of Islam. Sidi Bel Abbes, the most impressive of the shrines, supports people with sight impairments who visit in the hope of receiving blessings from the saint as well as more practical support for their disability. The majority of those visiting a second shrine, Sidi Abdel Aziz, are woman as the saint is renowned for supporting those seeking help with matters related to childbirth. These forms of practice are commonplace across the Muslim world and can be found in, for example, Egypt, Turkey and Tunisia. Often the practices will include invocations to the saint, circumnavigation of the tomb or, as in the case of Sidi Chamharouch in the High Altas, the sacrifice of animals.
2. On one evening in Marrakech I shared dinner with two young Muslims from Leicester. It was their first visit to Morocco. We quickly fell into discussion. We had the usual wander round the issues about Charlie Hebdo. Yep, those responsible were not true Muslims. Later I shared my experience visiting the shrines. Although my dinner companions had passed by some of the shrines they had taken them for standard mosques. When I explained, they were astonished. ‘But worshipping at tombs is forbidden in Islam’ was their rather assertive response. They were quite clear that whatever I had seen had ‘nothing to do with Islam’. Anyone worshipping at the shrines is not a true Muslim. So who is defining what constitutes a ‘true’ Muslim?
3. Some days later I was in the Dades Valley in the edge of the Atlas staying with a Moroccan family. The father, Moha, was a highly educated man with a degree in English. We spent three days together walking and talking. He admitted he had little time for formal religion although he did not reveal this to his friends. In one telling conversation he talked about what he saw as a crisis for many young Muslims living in England. He felt they ‘suffered’ from anomie, the loss of a sense of identity; the experience of an anxiety caused by the breakdown of social bonds or cultural norms. For Moha, Islam in the UK seemed arid and thin; a rather hollow orthodoxy with little spiritual depth. For him, Islam thrives best when it is embedded in a rich and diverse culture, however unorthodox that might be!.

There are some real challenges here for us as teachers of RE. The resources about Islam available to us rarely reflect the true diversity which is found across the Muslim world.

Do we need to actively question the idea that there is such a thing as ‘true’ or ‘reaI’ Islam? There are just lots of different Islams. Some forms are pleasing to the eye; others are distasteful but they are all just versions of Islam. Some Muslims will claim some kind of authority for their version, and that is ‘interesting’, but it cannot be taken as a baseline for our teaching about the religion.

We need to be very cautious in using simple distinctions between true and false Islam or between religion and culture. The same is true of any religion, but the current energy and confusion around Islam makes it all the more important that we retain our integrity as students of religion and belief.

Is Islamic state, however unpalatable, as authentic an interpretation of Islam as the shrine worship in Marrakech? And someone somewhere will tell you both are ‘nothing to do with true Islam!’

One final anecdote. I also visited an exhibition of Muslim women’s art in Marrakech. The pieces were all expressions of the struggle for equality within Muslim society. Two of the pieces are below. As well as acknowledging the diversity within Islam we obviously also need to recognise the internal struggles within the religion.

Introduction

What values do we need as teachers? From where should we draw inspiration? How should we represent our own beliefs and commitments in public? These are some of the challenges of teaching any subject, but they are challenges most of all for teachers of Religious Education.

Thinking through these big questions in relation to one’s own practice and circumstances can transform monotonous and boring lessons to satisfying work, and help develop a professional identity that truly inspires students. Moreover, in Religious Education in Britain, we ignore at our peril what Terence Copley referred to as the ‘tightrope walk’ – the need to balance authentic representation of religions with due sensitivity to the perspectives and autonomy of others with awareness of our own positioning (Copley 2005).

When opinions about the role of religion in public life continue to be polarised, and Christianity may no longer seem to be relevant to some, it may seem strange that Jesus could be considered as an inspiration for all teachers when seeking answers to these questions, particularly in secular and plural contexts where confessional religious education is not appropriate.

However, as well as being the central figure who unites all the different kinds of Christianity, an itinerant Jewish teacher who is a prophet in Islam, and also an inspiration to countless secular thinkers, Jesus was, by all accounts, an excellent and captivating communicator and teacher.

The historical Jesus as an inspiration for teachers

Whether Jesus is understood in historical or mythic terms, the Gospels portray him as an archetypal teaching figure, often called ‘Teacher’ by the people who ask him questions, and constantly engaged in helping his followers learn. Therefore, educators might consider the interactions described in the Gospels as an inspiration for good pedagogical practice.

One aspect of Jesus’ method of communication that is sometimes overlooked is his humour and his appeal to the imaginations of his listeners. The metaphors he uses are both unexpected, striking, but also use things that were familiar to his audience. Jesus’ famous parables are full of comic hyperbole that both entertains and invites further reflection and questioning. For example, the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32) gives a suggestive but impossible image of the smallest and most ordinary of plants growing so big birds can nest in its branches.

Jesus’ longer parables, such as the forgiving father (Luke 15:11-32), on the other hand, utilise another effective pedagogic device– narrative. Theologians have advocated the importance of narrative to theology, but it is also important to note why stories are also so useful educationally. Getting students to think about a problem is better than to give an answer immediately. And this is one way the parables work. Jesus gives hypothetical but concrete situations by which others can contemplate more general issues. This allows for the power of the moral imagination, the thrill of discovering ‘what happens next’, and importantly, the autonomy of the learner to come to his or her own conclusions about the meaning of the story for them. Such principles of communication and exploration can be applied in all subjects.

Love and service as universal values for teachers

It has been suggested that personal and professional values must come from a ‘strong source’ rooted in religious or cultural traditions (Taylor, 1989). Many professionals rely on personal values (religious or otherwise) that they may not share overtly in public, but that give meaning to their work and underpin how they go about their jobs.

However, it has also been argued that there are universal values that can be shared by all, regardless of the particularities of their religious or cultural backgrounds. Two values of importance to teachers, emphasised by Jesus in the Gospels and that may be endorsed by religious and secular alike, are love and service.

Love should be in practice, not just in word. By his actions as well as teachings Jesus shared love with all, including the poor and sick to whom he gave comfort. Jesus’ greatest commandment, to love, is reflected in the golden rule – treating others as we would like to be treated (Luke 6:31). It may be difficult to define what relevance love may have for professional teachers, but if we apply the golden rule to the ethics of teaching, we are invited to imagine that we are in the position of the student, and therefore compelled to act accordingly in the best interests of our students. As an authority figure and role model, teachers have a duty to show their students how to treat one another. Treating students as teachers wish to be treated can be an effective classroom management strategy as it develops good relations and gives students a model of appropriate behaviour.

An aspect of love is generosity, which in the professional role of a teacher is also connected to service. When we look at the life of Jesus, we see that it consisted of continuous service and sacrifice. Sometimes service can be considered as undignified and unbefitting of an authority figure. But many teachers think of their profession as an act of giving and this service involves believing in, and encouraging students by generously seeing the good in them.

Self-positioning in the RE Classroom

All teachers have to consider how to project themselves in the classroom and reflect upon their professional values and how they transmit them. Current research suggests this can be particularly difficult for teachers of Religious Education (Sikes & Everington 2003, 2004) and that there is a need for constant reflection on the extent to which personal beliefs and values should be drawn on. Based on the view that the search for truth and goodness must consist in a mutual quest between learners and instructors, St Augustine of Hippo (354-430) downplayed the importance of the individual teacher, emphasizing the external reality of learned content: ‘for who would be so absurdly curious as to send his child to school to learn what the teacher thinks?’ (Augustine c.389, p185).

This theological rooted belief suggests a particular approach to the way teachers should represent their own beliefs that may be surprising to those who assume RE involves teachers urging their own beliefs upon students in a simplistic manner. In fact many RE teachers explicitly withhold their own beliefs from their students with a specific pedagogical purpose much akin to Augustine’s idea of the mutual quest and shared journey, preferring to focus on the lesson content without getting sidetracked into a personal discussion. Perhaps this approach of keeping teacher beliefs away from the teaching content is the most appropriate one. However, as advocated above, to exercise generosity, charity and service for all students at all times requires extraordinary qualities of character. Perhaps here then it is appropriate for teachers to draw on their own beliefs and values, using thesm to shape their understandings of generosity, charity and service and position themselves in relation to their students in a way that accords with their own beliefs and reflects both their personal and professional identities..

Conclusion

Considering the big questions about our values and identities as teachers and how we represent them in our practice, are essential. While this article has considered some of these issues in relation to aspects of the life and teachings of Jesus, it would also be profitable to think about these issues in relation to other great religious figures, many of whom were also considered brilliant teachers. This would also act as a way of considering the impact of religious teachings upon pedagogy and what we might call different cultures of education.

In terms of the inspiration of the historical Jesus for teachers, Jesus’ example and teachings about relationships are perhaps the most germane. While the claims of Christianity are particular and are usually considered to demand acknowledgement of the uniqueness of Christ, the ethical teachings of Jesus can be considered as more universal. Teachers should be authoritative and exemplary, but also forgiving, generous and hardworking.

The figure of Jesus is inextricably linked to the intellectual and cultural history of the world, particularly in what has been called ‘the West’. This short piece of writing has hopefully prompted some further thoughts about Jesus’ inspiration for teachers by considering a range of perspectives (although it certainly does not consider all possible perspectives). It has, of course, only skimmed the surface of centuries of scholarship and debate about religion and education.

The relevance of the figure of Jesus to the modern world will continue to be contested. Religious Education teachers will continue to find themselves in the middle of ongoing debates about the role of religion in the public sphere that will perhaps affect the nature and future of their subject. Negotiating these issues everyday in classrooms sensitively will also never be easy. However, whoever you say Jesus is or was there is something interesting and inspiring for teachers everywhere.

References

Augustine (389/1950) De Magistro [The Teacher] edited by J. Quasten and J. Plumpe. Washington: The Catholic University of America.

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

Sikes, P. and Everington, J. (2003) ‘I’m a woman before I’m an RE teacher’: managing religious identity in secondary schools, Gender and Education, 15 (4), pp. 393-406

Sikes, P. and Everington, J. (2004) ‘RE teachers do get drunk you know’: becoming a religious education teacher in the twenty-first century, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10 (1), pp.21-33.

Taylor, C. (1989) The Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dr Daniel Moulin is a researcher and teacher. He has worked in England, Switzerland and Spain in the broad field of religious education. His introduction to Leo Tolstoy’s educational thought is published by Bloomsbury http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/leo-tolstoy-9781472504845/

Marisa Bailly-Bailliere is a teacher and writer on religion. She has worked in schools in Spain and England. She is currently writing a book about the spirituality of teaching.

Just over a year ago I taught my first ever ‘proper’ lesson. No mentor sitting at the back ready to bail me out, no excuses for not knowing simple pedagogies and techniques, and certainly no getting out of the fact that I was in this for the long haul. To add to the pressure, I was the ‘other’ teacher in a department of two in a subject that seems to court controversy at every turn. To put it mildly, I learnt a lot.

Don’t make assumptions

I never made a huge faux pas, but there were times when I was acutely aware that the ‘matter-of-fact’ things I was saying to my class about Christian churches may not have been as familiar to some as others. It’s so tempting to assume that every child in the leafy middle-class suburb where I teach will be aware of the innards of the typical Anglican nave, but in RS you must constantly keep in mind the vast chasms of prior knowledge that exist from child to child. I’m not just talking about knowledge gaps due to alternative religious backgrounds either – I was amazed by the lack of basic knowledge that some pretty religious children had about their own faiths. On showing a year 7 class the Islamic symbol of the crescent moon and star (while not ordained in the Qur’an it’s still commonly known by association and is featured in a great many mosques) one Muslim boy put his hand up and asked me “where I got my information” because he had never come across it before. I have lost count of how many Christian children have said that ‘Catholics’ and ‘monks’ are different religions to them. At university I was given advice to make religious children the ‘class experts’ on their religion when we taught it, but I would be wary of doing this without knowing exactly how much the child knows about their faith.

Relate, relate, relate

We RE teachers are quite biased, really. If someone starts talking to me about religion I will drop everything to listen and learn, merely because the subject fascinates me now as much as it ever did. However, we can’t make the mistake of thinking that just because we find a subject interesting that children will do the same. A lot of the articles I have written for this journal have been about relating RE to students’ lives through the use of popular culture, but I didn’t realise just how important this was until long after that first September. You don’t have to use pop culture, of course, but without at least one link between religion and real life students quickly get bored and disengaged. After all, why would a teenage boy care about the religion of people several thousand miles away unless he can understand it in the terms of his own day-to-day life? I learned to begin and end each of my lessons with a ‘pull’ to the students’ lives – asking them what they found ‘essential’ before introducing the Five Pillars and compiling lists of what they find fascinating in the world before discovering Paley’s Watch. In this way, particularly with the Simpsons helping me along, I soon got my students to realise the connections they have to a faith that isn’t theirs.

Handle with care

It’s taken my department quite a while to cotton on to ‘artefacts’ (probably long after the rest of the RE world, so bear with me if you’re way ahead on this one) but after discovering a rather careworn murti of Ganesha last summer, we’ve had an epiphany – kids love objects. Since then, we’ve placed an order for a whole range of religious objects to be prodded, drawn, stared at and puzzled at by eager and fascinated students. We hope. Artefacts help bring the subject alive for children – it’s no longer just a religion in a picture or on a (frankly brilliant) BBC Learning clip, but a living system of belief that has objects to hold and people for whom these are the most precious items in their lives. While I’m embracing the artefact concept whole-heartedly, it’s also important to remember to handle these things with care and respect. Our Qur’an is kept on the top shelf of the highest classroom and will never be pawed at by a student, and when examining Ganesha the pupils are well aware that as alien as an elephant-headed god may be to us it is not their place to pass comment on it. Approached with the right attitude and frame of mind, I’ve realised that objects to see and touch and marvel at can make RE great.

Have fun

I’ve written previously about why I love my subject, and I think that I really learned to love it over the last year. I never realised before how much freedom we have to explore parts of the human world that other subjects can’t touch through restraints of time and topic scope, and I have taken full advantage of this. My classes travel to ancient Norse lands to discover the links between religion and culture, and spend the summer in India to wonder at the oldest religion in the world. We gaze through the music charts to spy on religion in our culture and we pass judgement on Aquinas and Dawkins from any viewpoint that an individual happens to occupy. My 6^th form take virtual tours of Creationist museums and watch conjurors perform the miracles of Jesus. Yes, the history teacher next door may stage the occasional year 7 Battle of Hastings and hire in a WWII actor for open evening, the science department might blow things up and gas the occasional child and the geography department get to tramp up and down Icelandic volcanoes this half term, but they are spectacular one-offs, with a strict national curriculum to stick to. We have local agreed syllabi to adhere to, but it allows for such huge freedom of choice that we can really develop our students and take advantage of the interests that they bring to the lessons.

I know there are a lot of other things I learnt – where not to sit in the staff room, which areas of the school to avoid at break and who can be persuaded to cover a lunchtime duty – but I wanted to focus on what is specific to RE. I also know that I haven’t learnt everything. Far from it; I still feel lost in a mire of thinkers’ keys and theatres of learning. Learning to teach is a slow process, one that I know many teachers consider never really ends, but the NQT year is probably the steepest part of the curve and I’m kind of glad that it’s over. Yes it was fun, but I like having a more stable footing and knowing that the basics of teaching are swiftly becoming instinct. However, there’s much more to do and many creative approaches to learn (and to write about). So, once more unto the breach…

During the last week two sets of questions have come my way and left me thinking about the place of questioning and enquiry in the process of designing learning in RE.

Big Puzzling Questions – that are very short!

The first set came from Rebecca Boyle Suh’s recent post on questions in schools. She opens up with this anecdote:

“As I walked around an Essex primary school, I saw a question of the week all over the walls; ‘Why are the grown-ups in charge?’ The head said that the previous week it was ‘What makes the moon shine?’ and the following week would be ‘Why do we have wars?’ The children at this school were delving into the depths of philosophical enquiry ….. I certainly wish I had gone to this primary school and had my thinking skills fostered in this way”.

insights.thekeysupport.com/2015/01/22/art-is-debatable-in-schools?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Big puzzling questions to tease the thought processes:

• When are we old?
• What’s the difference between thinking and dreaming?
• Why do people feel sad?
• What makes someone clever?
• Are there different kinds of love?
• Does my goldfish know who I am?
• Why can’t I tickle myself?
• What is art?

(Average length – 5 words!)

There are a growing number of resources supporting this use of ‘big’ questions in schools stimulated by Oscar Brenifer and Jacques Despres’ book: The Book of Great Philosophical Opposites. The CBebbies series ‘What’s the Big Idea’ has a similar thread.

Another great source of ideas is: Big Questions from Little People by Gemma Elwin Harris.

The link to the ‘Philosophy for Children’ movement is clear.

Rather Smaller, Less Puzzling Questions – that are very long!

The second set come from a variety of sources and are typical of the questions often used in RE schemes of work. These include questions like:

• What can we find out about Jesus from a story about him or a story he told?
• What is the Khalsa and what does it mean to belong to it?
• How does sharing food bind people together in a community?
• How special is the relationship Jews have with God?
• What is the best way for a Hindu to show commitment to God?
• How important is it that Mary was Jesus’ mother?

(Average length 12 words!)

**************

The contrast between the two types of questions is stark! Somehow I want RE to have more of the first kind BUT I am aware that we may need the second kind to help build structure into learning.

One difficulty with the first set is that they are very cross-curricular and, while they tease and intrigue, they could quickly run out of steam and lose focus. If we use some of those to structure RE will we be all over the place in no time? Great for circle time – but could they sustain a term’s topic?

But the second questions are just too long AND somehow too small and lack any real sense of excitement. Yes, they are enquires but are they the questions children are likely to ask or find fascinating? They are the kind of questions diligent professionals feel children ought to study to gain a body of knowledge and understanding.

Can we be creative with our thinking here? Some of those first set of BIG questions can morph into a subject-based enquiry. ‘What makes the moon shine?’ quickly takes you into science. ‘Why are the grown-ups in charge?’ takes us into citizenship.

Can we use genuinely BIG questions in RE which can quickly lead us into some decent subject-based enquiry? My guess is they will be very SHORT questions. So I offer some obvious examples.

• Are angels real?
• Does God really exist?
• What is religion?
• Where do we come from?
• Is praying a waste of time?
• Should holy books be trusted?
• Does my soul exist?
• Can anyone give me the answers to life?
• Why can’t I live forever?
• Why are rituals important?
• Are stories true?
• Who is wise?
• Is religion dangerous?
• What’s best, being good or being happy?

Maybe these need to be the BIG questions for RE. Learning ‘stuff’ about religions and beliefs can fit in as children explore these questions. BUT I would hope that the children are never far away from asking these more challenging and provocative questions. I like the idea of pupils being able to tell any visitor that ‘The BIG question we are exploring this term is: Can anyone give me the answers to life?’