Viewing archives for Archive

Recommendation 7 outlines some ideas that have been in the forefront of RE leaders’ minds for some time, namely funding and providing CPD!

There are many reasons why continuing professional development (CPD) is vital to the success of RE and indeed any subject or career.

Teaching is a fabulous job, it is a vocation, it is a privilege and yet it is underfunded, undervalued by those who govern and now is failing to retain trained professionals particularly in the first five years of their career.

So why is CPD essential?

Well firstly we need to think about the context of RE teachers and leaders. I have led RE network meetings for many years in Key Stages 1-4 and have met some dedicated, hardworking, committed RE teachers. Some were RE leaders by choice while many inherited the post and some even were chosen in absentia including one teacher who was ‘appointed’ RE leader when she nipped to the toilet in a staff meeting. She, like many others in the primary phase, had received a maximum of 3 hours training in RE during her 4-year teaching degree… Focus on that for a moment, 3 hours in 4 years.

We say our children deserve the best but how can you be the best RE teacher with little training and few opportunities to receive expert coaching, mentoring and leadership input?

Why change things now? In today’s world we need to make sure that our children are encouraged to question and challenge injustice, to learn to understand and celebrate who they are, who other people are and cherish new experiences and interactions with others from different places and cultures. RE is the subject that can do this unlike any other but RE skills need to be developed, nurtured and practiced. We do not want our young people to turn into people who stay in one place, get their worldview from the mass media or are permanently welded to mobile devices so much that a proper conversation is beyond them.

CPD brings people together, if you are an RE leader you are often alone, how good is it to meet with other RE leaders to share experiences, develop schemes of work together, plan visits to places of worship etc? Just look at this year’s Strictly RE event – nearly 350 RE teachers from all over the UK meeting together on a Saturday in January to talk about RE – phenomenal!

CPD opens doors in careers. RE should be valued, as a subject it should be championed as it develops more practical life skills than any other subject. Yet still it is marginalised.

So, recommendation 7 asks for funding to cover

• national programme of online and face-to-face CPD, including an online platform with both massive open online courses (MOOCs) and static resources

This is so important as it would give boost to the status of RE. It would show that a Government had decided to commit to equipping teachers so they could help young people develop into the best human beings they could be.

The Commission says that the government should commit funding to a five-year programme of supporting and developing training. That there should be a combination of face to face and online events and that resources should be developed. All of these are absolutely spot on, but we have known this for years and many of us have been struggling to provide this with very little support. Local authorities rarely have advisors anymore and advanced skills funding was withdrawn – for many teachers they are now alone unless they try to reach out and make connections themselves.

Face to Face events would show the educational world how important RE is, there still needs to be more done to recognise the many transferrable life skills that high quality RE develops. Online communities could help to foster support networks where ideas and planning can be shared – harnessing new technologies can help the subject flourish – programmes need to be produced to maximise this.

• the development of curriculum materials and supplementary guidance, including resources for local studies

How do you become the best you can be? You must learn to value yourself, value your surroundings, your community and context. Developing local studies will help understand why things are and will lead to ideas about how to improve things, do this locally and it will mean a better environment for us to live in, this will then spread further afield. We do not live in isolation, we should not just shut the front door and be oblivious of our neighbours, our neighbourhood, our local history and modern developments.

We need to be involved, we should not shake our heads as no one is improving things, we should lead the improvements not point fingers.

Developing and preserving our area will help build pride in the area, this then should lead to welcoming people in rather than being suspicious of outsiders.

An example, I am originally a Midlander and lived there until I was 13 when I moved to the Bournemouth area due to my parents work. 40 years later although I love living by the sea, I still consider myself a Midlander and am always moved by the warmth and friendliness of the Midlands when I am back there. The mix of cultures always fascinated me and still does. Living there gave me a lifelong love of diversity and trying new experiences leading me into RE teaching and a desire to travel.

One of my favourite holiday destinations is the Orkneys, breathtakingly beautiful, full of natural splendour, rugged coasts and archaeological wonders. Not a cheap destination but the people are so welcoming, so proud of their islands and heritage. They always ask us when we are going to move up there, they are genuinely keen to embrace visitors. Yet so many people I know have no idea where the Orkneys are and are stunned to hear that they have any infrastructure at all.

When did we stop wanting to learn about where we are? When did finding out about the world lose appeal?

So yes, we need resources, curriculum materials and the opportunity to adapt and personalise these – the opportunity to engage with local communities and celebrate what is on our doorstep! Through this engagement we would hope to find the desire to explore other areas and learn more. At a time where our borders are being closed, we need to be more open than ever.

The final part is

• support for local face-to-face CPD including teacher hubs and networks, with specific allocations for areas of opportunity and of a sufficient level to cover adequate professional advice and support.

This is very close to my heart, I love running networks for teachers, I did this when I was a teacher and now that I advise I always try to keep in mind the following… There must always be a focus on teaching and learning, some sharing of experiences and resources, some opportunity to work together, to vocalise why and what help is required. Advisers must be working hard to ensure what they provide is practical and useful.

To conclude, without CPD there will be stagnation or even worse deterioration. I have seen some brilliant teachers leave teaching in the last five years, not because of children but because of either data obsessed managers, a lack of work life balance or just a feeling of futility. That teaching should ever appear futile is a crime and our leaders are accountable.

Investing in CPD is investing in people.

Investing in RE CPD is investing in our children and students, investing in equipping them with the skills needed to change their world for the better, in the chance to be the generation that builds bridges rather than burns them down like previous ones.

It always comes down to money, however a considerable amount of good will exists in the world of RE, people already work hard for little financial reward so a commitment from government would surely reap greater rewards in the long term.

The commission’s recommendation 7 whilst essential, it is not a bolt out of the blue, we have known this for years, but if, finally, something good comes from it then the future stands a chance.

I’m going to start by stating that I think the RE community has done an amazing job with providing accessible CPD which is free to all through local groups. I think this is something we should be really proud of and thankful for all those who lead, inspire and contribute to local groups / hubs / teachmeets throughout the country. Whether the CPD has been provided by SACRE, LTLRE, NATRE, Higher Education, members of AREIAC or other organisations, many leaders do this above and beyond their daily work. We are a highly motivated, dedicated and passionate bunch of professionals who give freely of our own time.

Ahhh, now there we have it! Free CPD is out there if we do it in our own time. (Well, free to us – someone pays for it, often a charity – where is the government?!) In doing so we are likely to be reaching only those who have a keen interest in RE but probably not those in a primary school who also have responsibilities for other curriculum areas and agendas, where RE may not be a school priority. As such how is quality CPD happening in schools where the lead isn’t so enthusiastic, is it just listed as a one staff meeting a year to discuss the long term plan?

As a county adviser and national ambassador, I am often asked to lead staff meetings and delighted to do so. Many ask for CPD on subject knowledge as they recognise gaps in own understanding or for help with assessment. I also like to share practical ideas on how they can engage and enthuse pupils in RE. We all like to have something to take away which we can adapt to use in class. I often think back in my planning to where that idea originated from, often from a session I was fortunate to attend. Over the years I can see how I have “magpied” ideas from Jane Brooke on teaching Christianity, Julia Diamond-Conway on Judaism, Neil McKain on digital technology and Sushma Sahajpal with her insight on Hinduism. I have had so many wonderful opportunities. But where is the inspiration coming from for those schools who cannot fund CPD for RE because it is not a curriculum priority? With the impact of school budgets tightening, opportunities for CPD in many subject areas are being cut.

• We need to get subject leaders involved with local networking but not overburden them
• We need to develop local leadership so that others have the experience to share their pedagogy
• We need to fund opportunities for networking locally and for bringing local leaders together to provide them with quality CPD. (An excellent example of which is the LTLRE structure which has recognised the need to bring local leaders together so they are not just working in isolation.)

The Report requests funding for CPD and networking opportunities. Long term funding is needed to bring all the pieces of the jigsaw together. Those who give freely of their time should be supported and have people they can turn to for advice and there should be opportunity for group leaders to meet together for their own CPD. These roles and opportunities should be funded and sustained. The Regional Ambassadors are all beginning their work this term for which they are funded a day a month. It’s a small drop in the ocean but it is a start as it allows local group leaders to have someone they can contact for a range of support. The Ambassadors will also be establishing local groups where there is currently no local provision, raising opportunities for RE teachers to network. Part of my role as the National Ambassador is to be a national voice for the networks working closely with Juliet Lyal as NATRE’s Local Group Officer.

The recommendation for face to face CPD including local networks is one which we are already well on the way to providing, and within time hopefully we will make Juliet Lyal’s vision of “a local group within 30 minutes’ drive” a reality. There is lots of work to be done and it is dependent on funding. Given the government’s long term neglect of RE, it is high time that our commitment in helping ourselves was matched by a government commitment to double the investment, or more.

In the meantime I would like to hear from you if you are in an area of need with little or no CPD support or if you are ready to facilitate a local group with the support of others. It’s not ideal attending CPD beyond your timetable but if that is where our passions lie then I know we will be keen to ignite this passion in others. Oh and don’t forget the chocolate cake!

You can contact Naomi on naomi@natre.org.uk or through twitter @naomianstice

Recommendation 7 states:

The government should allocate funding for CPD for Religion and Worldviews to support the delivery of the new non-statutory national programmes of study. This funding should be for a period of at least five years and be sufficient to cover:

1. a national programme of online and face-to-face CPD, including an online platform with both massive open online courses (MOOCs) and static resources
2. the development of curriculum materials and supplementary guidance, including resources for local studies
3. support for local face-to-face CPD including teacher hubs and networks, with specific allocations for areas of opportunity and of a sufficient level to cover adequate professional advice and support.

All of the above funding streams should be administered and overseen by the national body as part of their remit.

More funding for CPD? Yes please. Who could possibly have an issue with this? As an RE teacher of 17 years, I’m all too aware of my subject knowledge limitations and pedagogical weaknesses, and I am very pleased to see an increase in use of research by teachers, both research about learning and subject specific research.

The Commission on RE recommended that in order ‘to support the delivery of the new non-statutory national programmes of study’, funding should be allocated to cover at least five years’ worth of national CPD programmes, including online and face-to-face CPD, alongside the development of support and guidance materials, and financial support for local groups, hubs and networks to enable professional advice and support to be available.

All of this is necessary and important. The recent NATRE Primary survey found that around 1 in 3 primary teachers have had no subject specific CPD in the last year. When added to the 1/3 of primary teachers who don’t even have a GCSE RS, and the around half of primary teachers who had between zero and three hours of subject specific ITE training, it becomes obvious that such professional support is urgent. Too many primary teachers report a lack of confidence in teaching RE. Note the lack of confidence. This doesn’t mean they don’t want to teach RE well, or that they don’t see the point, more that they are crying out for some assistance to do their job well.

And while the secondary sector can obviously lean more on its greater numbers of subject specialists, there are still too many schools where that subject specialist is on their own, trying to manage and support a team of teachers from a wide range of other subjects. Even some GCSE classes are being taught by teachers not fully equipped to teach the subject.

The need is obvious and urgent. The Commission’s recommendation is one we can all support.

However, I do think there is a need for the RE community to look at our own house as well. There is an enormous amount of training material out there, from publishers, universities, schools, religious and non-religious groups, and exam boards. From books to online courses, from conferences to webinars, there is a lot on offer. However, there is a problem, and this relates to the scope and complexity of the subject, and its varied purposes. There are, as it stands, so many ways of ‘doing RE’, each of which requires its own suite of supportive resources. Any funding made available from central government would either be in danger of being diluted across too many CPD providers or would only go to a chosen few providers.

If we cannot seriously tackle the issues facing the RE curriculum, we may find that any investment in teacher CPD might not be as effective as we might like.

As part of its report, the Commission on Religious Education makes important recommendations for the initial training of secondary and primary teachers to teach Religion and Worldviews.

Recommendation 6 is intrinsic to the Commission’s whole vision of developing Religion and Worldviews. It is also an important foundation stone in promoting an understanding of the subject from the beginning of initial teacher education (ITE). It identifies key concerns for RE – lack of time, the need for good subject knowledge and the importance of funding – which all need to be addressed to ensure this subject will survive and thrive. There have already been some positive responses to the recommendations around bursaries and subject knowledge enhancement for secondary teachers, which are very welcome as a starting point; but more now needs to be done to improve the preparation of teachers nationally. I know many ITE colleagues welcome Recommendation 6 because it makes a strongly-argued case for substantial and coherent action and includes practical ways to improve ITE and connect it to CPD.

From my perspective, as a primary ITE lecturer, the recommendation concerning primary ITE provides a unique opportunity to improve primary teachers’ engagement right from the start of their training and thereby raise standards across all schools. There is a wide range of different primary ITE routes, including undergraduate degrees, PGCEs, school-based training through SCITTs, School Direct programmes and Teach First programmes, which all need to prepare teachers for the primary curriculum. Until this recommendation, there has not been such a public pronouncement concerning the minimum amount of Religious Education training beginner primary teachers should receive. A concrete proposal of at least 12 hours for ‘all forms of primary ITE including School Direct and other school-based routes’ challenges the current practices of many primary ITE providers, as we know from reports by NATRE (2016) and others (APPG, 2013; Ofsted, 2013; CoRE, 2017). This recommendation provides an opportunity for all of us to seize the momentum of the Commission’s Report, share good practice and build flexible and coherent responses which can enhance ITE provision.

It is important for primary ITE providers to explore different models for the 12 hours which will work well in their settings and which address the current problems of time, subject knowledge and subject status which can make it difficult for beginner teachers to learn about the subject and gain teaching experience in school. Teaching about Religion and Worldviews needs to be seen as both a specific subject in its own right, but also as an intrinsic part of the whole curriculum, to which every pupil is entitled. But entitlement is not just for pupils. We need to recognise that beginner teachers should be entitled to know how to teach the whole curriculum and be properly introduced to the specific subject matter and pedagogies which, in excellent provision, makes this subject so special in pupils’ development and in the ways they interact with the world. Beginner teachers need time and good teaching to gain confidence and competence, which come from secure knowledge and understanding, combined with classroom experience. This subject has so much to offer in terms of inclusive practices and rich, engaging and pupil-centred pedagogies. Ofsted’s new Draft Education Inspection Framework intends a ‘full’ curriculum ‘that is ambitious and designed to give all learners…the knowledge and cultural capital they need to succeed in life’ (Ofsted, 2019,10). Religion and Worldviews should have a secure place in such a vision.

We know that changing practices will not be easy, but we need to seize this moment to challenge and improve the current situation in both primary and secondary ITE. Some improvements should be initiated from within the Religious Education community, with the expectation that our actions can influence future policy decisions. First all ITE providers need to be informed about Recommendation 6. Then identification and development of good practice needs to be shared, alongside on-line materials to supplement or enhance provision. Connections should be made among local and regional groups to bridge between ITE and CPD. The Commission’s Recommendation 6 is too good an opportunity to be missed. We may not get another chance to improve ITE provision in this subject on a national scale.

References:

APPG (2013) The Truth Unmasked https://www.religiouseducationcouncil.org.uk/resources/documents/religious-education-the-truth-unmasked/

CoRE (2017) Religious Education for all https://www.commissiononre.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Commission-on-Religious-Education-Interim-Report-2017.pdf

NATRE (2016). An Analysis of the provision for RE in primary schools https://www.natre.org.uk/news/latest-news/an-analysis-of-the-provision-for-re-in-primary-schools/

Ofsted (2013). Religious Education: Realising the potential https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/religious-education-realising-the-potential

Ofsted (2019) Education inspection framework: draft for consultation https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework-draft-for-consultation

1. When GCSE and A-level specifications are next reviewed, this should be done in the light of the National Entitlement.
2. The national body should also consider how the study of Religion and Worldviews may be incorporated into vocational qualifications, either as a stand-alone course or as modules within existing vocational courses.

The recommendation to review GCSE and A level specifications in light of the National Entitlement is sensible, as is the caveat that this should only take place when these courses are next reviewed.  The process of changing both GCSE and A level courses at the same time between 2015 and 2018 was just a little tiring!

While I think that the new GCSE is a significant improvement on the previous course, I do acknowledge the criticism of some that it is too narrow, and when placed alongside the proposed National Entitlement, the GCSE would stand somewhat apart from the vision proposed by the Commission.

The challenge for any review would be to construct a course that built on the use of the National Entitlement up to Key Stage 3, but in a way that continued to increase challenge and depth. It may be that any such review might have to be postponed until curricula reflecting the National Entitlement had been embedded.

The suggestion that the study of Religion and Worldviews could be incorporated into vocational qualifications is an interesting and exciting idea. This does offer a chance for creativity in course design beyond the structures required by examination courses.

However, careful thought would need to be given to the content of such courses. Too often, vocational qualifications lack demand and encourage low expectations. Any such Religion and Worldviews content should not be a simplified version of a GCSE course. Students who take vocational qualifications deserve better than that.

Wherever I am standing in front of trainee teachers, holding a copy of the local Agreed Syllabus, I have a dilemma. I know I should promote it but it feels wrong at every level. Agreed Syllabuses vary in quality, but all are written by the wrong combination of people, doing the wrong job for the wrong reasons. The system of Agreed Syllabus Conferences (ASCs) may once have had a purpose; but it is now an anachronistic, damaging waste of money. Thank goodness for this recommendation – we must move on from local syllabuses – and move now!

In subjects such as history or citizenship, we do not ask political parties to write the syllabus. Nor should religious representatives have a hand in controlling the religious one. We do not have local control of the geography syllabus even though the local area is studied. Artists are the subject of study in art, but teachers decide what is taught within a nationally defined range. In any subject, it is fine to consult local experts – but not acceptable to give them 50% of the power to determine content.

We live in a gloriously diverse and globally accessible world in which the justification for local syllabuses has long gone. We have access to religions and worldviews globally; global movements affect young people; and often local manifestations of a belief may be quite untypical or partial. Local religious representatives, no matter how well-intentioned, are not the people to decide this. In practice SACREs and ASCs are now so poorly resourced that they commonly resort to off-the-peg commercial syllabuses. Even the apologists for the present system agree that this reality cuts the ground from under their feet. They should take the obvious next step – working with the REC to shape a better future.

There is much to be celebrated in the recommendations of the Commission’s final report: a more inclusive name for the subject that will help unload it of some of the unwanted baggage it carries (yes, this is important); a national entitlement for students in all state-funded schools that insists programmes of study ‘must reflect the complex, diverse and plural nature of worldviews’; and specific recognition of the need to include humanism. For over fifty years forward-looking educators have been arguing for a more objective, critical, and pluralistic education about religion and worldviews. The Commission on RE’s final report demonstrates how widely shared these goals now are.

I’ve been asked to comment on Recommendation 4: the suspension of the requirement to write agreed syllabuses. The call to remove the responsibility for syllabus setting from Agreed Syllabus Conferences (ASCs) is not to claim that every locally agreed syllabuses is not fit for purpose. It is to help ensure that all young people, regardless of where they live, receive a high-quality, balanced, education about religion and worldviews.

There are practical considerations behind this recommendation. Many schools no longer need to follow their local syllabus. Many ASCs are poorly funded. Many lack expertise. On more than one occasion I’ve encountered a representative of a worldview complaining there was no one available with a better knowledge of education (or sometimes their worldview) to produce the units they had contributed to their agreed syllabus. We often see narrow or sanitised version of religions, presented from a single perspective peculiar to the individual responsible for writing the content.

There is also the fact that in many parts of the country the ASC presents the biggest hurdle to ensuring students receive an inclusive education about religion and worldviews: one that treats humanism as a worldview as worthy of study as the main religions, as is the legal requirement.

Demand from teachers has soared for resources and support with teaching about humanism (over 30,000 people visited the Understanding Humanism website in 2018, a fivefold increase in two years). However, it is still too often the case, to the frustration of many teachers, that humanist representatives (where they exist) on ASCs face an uphill battle to get humanism included on their agreed syllabus in anything other than a cursory way.

There is still a case for education about religion and worldviews to have a local flavour, and nothing in the Commission’s proposals rejects this. The new Local Area Networks proposed by the Commission can still support teachers and schools with relevant information about the local landscape of religion and belief, including local school speakers and places suitable for school visits. However, we live in a global world, in which many people do not spend their entire lives in the community they grew up in. Students will often move during their schooling meaning they currently do not receive a joined up education due to a change in syllabus midway through (the system also makes life more complicated for teachers). The postcode lottery of one’s education about religion and worldviews needs to end.

We now need to seize the moment. Too much attention has already been focused on a small number of detractors. The final report was never going to receive comprehensive praise from everyone (I’m sure everyone can find something in it they disagree with). But now is the time to focus on the best consensus we’ve had from members of the religion and worldviews community for how we can make the subject fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. Change will not happen overnight, but if we do not take advantage of the once in a generation opportunity we now have, then we may find the subject is beyond saving and our future will be poorer as a result.

Recommendation 4 (Suspension of requirement to write agreed syllabuses)

More than thirty years after the introduction of the national curriculum entitlement for all pupils, one subject remains exempt: religious education. Unlike any other compulsory subject, RE curricula are determined at a local level.

Providing pupils with knowledge about religion is a valuable endeavour. What secularists object to is a version of religious education that acts as a promotional tool for religion, or teaches it with a view to proselytisation. The involvement of faith communities, which seek to ensure their own representation in a positive light, inevitably leads to a situation whereby religions are presented in a favourable way. This is far from the ‘warts and all’ approach, recommended by Ofsted more than ten years ago now.

This lack of objectivity also manifests itself in the classroom. A recent survey of 465 RE teachers found that 60% “absolutely agree” that “religion should be taught in a positive way in RE”. Six per cent did not agree, with the remainder “moderately” (16%), “somewhat” (13%) or “slightly” (5%) agreeing. In an accompanying article in the journal Religions, academics warned that knowledge is being distorted and that respect is being given “prominence over understanding”. This is educationally inappropriate and undermines the subject’s credibility in the eyes of parents and pupils alike.

The National Secular Society’s 21^st century RE for All campaign set out with the objective of ensuring that all pupils have an equal entitlement to high quality, non-partisan education about religion and belief. To achieve this, we need to take curriculum writing out of the hands of vested interests and put it into the hands of education professionals.

The Commission on Religious Education’s recommendation to remove the requirement agreed syllabus conferences (ASCs) to develop locally agreed syllabuses is therefore to be welcomed. If enacted, it should herald the transformation of an outmoded model of RE into a new national entitlement for religion and belief learning.

Today’s pupils are tomorrow’s global citizens. They’ll need to be informed about the diversity and impact of religious and non-religious worldviews in their local, national and international communities. Assuming inculcation isn’t the aim, ‘local circumstances’ should no longer determine the kind of RE they receive. Neither should the content of the curriculum be determined by the balance of religious enthusiasm or strength of organisation at a local level.

Some may worry that an end to ASCs could produce more rather than less fragmentation, with every school interpreting RE differently, or accelerate the dominance of private curricula providers. Much will depend on the effectiveness of the structures and accountability that comes with any national entitlement.

Significant reforms are necessary to bring religion and belief education into the 21^st century. We need an equal inspections system for all schools, a consistent pedagogy and an end to confessionalism once and for all. But by bringing a consistent approach to curriculum writing, and putting it in the hands of education professionals, we can at least start to move forward. The government should stop prevaricating and begin the process of reform.

Lately, I’ve been fortunate to share in some very good conversations about these questions. One was a summit organised by David Aldridge, Gert Biesta, Pat Hannam and Sean Whittle, as part of their project on religious literacy within Culham St Gabriel’s Research7 series. I recommend keeping an eye out for the findings, when published, because the researchers have been doing a remarkable job. Their approach has been to review relevant literature then invite critical commentary from academics and teachers.

The underlying problem is a lack of an agreed definition of religious literacy. The term is used to convey different meanings and there has been a tendency to use it as if it is more straightforward. However, the researchers identify various definitions of literacy: it has meant well-read, or able to read, or equipped with knowledge of one’s culture, or possessed of a certain set of skills, such as financial literacy, digital literacy and so on. They go on to point out the different views of religious literacy – a critical engagement with religious truth-claims, or an ability to understand the basics of different religious traditions, or an appreciation of how religions intersect with social and political life, or the ability to talk about religion in the public sphere. They pose questions about whether and how religious literacy could or should be an organising principle for RE: given religion’s huge diversity, what counts as ‘basic’ knowledge? But how should ‘religion’ be understood, anyway – should we ask about what it means to live religiously? If there are different modes of what could be called religious literacy, is literacy the best term to carry the different educational meanings, given its basis in reading?

The summit, mainly involving academics, brought out further questions. Again, I can only give examples here, but that of non-religious worldviews was one. Martha Shaw includes these in her definition of religious literacy, together with pupils’ reflecting on their own personal values, and together with Adam Dinham is developing case studies of this approach.

The meeting with teachers took place a couple of weeks after the academic summit, adding questions which in some ways were new, though in other ways overlapped with those mentioned earlier. How do you develop religious literacy despite the demands of exams? Or, do you develop it within those demands? The lack of an agreed definition of religious literacy was what caused there to be two questions rather than one: if it’s defined as measurable knowledge and understanding of religion, the first question doesn’t apply. Prompted by problems over the term religious literacy to discuss what good RE is, none of the teachers then made use of the term to do so. I have no doubt that the term generates interesting discussion, but I open-mindedly wonder whether it adds any value to RE practice.

As well as looking forward to the results of the religious literacy project, I want to see how they’re affected by those of other Research7 projects. On teaching texts, does skilful handling of a text demonstrate religious literacy, or just one instance of it? On knowledge in the RE curriculum, is knowledge of religion through RE the same as religious literacy through RE, or are other factors involved in religious literacy? Or, do discussions of religious literacy help develop our view of what knowledge in the RE curriculum really means? On RE and technology, it would be surprising if today’s young people didn’t draw on technology to develop religious literacy, but does this affect the term’s meaning? On RE and educational and social disadvantage, is religious literacy a form of educational and social advantage, or something that provides these? Do young people need access to technology in order to develop the literacy and gain the advantages? At present, my only prediction is that the questions will multiply.

I am lucky enough to be working on Stockton-on-Tees’ Agreed Syllabus. Designed by adviser Kirsten Webber, the syllabus is already well-planned, challenging and highly practical. As I take the train up to Stockton, home of course to the world’s first public railway, I reflect on the pleasure of creating something of educational value for teachers and pupils and working with like-minded people. The syllabus is supportive and practical, but it also encourages teachers to increase the challenge of their teaching as children grow. Kirsten and I are agreed; we want to support teachers as much as possible, but we also want to establish a high standard of quality and coherence. We want growing understanding in RE to be systematic and deliberate. This syllabus encourages increasing demand and complexity. This is not accidental.

Gazing from my train window at the big skies of the North East, I wonder why isn’t there a Kirsten on every SACRE, academy chain and diocese? Why should this syllabus ‘only’ support teachers in Stockton? The Commission Recommendation 3 comes to mind:

Non-statutory programmes of study for each of Key a. Stages 1–4 should be developed at a national level…
Programmes of study should be developed by a national body of a maximum of nine professionals, including serving teachers.

Travelling around the country as I do, working with Academy Trusts and SACREs on various aspects of their RE architecture, I can say from personal experience how much energy is being spent on locally agreed or other RE syllabuses. With teachers at peak workload, SACREs losing touch with their local area, widespread fragmentation caused by new school types and the sharp decline in local RE advisers able to pull various strings together, this does seem like a timely innovation. All over the country advisers, SACREs and Trusts are reinventing the wheel; a colossal expenditure of energy that could surely be put to a better, or more streamlined, use.

What existing models can we look at to judge this proposal? RE Today’s Understanding Christianity and Model Syllabuses are good examples. Either, or both, of these syllabuses allows SACREs or trusts to access practical, coherent curricula at a standard they would be unable to create on their own. Both syllabuses are popular and continue to sell; teachers and schools want them. Could programmes of study, produced nationally to exemplify the National Entitlement, offer trusts and local authority areas coherent, practical RE of a universally high standard? This is certainly the intention. The Commission Report sets out in forensic detail just how inconsistent and incoherent children’s learning is in our atomized system.

However the oft-repeated warning springs to mind, given in response to the suggestion of a national curriculum for RE: whose RE? What curriculum? The small print of this Recommendation however cuts through that particular Gordian knot:

Members of the national body should be appointed on the basis of commitment to the approach taken to Religion and Worldviews in the National Entitlement’ (Rec 3, p 14)

I am sure in some quarters this phrase, nestling in Recommendation 3, will give rise to howls of anguish. ‘The Commission’s RE’, is the answer to the question ‘whose RE?’ and it will not please everyone.

What is ‘the Commission’s RE’? This justification for learning about religion and worldviews is given in the report; ‘it is impossible fully to understand the world without understanding worldviews’ (p. 3). Thus the National Entitlement presents one purpose of learning in Religion and Worldviews; to understand the nature, types and impact of religious and non-religious worldviews. The National Entitlement sheds other purposes for learning in RE, such as improved community relations, personal inspiration or respect for outlooks different to one’s own. ‘The Commission’s RE’ is the most inclusive version of the subject. With one purpose given for learning, the purpose of understanding, students don’t have to be religious or to care about religion to engage in this area of study. The rise, interaction and concerns of different worldviews explains both the past and the present. Worldviews studies could be described, perhaps at an open evening to parents, as the history of human thought. All humans have a worldview. With personal and spiritual aims of the subject dropped from the National Entitlement, Religion and Worldviews becomes the study of human thought, essential for understanding the world.

Kirsten and I are a good team because we agree on the purpose of learning in RE; to understand. It is an exciting partnership. One clear aim means we can see where we want to be. We might disagree about how to get there, although more often than not we agree, but we know where we are heading to. If national programmes of study can offer a clear purpose for the subject, which I hope they will, we as a community will have one outcome to aim for. Of course there is complexity in the doing, but clarity of what we want to achieve would cut out a whole host of distracting and stultifying confusion.

Programmes of study with one clear aim and purpose for learning would not only save teachers, SACREs and Trusts huge amounts of time and effort, it would enable a degree of creativity to flourish along the path to one clear aim. Teachers, schools and students are incredibly diverse, as anyone who has tried to teach from their colleague’s lesson plan knows. Teaching and learning has to be shaped to fit the teacher, the class and the context. How much more effective will we be as a community with one clear aim to provide an eventual outcome, as we work to achieve that outcome in our own particular contexts? Programmes of study offering coherence and progression, to relieve teachers’ burden of creating resources from scratch and to provide a benchmark of high quality, inclusive learning is surely to be welcomed.