Viewing archives for Archive

Rae Hancock, teacher of RS at The Cherwell School, Oxford

In order for RE to continue to claim a place in the curriculum and serve pupils well it needs to change; to save our subject there needs to be less of it!

A bold claim/ a risky proposition perhaps, but if you indulge me I will outline why I believe this to be a necessary change and make a few suggestions as to how this new skills-based RE might be developed.

The purpose of education is to nurture within young people that which is useful beyond the parameters of school. Part of this is a responsibility, I believe, to build a programme of studies that does the very best to equip young people for the religious future, for the unknown. For example, it is easily forgotten how different the religious landscape was before 11^th September 2001. As practitioners it is worth asking ourselves “how much of what we teach prepares young people to deal with such an unpredictable and world-altering event?”  It is understood by most in education that we are preparing our young people for jobs that do not yet exist; it is also time to begin preparing them for a religious landscape that does not yet exist.

The flexibility that comes with having a Non-Statutory framework can allow schools to respond to their particular faith demographic. However, from this can come a tendency to assume that what pupils need in order to understand each other is more subject knowledge. It is very tempting to see the solution to intolerance and misunderstanding as information; if we are less ignorant about someone’s faith, hopefully we will be less fearful of difference. However, intolerance is rooted in beliefs and these cannot be changed through information alone. To view RE as necessarily subject knowledge-heavy leads, I believe, to an emphasis on breadth rather than depth. In turn the subject becomes a rigid list of things to ‘know’ rather than ways to ‘understand’ and is rendered useless when the religious landscape shifts or develops.  I believe that in order to equip young people for this unknown landscape they must have a religious education that gives them the skills to adapt to new phenomena and deal with uncertainty.

Fundamentally though I believe that such an approach is inclusive and every child has something to gain by learning to approach the unknown. Skills-based RE with its emphasis on an uncertain future, allows pupils of all, non and changing faith backgrounds to access it. It does this by teaching useful critical skills that can be used by all and has the capacity to adapt to current and future pupil needs and the changing religious horizons.

Focusing on building skills when planning RE has many positive outcomes. Your materials can be flexible and frequently renewed in the face of changing religious climate.

It is academically rigorous when the skill is used to focus and drive the lesson. For example learning the skill of investigation can be done through taking single feature, passage, speech, action, story, or material culture and scrutinizing it.  Or empathy can be explored through a single person or situation. In this fashion the lessons remain content-light but each religious source is dealt with in depth.

Having a single religious feature for each lesson (e.g. a parable), which is then approached in a variety of ways in order to practice the skill (e.g. empathy), allows for over-learning, pre-learning, scaffolding and modelling opportunities. Thus skills-based RE supports pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) through its rigour and structure. Their time in the classroom becomes about preparation for and application of action rather than simple knowledge retention and as such can be comprehensively supported by those who are SEND but not subject specialists.

Depending on your own context there are opportunities to link explicitly to the school ethos, thus rooting RE as immediate and relevant. For example, inspired by my own school’s Skills for Life, ‘reflection’, ‘empathising and listening’ or ‘learning from others’ have often become the focus for a lesson or sequence of lessons.

Finally there is the option to present skills as used by or applicable across religions/non-religious worldviews (NRWs) or as a point of contact between or within religions/NRWs. The following examples are skills as a feature of a religion. This is different from using skills to examine religion, the bulk of my article, but is an interesting and valid variation of skills-based RE. It also presents a religious reality; people agree on some things but will always disagree on others. For example, it would be possible to show unity by teaching the skill of ‘resilience’ through the experiences of persecuted peoples (e.g. minority religious groups through history). Or to show contention or competing truth claims by teaching the skill of ‘communication’ (e.g. issues of contested authority in sacred texts or whether Jesus is prophet or Messiah).

So how do we go about developing a skills-based RE that hopes to prepare young people as best as possible for an unknown future?

1. Strip down the content we cover so there is an emphasis on depth of subject knowledge and understanding rather than breadth.

2. Teach skills through the analysis of the remaining religious and philosophical material.

3. Be continuously willing to adjust/switch/cut skills or materials as the demands of the religious and cultural climate change.

4. Look to assessment through application of skills rather than regurgitation of subject knowledge.

By doing these we can both defend the continued existence of the subject and its boundaries and gain a slimmed down curriculum with subject depth that has current and future applications. In the face of the internet and global community, schools can no longer claim to be sole providers of information. In adapting to this schools need to shift the emphasis from teaching information to teaching how to interact with information. They are ideally suited to provide young people with the ability to analyse and deconstruct the information available from such varied sources.

My vision of skills-based RE for the future is borne out of a concern for the changing nature of the now. Each young person is on a personal path that may lead them in and out of the spiritual sphere, through periods of both religiosity and atheism. This personal journey is set then against a backdrop of a continually changing cultural, political and religious landscape that periodically shifts in ways so monumental as to defy prediction. It also acknowledges the need for inclusion and a process of learning through application that allows both, day-to-day measurable progress and relevance, and a bank of skills to be drawn on long into adulthood. It is only through a move away from content-overload and toward skills that I believe RE can survive as a viable subject preparing young people for an uncertain future.

A couple of months ago I started a thread on the RE:ONLINE Café about what an outstanding RE Continuing Professional Development (CPD) session might look like. The question arose after reading a thought provoking article in the Times Education Supplement entitled ‘The seven deadly sins of teacher development’ (TES 21.6.13).

David Weston, Chief Executive of the  Teacher Development Trust  highlighted sins such as passivity: the depressingly long twilight session based on a Power Point, through to overconfidence of the ‘novelty factor’. He showed how superficiality had led to new educational theory being watered down, so that the research was not discussed or understood. In particular, he related this to professional development linked to assessment for learning. For Weston, the superficial nature of professional development has gone hand in hand with gluttony. He describes this as an overload of new initiatives and ideas, none of which are ever embedded or sustained. In his short article, Weston suggests that as teacher educators and advisers, we must focus on learning needs of young people so that professional development is about refining and evaluating practice.

With increasing pressure on school budgets for professional development, the case for ensuring it is effective could never be more crucial. If the increasing use of the RE:ONLINE Café and take up of places for the Culham St Gabriel’s leadership conference at the end of September is anything to go by, RE teachers are thirsty for learning.

In 2011, The Centre for Education Research and Policy brought together a number of independent studies and reviews from around the world and identified six features of effective CPD. They claimed that CPD needs to:

• Be based on identified learning needs of both pupils and teachers
• Be sustained, with long term aims
• Be subject specific
• Be based in the classroom and classroom practice
• Be collaborative, ensuring reflective practice
• Make use of external expertise

(Effective Continuing Professional Development for Teachers Report 2011 p.1)

The question of effective CPD is close to my heart. As an RE Adviser ( Diocese of Norwich) and since January as lead consultant for CPD for Culham St Gabriel’s ensuring that teacher development opportunities have an impact on learning is a high priority.  One of the main aspects of my Culham St Gabriel’s work is to lead the Subject Knowledge Enhancement Course programme. In the last few months we have been reviewing and revising the course to meet the changing needs of those entering the profession, but also an increasing number of trainees who are already teaching RE and want to develop their subject knowledge. So I have been exploring what teachers of RE want from a distance learning course, as well as having conversations with those involved in Initial Teacher Education- both primary and secondary. I have also been reflecting on how far the CPD I provide as an RE adviser fulfils the six criteria highlighted above.

Through my limited explorations, I have found that there is no doubt that teachers of RE (I include TAs, HLTAs and all colleagues working with schools) want to learn. There is also a huge variety of CPD on offer-From Teachmeets to Conferences, from Twitter chats to Facebook conversations, from Farmington Fellowships to MAs and PhDs, from local run courses to international events…. The world of RE CPD is rich and varied… but how much of this is really effective back in the classroom?

In the last year, there have been some significant developments in the world of RE CPD. In the south-west, St Luke’s College Foundation is supporting Learn/Teach/Lead RE, a programme designed to facilitate improvement and pedagogical understanding. The title of their conference this Autumn is ‘Sustained RE’ and the aims of the project resonate with the six features of effective CPD (see http://www.ltlre.org/) including building communities and engaging in research.

In the east, Keswick Hall Trust is supporting a CPD project that creates action research triads led by schools who have gained the RE Quality Mark. Again, the focus on collaboration and research are a key element of this project. Silver and gold levels require classroom-based research to be evident and the aim is for more schools to gain the RE Quality Mark as a result of the project and disseminate outcomes regionally.

The emergence of local, often grass roots CPD events generated by blogs and twitter, called Teachmeets, brings professional development closer to the needs of teachers and makes it much more affordable. These events are usually subject specific and classroom focused, and increasingly linked to research.

Culham St Gabriel’s have expanded their 3forRE scheme which provides funding towards a Master’s degree that is linked to RE. Increasingly, teaching is being seen as a Masters profession. At a Teacher Education Advancement Network (TEAN) Conference in June, Professor Linda La Velle, spoke of Masterliness in teaching. By this she meant a profession where reflective practice is embedded and where the teacher is researcher. Warwick University’s action research hub is a good example of this masterliness in practice and as part of the 3forRE Masters scheme it is hoped that Warwick will encourage other participating universities to think about local action research hubs.

So, in light of all this, what might effective RE CPD look like in the future?

I think it may build on the idea of Teachmeets and local NATRE groups, where teachers determine locally their learning needs with one another. I think that teachers will increasingly engage with action research, linking to universities who are undertaking RE related research and/or with wider educational issues which impact on RE. I think teachers are thirsty for learning, but learning that will impact on classroom practice.

I think that RE:ONLINE will support and perhaps generate new communities of practice. The increasing number of contributors to this website has allowed many to discuss and debate different issues and aspects of learning and teaching in RE.

I think the RE Quality Mark will provide ways for schools to collaborate- in preparing for, but also in furthering network opportunities after an award has been given. As the alumni grow, so good practice can be shared virtually and in local groups.

I think that courses and training provided by organisations will place more emphasis on long term sustainability and impact, and will place research at the heart of all professional learning.  I think advisers will focus more on challenge and pedagogy, rather than ‘quick fix’ solutions.

Finally, what does this mean for the subject knowledge enhancement course that I am leading on for Culham St Gabriel’s? It means that change is required to ensure that the course can be as effective as possible. In collaboration with a wonderful team of tutors, the course has been revised and updated to meet the needs of a changing and growing clientele. The course has refocused on teacher and pupil needs, and now provides better links with actual classroom practice. Yet it remains subject specific and places research at the centre of learning. The course, although distance learning, encourages collaboration through the RE:ONLINE café and through Facebook and Twitter. In light of this a new name for the course was required, and it is now called  ‘The Teach RE’ course.

I too, am on my own professional learning journey, and part of that journey is to discuss and collaborate with others on effective ways forward in relation to continuing professional learning ( I prefer this to ‘development’).  This ‘Think Piece’ is a starting point for me, and has allowed me to engage with a limited amount of research, as well as reflect on my own practice. Will you join me to collaborate and explore further our changing contexts to find an effective way forward?

References

Effective Continuing Professional Development for Teachers Report, 2011, AQA.

Kelly, G., 2013, Taking the devil out of development in Times Educational Supplement magazine 21.6.13.

Weston, D., 2013, Seven deadly sins of teacher development in The Times Educational Supplement Magazine  21.6.13.

Whitehouse, C., 2011 Effective Continuing Professional Development for Teachers. Centre for Education Research and Policy www.cerp.org.uk.

Teacher Education Advancement Network Conference held on 4^th June 2013 entitled: Masterliness in the Teaching Profession.

RE is an amazing subject: ask any RE teacher. Wherever they go on holiday an RE teacher will pick something up for the classroom. Relaxing in front of the TV can lead to the identification of a two minute clip essential to a unit they are delivering before the end of the year. Sometimes it feels like RE teachers NEVER switch off – everything, everywhere is fodder for the classroom.

But sometimes the unexpected gift isn’t enough – it doesn’t come at the right time for the lesson you’re doing the next day. A unit needs reviewing and it’s hard to see what would bring it back to life. Maybe the stimulus you’ve used for years becomes unexpectedly jaded and obsolete.

At that point it’s time to seek support – proper, professional resource support but where do you go? You could go to the internet or Amazon but where’s the peer review? How do you know it’s accurate, useful and authentic? You could go to various RE publications but can you afford the ‘must haves’ they’re recommending? You could ask other colleagues – they are likely to be able to help, but are your ears ringing to the cries of ‘no time!’?

At this point what you need is a place to go to get expert, RE resource-specific support. And, despite everything, it is still available!

Although each is funded differently, and all have a distinctive identity, there is a network of RE Centres across England who are quietly working away to ensure that RE teachers, and others, get the best of what is available for the subject.

“What kind of things do they have?” I hear you ask…(at least I hoped you’d ask!)…

Well, many of these Centres offer:

• physical, expensive resources that anyone in their locality can borrow;
• a VARIETY of resources that stimulate tremendous learning opportunities: topic boxes, DVDs, hunger cloths, CDs, persona dolls, artefacts, posters, godly play, prayer spaces,  banners, games, oh yes, and a few thousand books…;
• professional advice and guidance on the kind of resources you might like to order;
• the best and most up to date resources available for the subject (how much time do you have to read catalogues and chat with suppliers reps?);
• the chance to view stuff you’d otherwise lust after but never take the risk on…(our Centre spends up to £8,000 a year on new stock);
• networks: they know people you may not: from faith communities, projects, artists, musicians, advisers and lots of other people you’d love to be in touch with;
• collective expertise – they’re a place where RE professionals congregate;
• tenacity. When we come across a resource one of our members needs, we hunt it down and if we can’t find it we have a go at creating something else that will do (hence our new topic boxes and our RE-Vitalise sessions);
• an online resource that is often seriously undervalued. Our Centre catalogues websites, downloadable resources: anything that we find and think is good value or which we have had recommended to us. If it’s on our site it’s been peer approved and many have been peer reviewed;
• a chance to be part of the online RE conversation. Our Centre’s Facebook and Twitter postings keep our members up to date with regional events, national discussions and current online articles/films/songs that may be of interest but which they haven’t had time to discover yet…

Now I’m not arguing that Resources Centres can do it all but I am arguing that RE Centres can do a lot. In this respect RE teachers are blessed in a way that many other subjects envy.

So what are you waiting for? You can find your nearest Centre at: www.recentres.org.uk/pages/members.html.  Even if you only visit once a year it would help your CPD, remind you that you’re not alone and allow you to share your passion for your subject with others that would actually understand!

Why struggle to keep up when we can help you get ahead?

Karenza Passmore

 Karenza is Director of the North East Religious Learning Resources Centre

The North East Religious Learning Resources Centre is possibly the largest independent open access RE Centre in the country. Based in the North East of England (with branches in North Shields and in Durham City) it has 8 staff and 38,000 resources. It currently has over 1300 members some of whom are teachers and members of faith communities. The Centre is open to anyone interested in religious learning and literacy. Membership is by modest subscription.

More details and an email link can be found here: www.resourcescentreonline.co.uk but they welcome a chat: tel: 0191 3750 586 or 0191 270 4161.

A favourite rallying-cry of the more right-wing members of UK society is that “Christianity is under fire,” that the media is unwavering in it attempts to vilify and denigrate the faith of the country and instead genuflect towards ‘foreign’ religions (because we all know that Jesus was born in Sawbridgeworth…) like Islam and Hinduism. Well, usually just Islam. As a member of a liberal Vicarage family I read these comments on social media in absolute disbelief and think: how did we get here? The Christianity that I know recognises no man-made boundaries and thinks little of jealousy. In this brief essay I hope to do the following: give pop culture examples of things that (rightly or wrongly) are seen as offensive to Christianity along with the reasons given for offence, attempt to understand why Christians may feel like this and to suggest how we can deal with balancing these opinions in the RE classroom (broadening out to the study of any religion).

To illustrate my points I have three examples from popular culture of material that has caused offence to Christians, probably examples that you have either seen or are tangentially aware of. These are far from the only examples of religious offence of even Christian offence to be found in modern culture – religious groups have found issue with everything from gay relationships in soaps to Harry Potter – but they do cover various rationales for finding offence.

1.         A few years ago, to the shock and offence of many Christians, aliens invaded     Manchester Cathedral. Well, they invaded via people’s video game consoles into a digital representation of Manchester Cathedral, but the damage was done nonetheless. The bishop of Manchester at the time called for the game that featured    these sequences (Resistance: Fall of Man) to be banned, claiming that the inclusion of the cathedral as a setting for violent gun battles (particularly as Manchester was having a large problem with gun crime at the time) was “beyond belief and highly irresponsible.”[1] In the end, the game wasn’t withdrawn and the extra publicity from the controversy probably resulted in a few thousand extra copies of the game being sold. Indeed, some say that tourist visits to Manchester Cathedral (particularly from teenagers discovering that the building isn’t a work of fiction) has increased since then.

2.         More recently another branch of Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, has been in outrage due to the mocking of a fundamental part of Catholic belief – the celibacy of priests – in an advert for ice cream. The Antonio Federici ad campaign included, amongst a couple of other dubious images, a picture of two males priests about to kiss with the message “We believe in salivation.”[2] While it only attracted six official complaints, the offence was serious enough for the Advertising Standards Authority to ban the ad alongside the other risqué images in the campaign (which included a     pregnant nun) as it was felt that the ice cream company had been mocking the religion.

3.         My last example is rather more vague, but perhaps more widespread. The initialism    ‘OMG’ is found a lot in pop culture, and is cropping up increasingly in adverts (such as the Caramel Kit Kat Chunky with the slightly strange strapline: OMG! My chunky just got funky[3]). It’s a matter of common knowledge that the three letters usually stand for ‘Oh my God,’ although usually used in a more excitable way and more beloved of teenage girls. Due to its origins, many Christians find its use in pop culture offensive, citing it as an example of the wearing away of the moral standards of our ‘Christian country’.

The question is though, why are people finding these things offensive, and if it’s clear that Christians find these things distasteful why are ad agencies and game studios continuing to use religious themes?

I’ll get to the first question in due course, but I think that the second one is actually fairly easy to answer. According to tradition, parliament and the monarchy, we live in a Christian country. Of course, we no longer have to be Christian in order to live here, but it does mean that the vast majority of UK citizens are very familiar with the tropes and traditions of mainstream Christianity. Like all things that we are familiar and comfortable with, it’s very easy for it to become part of the background of our lives and therefore something we find it easy to be flippant about. The Resistance: Fall of Man example shows this kind of attitude quite well: we are so used to cathedrals as part of the UK landscape that maybe we don’t realise they need to be treated differently to shopping malls and car parks. For those who care deeply about aspects of their faith this isn’t something that happens, and so it can be hard to understand why others may take things less seriously. This leads to a few different issues for Christians who may feel that their faith is being undermined.

Firstly, there’s an element of fear that the gradual encroachment of elements that don’t take Christianity seriously may work to erode parts of the faith until the whole religion is subject to ridicule. It’s why the use of ‘OMG’ can be seen as offensive to some – it’s not the three letters themselves (the G could stand for God, but also goodness, gosh, grapes…) but what they could represent and how allowing this could allow for blasphemy and then flat-out ridicule to be commonplace. It’s a sort of ‘slippery-slope’ argument that demonstrates how the landscape of society could change in the near future. I think that this fear is misplaced though – if the Antonio Federici situation shows anything, it shows that even if a manufacturer does go too far there are measures in place to make sure that no-one is caused serious offence. ‘OMG’ may not be welcomed by Christians, but it reflects generally accepted standards that won’t be allowed to go too far.

For some, the reassurance that pop culture won’t be allowed to go ‘too far’ might not be enough – after all, for them the phrase “oh my God” is already a blasphemous phrase too far. It’s thrown into perspective when they notice that other religions are not treated in the same manner. A concern over the use of Christian imagery in pop culture is often “would this be acceptable if it were Buddha/Allah/Muhammad?” This belies a certain fear that there is an extra sensitivity to other religions that Christianity isn’t being allowed to share in. To some degree this may be true, and that has a lot to do with the idea of people being comfortable with Christianity – they know roughly how far they can push the boundaries without getting into trouble, and that if they go too far there won’t be too much to answer for. With less familiar religions these boundaries are not so well known and so are stayed much further from. However, this perceived over-sensitivity is not necessarily the most accurate view of the situation. The Sofa Factory in Birmingham found themselves at the sharp end of the ASA when they used the Sikh holy figure Guru Nanak and some sacred verses to sell sofas[4]. While there may be more sensitivity to other religions, it’s not necessarily as much as first appears, and when there is there may be several cultural reasons for it.

Finally, I think that there is a huge variety of ways in which Christians see their faith. I’ve used the word ‘some’ throughout this article for a very good reason – not all Christians will feel the same way about this issues in pop culture because, of course, every Christian is an individual with their own subtle take on the myriad elements of their faith. In Craig Detweiler’s Halos & Avatars: Playing Video Games With God Chris Hansen proposes his own theory about faith. The ‘movie generation’ is used to narratives that have a set story – one linear path to follow – and their faith often reflects this in an exclusivist way, with no room for other inputs. In contrast, the current ‘video games’ generation is used to the idea that we can end up at the same conclusion with different ways of getting there, like one would in a video game (same narrative but different players go about things in different ways). These people have a faith that is open to different interpretations that will ultimately land in the same place, a more pluralistic view. I think this is summed up by the ChurchAds recent ‘God Baby’ poster – representing Jesus as a baby doll with the tagline “He cries. He wees. He saves the world.” The Daily Mail ran an article[5] explaining why many Christians were angry at this representation of God, feeling it was mocking and blasphemous. At the same time, other Christians felt that this was a poster showing the humanity of Jesus and tied in nicely to the anti-consumerist message by presenting Jesus as a piece of the materialist clutter that surrounds Christmas. For me, this explains why it’s so hard for creators of pop culture to tread the right line between reflecting mainstream ideas that often treat Christianity as part of the cultural furniture, and making sure that no-one is seriously offended – there is no real consensus about what is acceptable for religious believers and what isn’t.

So, we’ve determined that there are certain aspects of pop culture that some Christians (or other religious believers) may have reason to find offensive. We’ve examined why these might be occurring, the reasons why people may take offence and why these reasons may occasionally be misplaced or misunderstood. What is important to us as RE practitioners, however, is understanding how we can help students to learn to recognise boundaries and to understand why some elements of popular culture may cause offence to some but not others. I think that there are three main strands to covering this.

Firstly, I think it’s important to cover the general ideas of religious offence. Organisations such as Ofcom, the Advertising Standards Authority and the BBFC have guidelines that they use to prevent or ban material that may cause offence on religious grounds, and these can be great classroom resources. Often the students that we teach will not be aware of exactly what could cause offence (many is the time I’ve reprimanded a teenager for using ‘gay’, ‘retard’ or ‘spazz’ as an insult only to be met with confusion over what exactly was wrong with that), but by introducing them to these guidelines and showing them some examples to evaluate for themselves we can help to counter this and foster an understanding of what is meant by offence. The examples I’ve used in this article are a good starting place, but there are other places to look: Ofcom publishes a broadcast bulletin every week outlining complaints about TV programmes and what action it feels is necessary[6], the BBFC has various education resources and articles[7] and the ASA publishes rulings about adverts every Wednesday[8]. Obviously complaints and adjudications by these bodies will cover much more than religious offence, but a little hunting will turn up good examples.

Secondly I think that it’s important to examine the differences between religions to help students understand more about why some faiths and cultures may find some things more offensive than others do. For example, in order to understand why the infamous Danish cartoon of a few years ago was so offensive, students need to be aware that the depiction of Muhammad in any way has been forbidden for centuries, and to present him as a terrorist is therefore a serious anti-Islamic statement in the eyes of the community. If people understand the different boundaries that religions have, it’s easier to get rid of the “but they wouldn’t be allowed to do this to Buddha…” mentality. For example, the Sofa Factory ad that used sacred Sikh verses to sell furniture is much more offensive than the many Christmas carols used in commercials around the festive period because, while all are religious songs, they are used in different ways, have entered our culture to different degrees and, most importantly, are valued in different ways and amounts within the faith structure. Being someone who loves a good spreadsheet, I would do this by creating a table to compare faiths with categories like ‘depiction of God’ and ‘use of scripture’, but it could be done in more creative ways of course. Seeing this will help students to understand that religions aren’t just different because of different languages or history, but that variations run deep all sides and that judging matters of offence can be extremely complicated.

Finally, there’s a more general lesson to be learned in this matter, one that comes up frequently in our lives and those of our students – the difference between fair and equal. When I was first creating differentiated resources I would always worry that it would single out some kids for ‘special treatment’, that others would either mock them or say “Why does he get help? That’s not fair!” It wasn’t until fairly recently that I discovered others had these concerns and had used them as a teaching point. In essence one would assume that everybody should be treated equally – this is what we have equal rights for after all. However, one could then ask if a child with dyslexia should be treated exactly equally to a child without this impairment – then the answer becomes no, as that wouldn’t be fair. This is a lesson that perhaps we need to be proactive in teaching children: most of the time equal is very fair, occasionally it isn’t. When talking about religious offence this distinction becomes very important. If we were to treat all matters equally, then it would be ok to depict Jesus, Allah, Buddha and Guru Nanak. However, it would not be fair to Islam in this instance because the religion specifically forbids this. This may raise uncomfortable questions about where we draw the boundaries, but I think that these are questions that must at least be acknowledged even if they can’t be answered. For what it’s worth, the organisations mentioned above take care to ensure that variation in religious doctrine and cultural attitudes to those elements are taken into account for matters of religious offence. This is a tricky lesson for students to learn, and it may be a while before it can be united with other matters like religious offence, but it could help to make a more open-minded set of teenagers who can think critically about different world views.

The realm of religious offence is a minefield, and it’s particularly difficult when you consider the interplay between religions with different histories in the same society. In order to make judgements we have to bring together the strands of religion and culture, history and society, and we need to furnish students with the ability to do this so that they can engage sensitively with these issues in their own lives. For the foreseeable future at least, we know that Christianity will continue to be part of our cultural furniture, and that people will continue to push the boundaries. As we get used to other religions growing in our society the same thing might happen there too – in fact, it will be interesting to see what pop culture does as multiculturalism continues to flourish. Examining religious offence is a way to help our students open up to the deep differences in religions that, on the surface, they might feel familiar with, and can also help them to understand the content of some of the pop culture around them.

This year the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and woman has changed. It will undoubtedly impact on how marriage is taught in schools. Section 403 (1A)(a) of the Education Act 1996 states that the Secretary of State for Education has a duty to issue guidance to ensure that pupils learn about ‘the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children’ especially in relation to compulsory sex education. It will impact on education at all levels including RE lessons and RS courses.

The standard approach of the Church of England to marriage is that it involves the ‘intimate and permanent relationship of a man and a woman’ as instituted by God, in other words for heterosexual couples only. Up until recently in the UK the only way that same-sex couples could have their union recognised was through a Civil Partnership ceremony conducted in a registry office. Some churches offered blessings, but marriage was out of the question. Now same-sex couples can get married in the UK either in a civil or a religious setting, with Stonewall suggesting that it involve the former without there being a mandate for religious organisations to celebrate it. Some Christians, such as Quakers and the Metropolitan Community Church, as well as Reform and Conservative Jews and progressive and modern forms of most of the world religions (Sikhism apparently being the exception) support the right for same-sex couples to marry. By summer of 2014 same-sex marriages will start to take place here in the UK, but not within the Church of England and Wales, despite the head of the Church, the Queen, giving royal assent to same-sex marriage.

There are now 13 countries worldwide such as New Zealand, France and recently the United Kingdom that allow same-sex marriage. Several other countries or parts of countries such as Australia, Mexico and the USA are in the process of legalising it. The Republican Party in the USA recently decided to legalise same sex marriage and The Supreme Court in America ruled that the federal definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act, which banned the recognition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional discrimination. Christian organisations in the USA such as Exodus International which sought to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight has ended its ministry and apologised over its stance that gay people could never be acceptable to God. It appears that the society wide view in favour of same-sex marriage has meant that support for traditional conservative religious views have dwindled along with financial backing for such views. The younger generation in particular have turned their back on anti-gay views even within the evangelical and fundamentalist churches.

In contrast to the UK where there was little public protest over the issues and where there were cheers in the House of Commons, in France there were violent protests from traditionalists. The Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, had proposed the legislation in the first place and was determined to see it through despite minority backbench opposition from within his own party. Nevertheless it has had cross-party support from the outset as well as broad public support, canvassed through polls, demonstrating to some commentators that Britain was a much more cosmopolitan nation rather than a traditionalist one. In the view of Stephen Fielding, a political scientist from the University of Nottingham “It was an issue whose time had come. To oppose it seemed slightly strange” (The Christian Science Monitor).

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill passed its third and final reading in the House of Lords on 15^th July 2013 and has now had royal assent from the Queen and parliamentary backing. Equalities Minister Maria Miller was quoted as saying “This is a historic moment that will resonate in many people’s lives” and campaigner Benjamin Cohen commented “Giving gay couples the right to marry will make our nation a more tolerant, open and welcoming place to live”. Legally it will protect the rights of married couples in relation to pension schemes, inheritance, life assurance, child maintenance, next of kin and immigration rights. Civil Partnerships remain distinct from same-sex marriage and carry some of the same legal benefits of marriage and couples in Civil Partnerships can convert these to marriage if they wish, but are not under obligation to do so and may choose to remain as Civil Partners.

It means that lesbian, gay or bisexual people will have the same rights as heterosexual couples to get married with the same rights, responsibilities and choices this involves. It means that the Bill will become law in spring 2014 and same-sex marriages in England and Wales can occur soon after, possibly in the summer. Under the law, churches have to ‘opt in’ to offer weddings, though the Church of England and Wales is banned from doing so, mainly because of their strong opposition to same-sex marriage and safe-guarding it against legal claims that, as the established church in the country, it has to marry anyone who requests it. It has yet to be decided whether Humanists can offer same-sex weddings. Quakers are likely to welcome and endorse the legal recognition of same-sex marriage arguing that the light of God is in all and so the inherent worth of every individual should be respected in loving relationships.

There will undoubtedly be those within the Church of England who will support same-sex marriage such as Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham and chair of the Oxford Diocesan Board of Education who regards its stance as hypocritical and incoherent, arguing that the ‘stupidity and hysteria’ of the anti-same-sex marriage campaigners has ‘considerably smoothed the passage of the legislation’. It is clear that the Church of England has already given permission for wedding-style services for couples in civil partnerships despite its official opposition to same-sex marriage (The Telegraph 21^st July 2013). The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, says he has ‘no truck with homophobia” and is impressed with the level of commitment of gay couples. Several ‘blessing’ ceremonies have taken places in churches under the guise of ‘thanksgiving’ or ‘dedication’ and there have been dedications of Civil Partnerships in Southwark Cathedral and St Martin-in-the-Fields in London. ‘Accommodations’ and dealing with matters on a case-by-case basis is encouraged within the Church, indicating a change of stance if not policy. The Church in Wales may go even further, reconsider its teachings on homosexuality and cut links with the state over gay marriage.

Opponents to same-sex relationships have compared it to bigamy, incest and slavery. At one stage Lord Dear tried to introduce a clause that would ‘protect’ teachers from ‘promoting’ same-sex marriage. Some opponents of same-sex marriage tried to rename it as ‘civil union’, allowing teachers to opt out of having to teach facts about it and making it law that pubic servants can refuse to serve gay people. Biblical passages (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as well as Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) warn against sex between people of the same sex and the consequences of such sinful acts, but there is no specific ban on homosexuality nor did Jesus make any pronouncement on it.

Supporters of same sex marriage say that it will mean that same-sex relationships are seen to be just as valid as heterosexual ones and offer the same legal rights. Home Secretary Theresa May said “Put simply, it’s not right that a couple who love each other and want to formalise their commitment to each other should be denied the right to marry”. In other words it ends discrimination against lesbian and gay couples and removes their second-class status. It also goes towards combating homophobic bullying in schools.

The legalisation on same-sex marriage in the UK does raise interesting questions about the relationship between the religious and the secular, the church and state, human rights and the law and not least the rights of teachers and pupils. It will be interesting to see how the Secretary of State responds and what guidance, if any, is forthcoming on how teachers should teach about same-sex marriage. Teaching about Civil Partnerships and attitudes to sexual orientation is already part of Religious Studies courses so presumably this will adapt to incorporate the changes in the law. But there are wider implications, not least for lesbian and gay teachers and pupils and how teacher training courses, unions, head teachers and schools themselves can offer support and guidance. No doubt the next few years will provide some of the answers, but equally there will be further questions and dilemmas to solve.

Countries that allow same-sex marriage:

Argentina

Belgium

Brazil

Canada

France

Iceland

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

Spain

South Africa

Sweden

UK

For a discussion document on how Coalition for Marriage (which opposes same-sex marriage) believes this topic will impact on primary education see the following link, which includes examples of children’s books illustrating the lives of same-sex couples with children:

http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/schools.pdf

Nothing really prepares you physically for a visit to Auschwitz. Any prior knowledge tends to come from grainy black and white photographs, old film footage of the liberation of the camps or aerial views from planes that made it that far towards the end of the war when Italy fell and air bases made that possible. It is difficult to visualise it, get a sense of the scale, and few realise that it is not one but two main concentration camps, Auschwitz I (the main camp) and Auschwitz II (Birkenau) which were very different from each other in many respects but both set up for the same purpose, the extermination of all those deemed ‘undesirables’, many of whom were lucky to last more than a couple of months in appalling conditions. The majority were Jews but there were also political prisoners, Catholics, homosexuals, Roma gypsies and Soviet prisoners of war most of whom were tattooed for identification. There was even a third concentration camp that was part of the Auschwitz complex, known simply as Auschwitz III or Monowitz and the subcamps. My own ‘teachers only’ tour also went to Krakow to the factory of Oskar Schindler, the hero of the film ‘Schindler’s List’ and to Kazimierz, the Jewish quarter in the city and its old synagogue and cemetery. Both visits were useful in gaining a more rounded view of the experience of Jews at the time of the Holocaust.

Pope John Paul II was due to visit Auschwitz II-Birkenau when I went. He would have seen the end of the railway line leading to the barracks which were once stables and the ruins of the gas chambers that systematically killed 1.3 million people between 1940-1945. Great stands had been erected to seat the spectators at the event. People were diverted from Krakow airport to a smaller military airport nearby. Security was tight. Maybe they had been thinking about the ugly confrontation between visitors and Catholic nuns that had taken place previously, sparked no doubt by revelations about the suggested complicity between the Roman Catholic church and the Nazis over the concentration camps. This is one lesson that will always repeat itself, that the scale of genocide and the atrocities committed at Auschwitz generates strong emotions from the Holocaust deniers to the Holocaust survivors, one of whom I knew personally and whose photograph I keep to this day. What is surprising is the scale of the concentration camps, the way they were used as human shields placed next to munitions factories or dumps, the way they escaped detection for so long because they were way beyond the flight capabilities of most allied aircraft being the far side of Poland.

I experienced something of these tensions on my own visit when visiting an exhibition room in Auschwitz I. On one wall was a glass cabinet full of mounds of human hair, shaved from prisoners being taken to the gas chambers. On another wall was a case with a single carpet from whose frayed edges hung what was unmistakably strands of human hair. The plaque nearby explained that the SS used human hair to make carpets, which could last a hundred years. The thought that such carpets might still grace homes of fellow Germans, or that the lampshades made of human skin might still be used would have been bad enough. But for the Jewish visitor who entered the room it was the human hair that was the greatest affront, since it should have been buried not displayed. Friction and unease go with the territory and is to be expected on such a visit it seems. No doubt some of the visitors will be relatives of those who died or who know a personal story as I did. One young couple at Auschwitz-Birkenau had to have a moment to compose themselves when the guide graphically described how SS guards would kill babies born on the train journey to the camp. They knew one of the women to whom this had happened and offered a prayer in her memory. There is a hushed air amongst most of the visitors to these places and one gets the impression that it is probably not best to stay too long.

Auschwitz-Birkenau is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It is more disturbing and larger in scale than the original Auschwitz I where there is a permanent exhibition and lecture theatre. Most school tours take in both and start with Auschwitz I. A full tour of Auschwitz I and II lasts about 6 hours.

I think it is important to prepare yourself let alone school children you might take, which is why I went with a group of other teachers on a preliminary visit. It helped us think through the whole process. There is no doubt that there is no set response to such a visit, nor should one expect that. But our guide did comment that primary school children seemed to cope much better with the visit than older pupils who did know how to react and would therefore tend towards silliness, laughter, inappropriate comments instead of the quiet, sombre mood of the younger children. In our group there was a very loud group of visitors who were told in no uncertain terms by other visitors that they should be showing more respect when we visited the torture chambers prisoners were put in prior to being shot in naked pairs against a wall between the barracks. Similarly, I felt self conscious as I took a photograph of a lone visitor who stood for a few seconds and then silently placed a stone at the top of this wall in memory of one of those shot, a typical way of remembering the dead in Jewish practice. Others had laid wreaths and personal mementos at the base of the wall.

There are the larger lessons one can learn from visiting Auschwitz as a whole. ‘Never again’ is surely the most obvious one, the one that inspired the creation of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. But I would suggest that it is the personal lessons one learns that are the most valuable ones and these will be different for different people. I learnt that doctors like Mengele, the SS doctor at Auschwitz who experimented on Edith, my Austrian Jewish friend whose photograph I see daily, would often come to the camp in the morning but then return to their duties as doctors in the towns and villages as though nothing had happened. I suppose you could argue that the degree of deception was only matched by a form of self-deception that what they were doing was advancing science, that their victims were sub-human and they were doing what was ‘right’. In the same room as the human hair and the carpet were huge blown up photographs of SS officers standing about smoking, laughing, sharing a joke. I wondered who was taking the photograph and what it was intended for and then it occurred to me that these were men who would have sent photographs of themselves back to wives, to loved ones to show what a good job they were doing, a job they believed in and felt was right. It is a memory I will take away with me from the visit, a lesson that I will ponder over.

It is important to realise that everyone will take away something different from a visit to Auschwitz. They will learn something different and respond in a different way. Equally important is giving people the time to think through what they have seen and to be aware that it will generate powerful emotions, particularly amongst young adults, and that there are no easy answers to the questions raised. This is not surprising when visiting such an emotionally scarred site where apparently even the birds did not sing.

Walking away from Auschwitz has to be handled carefully and sensitively. I learnt this the hard way when visiting the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London. Our school group had had to leave the exhibition in a rush as we had to get back onto the coach, but then we were stuck in London traffic because of a bomb alert. What the Yr11 students had just seen suddenly hit them and they reacted badly. The next time I visited I insisted that all the students sat down at the end before leaving the exhibition and wrote down on the paper provided one thought or feeling about what they had seen and then place it in the box near the exit. That way at least some of the anxiety had been expressed, the experience processed and analysed to some extent and the emotional charge diffused enough to walk away. Emotions of guilt, sorrow, horror, injustice and a myriad of others will undoubtedly surface and will need to be acknowledged. Once acknowledged it should be easier to consider the lessons one can learn from Auschwitz and begin to share these with others.

Dominion, Stewardship, and the End of the World: The influence of biblical texts on Christian attitudes towards the Environment 

David Horrell and Anna Davis, University of Exeter

The term ‘stewardship’ is commonly used to summarise Christian beliefs about responsibility towards the environment. GCSE textbook Christianity in Today’s World (2005: 71), for example, states that: ‘According to the creation story human beings are given a special responsibility within creation: to cultivate and guard it – to be “good stewards”’, and quotes Genesis 1.27-31 and 2.15 as key biblical texts supporting this position. The aim of this piece is to deepen and problematise such a view, asking: How do biblical texts shape Christian attitudes towards the environment? Are these attitudes always ‘good’ from the point of view of environmental responsibility? and What is the range of diversity among contemporary Christian groups?

Environmental issues such as climate change are now among the most urgent subjects of global concern. Although some remain sceptical, it is increasingly difficult to deny the existence of these problems, and that human action is their primary cause. A range of reasons explains the causes of environmental degradation, including technological development, increasing consumption and growth in the human population, but the influence of religion is also important: religions of whatever kind shape their adherents’ ‘worldview’ – their attitudes and beliefs concerning themselves, their role and purpose, in relation to the world we all inhabit.

For medieval historian Lynn White Jr., the Christian worldview has proven to be particularly problematic in terms of the relationship between humans and the environment. In 1967, he published the provocative article ‘The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis’, in which he argued that Christianity is responsible for having introduced a dualism between humanity and nature, and establishing the idea that it is God’s will that humanity exploit nature to serve human interests. For White, Christianity therefore bears ‘a huge burden of guilt’ for introducing the anthropocentric (‘human-centred’) Western worldview that has permitted and promoted the active and aggressive conquest of nature by humanity. However, White does not call for the rejection of religion, but rather argues that we need to rethink our religious attitudes towards the environment: ‘Human ecology’, he writes, ‘is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny — that is, by religion… More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one’ (1205-206).

White’s criticisms of Christianity implicitly highlight Genesis 1.26-28 as a particular problem, as the idea of being made ‘in the image of God’, and also the command to ‘have dominion’ over all other living things, appear to mark humans out from the rest of creation. This passage has profoundly shaped Christian views of the status of human beings, and during the rise of modern science from the 15^th and 16^th centuries onwards, it was interpreted as inspiring a human ‘vocation’ to understand and to seek to control nature. Environmental stewardship was not on the agenda, since the problems that make it relevant were hardly then apparent.

More recently, Christian environmentalists have sought to address this potentially problematic legacy by reinterpreting the passage so that the role of humanity comes to be seen not as one of domination but rather as one of responsible stewardship. The idea of stewardship is now a central concept in much environmental ethics and theology, notably among Evangelical groups. Indeed, it is often assumed that the Bible, and Genesis 1-2 in particular, directly instructs us to be stewards of the earth. One of the ‘Trail Guide’ Bible studies in The Green Bible, for example,states that ‘[the] stewardship role is important enough that it is mentioned several times in the creation narrative’ (p. 1226), and the command in Genesis 2.15 to ‘till and keep’ the Garden of Eden is often employed in support of such statements. For supporters of the stewardship ideal, earlier readings of the biblical texts are now seen as ‘misunderstandings’ in need of correction – although the ‘stewardship’ reading, like earlier interpretations, is influenced by its modern context, and is in fact open to question and doubt.

Indeed, the idea of stewardship is not without its difficulties as a biblically-based Christian ethic. Contrary to popular belief, the term ‘steward’ does not actually appear in Genesis 1, and is actually used rather little in the Bible, and never to define, explicitly, what the human relationship to creation ought to be. Some biblical scholars, such as Norman Habel (2000: 46-47), argue that the Hebrew words radah (‘rule, have dominion over’) and kabash (‘subdue’) used in Genesis 1.26-28 indicate a harsh domination of the earth by humans, and that attempts to soften this to a form of stewardship are unconvincing. For others, stewardship forms a problematic basis for environmental ethics. Clare Palmer, for example, argues that the term mistakenly implies ‘that the natural world is a human resource, that humans are really in control of nature, that nature is dependent on humanity for its management’ (Palmer 1992: 77-78).

Christian attitudes towards the environment can also be shaped by some of the biblical visions of the future. In 2 Peter 3, for example, we are told that ‘the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed…’ (v. 10). Furthermore, the author urges his readers to live in such a way that they will ‘hasten’ the end, since they look forward to the time when a ‘new heavens and a new earth’ will appear (vv. 12-13). For some, this final end will be preceded by a ‘rapture’ of Christians from the earth. So why, some may ask, should we care for the earth if it is soon to be destroyed, and if God’s plan is to rescue a small number of faithful humans and grant them eternal life in heaven? Such beliefs can lead to the suggestion that preserving and caring for the earth is not a priority for Christians, who should be more concerned with evangelising in order to convert people to Christianity and thus save them from damnation. The ‘Resisting the Green Dragon’ project, for example, sees environmentalism as a great (satanic) threat to true Christian faith, warning believers against it. Similar beliefs are particularly prominent among Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical Christian groups in the USA, and have probably influenced anti-environmental policies and decisions. It is not surprising, then, that conservation biologist David Orr (2005: 291) has suggested that ‘belief in the imminence of the end times tends to make evangelicals careless stewards of our forests, soils, wildlife, air, water, seas and climate’.

Once again, however, different perspectives have been proposed. Just as Genesis 1–2 has been re-read as a text teaching environmental stewardship, so Christian environmentalists have sought to reclaim these texts that teach about the end of the world by arguing that they do not envisage the destruction of the earth but rather its transformation. God, they argue, is in the process of ‘making all things new’ (Rev 21.5), and this implies that humans should indeed care for creation, joining in with the purpose and activity of God to transform the earth into a place of righteousness, justice and peace. As Evangelical writer Thomas Finger (1998: 1) puts it: ‘[i]f the present creation will not be destroyed but renewed, it would seem important to care for it today’. But despite such pleas, it remains possible to believe that if God will redeem the earth and transform it to a renewed creation, then we need not be too concerned about the impact of our own actions.

Finally, contemporary environmental concerns have led people to appeal to a variety of different biblical texts which seem to offer greater potential for the construction of a positive Christian engagement with the environment. In Romans 8:19-23, for example, Paul writes of the whole creation longing for its liberation. Job 38—41 depicts God’s concern for all the diverse wonders of creation, with humans seen as rather insignificant and less ‘special’ than we like to imagine. In Psalms 148, the whole of creation is depicted as joining in the praise of God. Genesis 9: 8-17 speaks of God’s covenant with the whole earth, not just with humans. None of these texts gives a blueprint for environmental ethics: they were written in an ancient world with different presumptions and priorities from our own, and do not simply set out what Christians living in an age of climate change should believe and do. But they do help to generate a positive vision of the value, beauty, and ultimate worth of the whole earth, and this can perhaps inspire and undergird a positive ecological stance and committed environmental action.

In conclusion, a number of points may be stressed, particularly in view of the understandable tendency in text-books and syllabi to imply a rather simplistic view that certain biblical texts clearly teach Christians to be good stewards:

• Biblical texts are generally open to various interpretations, and these have often changed over time and remain contested today.
• Biblical texts have probably influenced some Christians not to prioritise care for the environment, as well as supporting more positive stances.
• While ‘stewardship’ may be taken as what the Bible implies about human responsibility towards the world, this is not explicitly stated as such, and there are critical questions to consider about whether it is a good basis for environmental ethics.
• Many mainstream churches (and charities) do stress stewardship as environmental responsibility. But some Evangelical or Fundamentalist groups (particularly in the USA) think the focus should be on evangelism, and reject the claims and approach of environmentalism.

For more information on this topic, together with a selection of lesson plans and activities, see the ‘Beyond Stewardship’ website: http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/theology/research/projects/beyondstewardship/

Underpinning the website is a book covering a range of approaches to biblical texts and their environmental implications:

Horrell, David G. 2010. The Bible and the Environment. London & Oakville, CT: Equinox.

References

Finger, Thomas. 1998. Evangelicals, Eschatology, and the Environment. The Scholars Circle; Wynnewood, PA: Evangelical Environmental Network.

Habel, Norman C. 2000. ‘Geophany: The Earth Story in Genesis 1’. In Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst (eds). The Earth Story in Genesis. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 34-48.

Orchard, Janet, Deborah Weston, Sally Lynch and Claire Clinton. 2005. Christianity in Today’s World. London: Hodder Education.

Orr, David W. 2005. ‘Armageddon Versus Extinction’. Conservation Biology 19, no. 2: 290-92.

Palmer, Clare. 1992. ‘Stewardship: A Case Study in Environmental Ethics’. In Ian Ball et al. The Earth Beneath: A Critical Guide to Green Theology. London: SPCK, 67-86.

The Green Bible. 2008. London & New York: HarperCollins.

White, Lynn Jr. 1967. The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis. Science 155, no. 3767: 1203-207.

‘I want a proper school, sir, to teach reading and writing, and most of all thinking, sir, so people can find out what they are good at….Learning is about finding out who you are, what you are, where you are and what you are standing on and what you are good at and what’s over the horizon and, well, everything. It’s about finding the place where you fit. I found the place where I fit, and I would like everybody else to find theirs’.[i]

Terry Pratchett sums up the growing dilemma in modern education: fostering the essential skills of reading and writing, and the associated examination skills that follow, yet also something more esoteric; teaching how to think, and consider your place in the world. The character of Tiffany Aching asks the questions that can be framed and raised in RS lessons, and this article looks at some ways that emerging technology, namely student’s own smartphones (referred to by the acronym ‘BYOD’ [bring your own device]) can be used in RS lessons to aid discussion in lessons.

Any successful discussion work, whether in RS or another subject, needs to involve all of the class and avoid being just teacher led.[ii] With the current squeeze on funding up to date ICT resources, and the inevitable difficulty in booking ICT suites, we have been asking students to use their own phones as an alternative, and as a result changing the way we use ICT. This is still in the early stages of development, but the results so far have exceeded our expectations.

We were keen to find new ways of getting our students to work together using ICT. The GCSE and A level RS specifications invariably refer to helping students ‘develop their own values, opinions and attitudes in light of their learning[iii]’, and using smartphones is providing one way of fostering this. Students appear to be talking about the material, and thinking about their learning in different ways; an ‘openness in the classroom’[iv]-asking to use other venues mid-task (for example an ICT room or the library), consulting each other and other groups for clarification or assistance, and at times the teacher is a bystander, reminiscent of Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’[v]. It is hoped that we can develop and extend this through the school, including our sixth formers approach to learning.

Benefits:

The focus is on students communicating with each other digitally, rather than in groups or as a class, where individuals can easily dominate, or the majority of the class can be marginalised. For example, groups with a blackberry linked to other groups in the classroom can swap BBM codes, set up a group and then ask/receive opinions, counter arguments or ideas quickly and easily. The teacher does not need to have mastery over the technology (the students have this already), and students have responded very positively to this.

Collating ideas. Rather than set a discussion task in groups and then go round each group with the whole class listening, we have asked students to discuss in groups and then email in their answers to a school email address. Ideas can then be presented to the class, and then re-edited (e.g. best/weakest ideas, strongest arguments) through whole class discussion on the material.

Free websites such as Socrative (which even has free teacher & student apps), Padlet or Polleverywhere[vi] allows for further interaction with smartphones, with voting and multiple choice quiz facilities. However, for RS and the aim of getting students to ‘think’, the greatest benefit is not in the quick-fix polls and quizzes, but a change in the outcome of tasks that we are setting using such technology.

Example:

Year 10 lesson on genetic engineering: in groups, students email in (using a school email address) ideas on an evaluative essay topic. These are then displayed to the whole class; students then justify and vote (hands up, no phones needed!) on the strongest points. Each group can take a point, put together a paragraph to expand on it, email it in, and then put into a word document, the class has produced a planned essay response.

Wider considerations:

• Taking into account current school ICT/mobile phone policy
• Ways of doing the same tasks without smartphones
• Ensuring that the software used is safe and does not ever involve teachers giving their own email/mobile number
• School-based Wi fi makes tasks much quicker, but involves considerable investment
• Setting up routines for phone use; as a tool for some tasks, and then put away for others
• Matching tasks to the technology; we have had lessons where using smartphones hasn’t worked particularly well (usually because the focus was not on student interaction and representing)

From reading the work of educationalists such as Erica McWilliam[vii], there is growing evidence that our students need something different in the classroom if we are going to prepare them for the world beyond academia[viii].  We have found that, in the midst of discussions using smartphones, students have been focussing on representing and editing their ideas, rather than the expected outcome of ‘discussions on their phones’. The enormous change in student interaction brought about by digital means has resulted in a very different set of skills that students possess than the ones we refer to in school. The smartphone tasks we have tried have demonstrated that students are very skilled in considering, discussion and presenting content in short, meaningful and coherent – ways, such as a BBM message, bullet pointed email or similar. And the discussion that goes on behind the message is always very considered and of real worth in developing students’ thinking and evaluation.

This article is an amended extract of a 2012-2013 Farmington Trust fellowship report on using smartphones in RS, to be presented at the Farmington Trust conference in Oxford in June 2013.[ix]

Imrān Mogra offers some Muslim perspectives on the First Sūrah of the Holy Qur’ān: the Fātiḥah.

Teaching about prayer in primary and secondary schools provides opportunities for learners to develop some key skills of communication. Most religious traditions have a principal prayer which may be considered to be the heart of their spiritual and theological teachings. One such prayer, in the form of a sūrah (chapter), features in the Noble Qur’ān and exegetes provide much information about this. In this article, some key points about the Fātiḥah are made and classroom activities are suggested to support the achievement of some aims in religious education.

In some Muslim faith schools and state schools, where Muslim collective worship is provided, the Fātiḥah is used as a central ‘prayer’. The Fātiḥah holds an exceptional position in the life of a Muslim, and this status gives teachers opportunities to explore and examine it in religious education lessons, so that learners discover how religious beliefs and ideas are expressed. In order to fully appreciate its potential for the classroom, some background information is necessary.

The Fātiḥah, known by various names, each depicting its own characteristic, is called as such because it opens the Qur’ān, i.e., it is the first chapter. This is probably the most famous of its names. However, teachers can transcend such literalism, so that children can begin to know that it is also an opening to the secrets and mysteries that Muslims believe are hidden in Divine words.

Such is its significance that Muhammad (pbuh) is recorded to have stated that no prayer is complete without it. Consequently, Muslims, offering their daily prayers, recite it at least 17 times in a day. As an essential component for daily prayers, the first Sūrah of the Qur’ān is named Surat al-Salat (Chapter of prayer).

Due to this frequent repetition, the Fātiḥah has earned itself a title in the Qur’ān. It is referred to as the Seven Oft-Repeated (15:87). Moreover, since the whole of Fātiḥah is considered a petition to God; it is named Surat al-Dua (Chapter of supplication) as well.

Considering its content, it has also been entitled Umm al-Kitab (Mother of the book), as the essence of the Qurān is encompassed in these verses. Other names include al–Shifa (The healer) as it is believed to be a healer, physically and spiritually. Consequently, in practice, it is recited and blown onto the body or into water and drunk.

Structurally, the first three verses consist of Divine attributes so they manifest praise, mercy and majesty of God, then the middle verse demonstrates the dependence of humankind on God, thereafter, the final three verses reflect the craving of the soul for righteousness and grace. Therefore, it is important for teachers to facilitate the recognition of the text being God-centred.

In the classroom, discussions about the role of praise during supplications and the nature of these phrases can be explored to learn what Muslims believe about God and people and the relationship between the two. Learners can also analyse the purpose contained in each phrase of the prayer.

There are several concepts that can be used for further enquiry. Tasks can be set to find out more, from the Muslim perspective, what Creator, Merciful, straight path, going astray and final day might mean, and how these might affect a Muslim’s behaviour. Other general concepts could be explored such as sacred, authority, worship, ritual and communication.

Learners can synthesise the Fātiḥah by considering the various themes within it and identify what they think the essence of the Sūrah as a whole is.

There are valuable issues to discuss about responsibility and accountability through the phrase “the Master of the Day of Judgement” and indeed the meaning and implications of ‘Master’.

The translation of the meaning of the Fātiḥah is presented below and a brief commentary for teachers on each phrase.

1. Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds. 2. The All-Merciful, the Very Merciful. 3. Master of the Day of Judgement.

The proper name, Allah, and four attributes (Rab, Rahmān, Rahim, Malik) have been gathered in these verses. Each conveys a significant theme and Muslims learn many things from these including the following.

Through this first phrase Muslims discover that they should praise God and that all praise is for God. It also teaches them that any praise extended to others ultimately goes to God, Because God is the Creator. In declaring that God is the Lord of the worlds, Muslims belief that God exists and because God is the Creator, God is the only one worthy of worship. The word rab reminds them that God nurtures every thing in the known and unknown worlds, by bringing it into being and then nourishing it to its perfection.

Rahmān and Rahim are attributes of God, meaning All-Merciful and Very Merciful respectively. Muslims learn about the mercy of God so that they can turn to Him at all times for everything. The words provide comfort to them as they first recognise that God is merciful and then later learn that there is to be a day of judgement. Furthermore, Muslims become alert to the readiness of God to forgive through Rahim, which brings them closer to Him and creates, in their heart, a sense of hope.

In the third verse, reverence to God as the Master (Mālik) is established. Muslims learn that God is the Master of the Day of Judgement. They also understand that they will be accountable for all of their actions; in turn this establishes a belief in the Afterlife. This phrase helps Muslims to think about the relationship that they should have with God and with other people. They are also alerted to the consequences of their actions and as a result become motivated to worship. Moreover, this phrase acts as a constant reminder of the temporal nature of this world and a directive towards continued spiritual progress and preparation for the Afterlife.

4. You alone do we worship, and from You alone do we seek help.

Tawhid (the Oneness of God) comes to a climax in this phrase, and there is recognition that ultimate refuge is in God. It also establishes, for Muslims, the kind of relationship to be had with God. The previous verses appear in the third person, which talk about God but not to God. However, this verse suddenly shifts to the second person, addressing God directly. For some Muslims this grammatical turn is a style of eloquence and has been used to maintain eagerness, inclination and attention, so that there is heightened awareness of God. Others suggest that it creates nearness. This is because in using the third person there is a sense of remoteness whereas in using the second person there is a sense of imminence.

5. Guide us on the straight path. 6. The path of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, 7. not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray.

From the viewpoint of Islam, some would argue, there is a blessed path and a cursed one. The former walked by messengers, prophets and the godly; the latter by Satan, his associates and the bad. Since the path is slippery, seeking steadfastness and straightness become essential. This has to be done continuously and therefore unsurprisingly, as a prayer of seeking guidance, it features so prominently in the spiritual actions of Muslim life.

Being unique within the Qur’ān, it appears that the excellence of the Fātiḥah rests less in being only an opening to the Qur’ān, and more in being an integral part of Muslim life and belief. The Fātiḥah has a central role in Islam because it encourages a desire for worship; it clarifies who and why Muslims worship. In addition, it is important as it emphasises the need for spiritual purification of the soul by seeking the mercy and forgiveness of God. Finally, it counsels Muslims against negligence by reminding them about the Day of Judgement.

Learners should be able to:

• develop a nuanced understanding of religious language used for prayer;
• know some of the core Muslim beliefs;
• understand why the Fātiḥah is a prominent feature of devotion in Islam;
• comprehend and analyse scriptural texts.

NB A teaching resource for KS2 and KS3 illustrating the use of prayer in Islam is available at: https://www.reonline.org.uk/resources/how-and-why-do-people-pray/

The following is taken from the RE Council RE Subject Review, England, Phase 1 Expert Panel Report,

www.religiouseducationcouncil.org/content/view/272/100/

A consistent feature in many of the submissions that the Expert Panel received was a strong perception that, despite the considerable amount written on the nature, purpose and aims of RE in all kinds of documentation, many people still don’t ‘get it’. That this was often linked to a sense of persistent frustration on the part of members of the RE community was demonstrated well in the document reporting a meeting of key members of the RE community that took place in late 2011: ‘A lack of consensus on the rationale and purpose of RE, and a failure to find a simple accessible way of explaining RE to the public, media and government, struck many present as the most serious weakness’.

Recognition of the lack of a clear purpose runs through the document.

This is serious: it is not good for the subject, or the teachers, or the students, and we are not getting a clear picture of an essential component of education:  a strand devoted to helping young people and fitting them for life – for enjoying living together as full members of our society, for meeting responsibilities and for protesting, being awkward and whistle-blowing when necessary. We need a strand that shows them what the human family is and fits them to be full members of it. In a world where people increasingly count less than profit, and competition and choice are supposed to solve everything we need to nurture and empower regard for humanity. Let’s, provisionally, call it Life and Humanity Studies (LHS).

I am writing this article, not on the spur of the moment, but after considerable thought and experience.  It is the outcome of a lifetime’s search, beginning as an Anglican choirboy, moving through atheism to humanism and, during my later years (I have just turned eighty), maturing into a on-going concern to bring people together, helped by those in  the many  groups that I am involved with[1] in one of the country’s most diverse cities[2].

Reading what the Non-Statutory National Framework (http://bit.ly/YXBxKE) says under ‘The importance of religious education’ (p.7) might suggest that RE is moving the direction of LHS; and knowing what is being taught in some classrooms might support this – for example, Philosophy for Children is coming into primary schools, and I have just participated in discussions in RE lessons on the existence of God, on sexual ethics, and on poverty and inequality in the world. I have been impressed, but we have some way to go.

I appreciate that there will be concern at a movement towards LHS – the subject would no longer be RE. However religions would clearly play a significant role (they treat important aspects of life seriously, are part of our heritage, and are important to many people), but this would be as contributors not as providing the basis. And in looking for a way forward we have to take into account the environment in which we will be working.

First, the students: we know that most of our young people do not belong to a religion.  John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, in his foreword to Making sense of Generation Y, the world view of 15-25-year-olds, acknowledges that the research described in the book “reveals the ‘large mismatch’ between the world view of those aged 15-25 and the Church”, that they “have no felt need for a ‘transcendent something else’, and that they regard the Church as boring and irrelevant”.

Second, the general population:  we have the census figures and we know that there is widespread disillusionment with institutional religion – the problems of the Catholic and Anglican churches, leading to calls for reform and reorganisation and their loss of moral authority are obvious examples, and there are similar calls for reform and re-examination in other religions. Moral concern also stretches to politics and business, with calls for institutional and personal responsibility and protection for whistleblowers. Morality and ethics are becoming the concern of us all, and this is something that we should welcome and prepare our students to handle.

Third, we have the explosion in interpersonal communication and the dissemination of ideas and information. No-one today can fail to be aware of what is going on in the world. Everyone can join with others and make their voice heard.  We are flooded with information about subjects like sex technique, evolution and the history of religions.

Fourth, and related to the above, education expectation: if we are to succeed in education we must be fair and open with our students, not limiting what we deal with, and we must be ready to discuss any issue.  I felt it was totally wrong when Michael Reiss had to resign his job as Director of Education for the Royal Society because he suggested that science teachers should take a student’s concerns about creationism seriously.

And so we have arrived at the elephant not in the room: an up-to-date view of humanity.  We know how we have evolved –  the work of dedicated scientists and other scholars, both religious and non-religious,  has elucidated not only our biological origins but also the evolution of our psychological and social abilities and the creation of civil societies and the contributions of religions[3]. Looking at the information and communication environment in which students move, much of this is common knowledge.  We must include this in our course, not only because it is, as I think, well-founded knowledge for all, but also to provide respect and a secure basis for non-religious students, and because we must help those who feel threatened by it.  More widely, we must bring science and religion together – they are both parts of our common search.

Lastly, politics: it has to be recognised that the administrative set-up of the present subject is not designed for HLS, indeed it suggests a deal with religious bodies to push religion on us. Consider for example the make up SACREs and the Religious Education Council, government directives, the pattern of ‘learning about religion’ followed by ‘learning from religion’, and the scant regard paid to non-religious beliefs in the Non-Statutory National Framework.  We must try to avoid  a religious / non-religious divide. Addressing this is important if we are seeking funding and democratic legitimacy.

I have come to recognise that nurturing the art of living together with goodwill whatever our personal backgrounds and beliefs is crucial; and that helping to create and maintain a society that makes this possible is a vital task to be shared.

A year or so ago I was reading a book by a prominent Muslim who used the familiar picture of all religions climbing the same mountain to reach the one peak – God.  I used this in a talk to a Christian/Muslim group, but somewhat changed: we have all been climbing the same mountain but we have come out onto a plateau, recognised one another, and found that  we now have to build higher together.

Simply stated: I want our purpose to be to help our students be good and capable human beings and to be proud of it – that, surely, is a purpose we can all “get”.

Finally, It is also something we can put to the all the country as deserving support.

Bibliography

One of the things that I have learned is that teachers are very busy and that, being retired, I am fortunate to be able to read a lot – perhaps too much and to the detriment of actually doing something. I have kept the references in the text down to a minimum. I list below some of the books that have influenced me and that may be of interest to others.

Ali, A. H. (2010) Nomad: a personal journey through the clash of civilisations.

Appiah, K. A. (2010) The Honour Code: how moral revolutions happen.

Ashley, M. (2008) Taking Liberties: the struggle for Britain’s freedoms and rights.

Baron-Cohen, S. (2011) Zero Degrees of Empathy, a new theory of human cruelty:

Bellah, R. N. (2011) Religion in Human Evolution: from the paleolithic to the axial age.

Boehm, C. (2012) Moral Origins: the Evolution of Virtue, Altruism and Shame.

Borg, M. (2012) Evolution of the Word: the New Testament in the order the books were written.

Botton, de, A. (2012) Religion for Atheists: a non-believer’s guide to the uses of religion.

Boulton, D. (2002) The Trouble with God, religious humanism and the Republic of Heaven.

Boulton, D. editor (2006) Godless for God’s Sake, nontheism in contemporary Quakerism, by 27 Quaker nontheists.

Cantle, T. (2012) Interculturalism: the new era of cohesion and diversity.

Cupitt, D. (1984) The Sea of Faith.

Cupitt, D. (2009) Jesus and Philosophy.

Dalai Lama, His Holiness the, (2011) Beyond Religion: ethics for the whole world.

Diamond, J. (2012) The World Until Yesterday: what can we learn from traditional societies.

Epstein, G. M. (2009) Good without God, what a billion non-religious people do believe.

Freeman, C. (2002)The Closing of the Western Mind: the rise of faith and the fall of reason:

Geering, L. (2002) Christianity without God.

Hinde, R. (2009) Why Gods Persist: a scientific approach to religion.

Hinde, R. (2011) Changing How We Live: society from the bottom up.

Hinde, R. (2012) Why Good is Good: The sources of morality.

Holland, T. (2012) In the Shadow of the Sword: the battle for global empire and the end of the ancient world.

Holloway, R. (1999) Godless Morality, keeping religion our of ethics.

Kirkland, P. (2011) Braintrust: what neuroscience tells us about morality.

Lewis,  D. L. (2008) God’s Crucible: Islam and the making of Europe, 570-1215.

Mithen, S. (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: a search for the prehistory of art, religion and science.

Pagel, M. (2012) Wired for Culture: the natural history of human cooperation.

Patel, E. (2007) Acts of Faith: the story of an American Muslim and the Struggle for the soul of a generation.

Patel, E. (2012) Sacred Ground: pluralism, prejudice, and the promise of America.

Sacks, J. (2002)  The Dignity of Difference: how to avoid the clash of civilizations.

Sagan, C. (1980) Cosmos: the story of cosmic evolution, science and civilisation.

Sagan, C. (2006) The Varieties of Scientific Experience: a personal view of the search for God.

Sardar, Z.  (2004) Desperately Seeking Paradise: journeys of a sceptical Muslim.

Savage, S.  et al. (2006) Making Sense of Generation Y, the world view of 15-25 year olds.

Sen,  A. (2006) Identity and Violence: the illusion of destiny.

Sen, A. (2011) Peace and Democratic Society.

Sennett, R. (2012) Together: the rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation.

Shaha, A. (2012) The Young Atheist’s Handbook, lessons for living a good life without God.

Spong, J. S. (2011) Reclaiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World.

Spong, J. S. (2008) Jesus for the Non-Religious.

Stedman, C. (2012) Faithheist: how an atheist found common ground with the religious.

Steichen, E. (1956) The Family of Man.

Wilson, E. O. (2012) The Social Conquest of Earth.

Wright, R. (2009) The Evolution of Go:, the origins of our belief.

Waal de, F. (2009) The Age of Empathy: nature’s lessons for a kinder society.

Waal, de, F. (2013) The Bonobo and the Atheist: in search of Humanism among the primates.

Zuckerman, P. (2008) Society Without God: what the least religious nations can tell us about contentment.