Viewing archives for Blog

The CORE report recommends attention to the conceptual category of religion. [i] This is welcome. What do we mean by the word? The discussion needs opening, at both professional and classroom levels. It won’t be an easy one, as the field of religion is so varied that religion is hard to define.

According to CORE, religions are worldviews, and worldviews are philosophies of life.[ii] At the same time, the report recommends greater attention to individual lived experience and how worldviews work in practice.[iii]

Is this a conceptually clear account, or is there a tension between emphasising beliefs or philosophies on the one hand, but experiences and practices on the other? Which should be RE’s primary focus, and how should the foci relate? This month’s Research of the Month is chosen for suggesting some promising answers to these questions. It’s a book by the US scholar Christian Smith, Religion: What it is, how it works, and why it matters. [iv]

The definition of religion given by Smith has been described by one reviewer as ‘the best theoretical and analytical definition I know’.[v] It reads as follows:

‘Religion is a complex of culturally prescribed practices that are based on premises about the existence and nature of superhuman powers. These powers may be personal or impersonal, but they are always superhuman in the dual sense that they can do things which humans cannot do and that they do not depend for their existence on human activities. Religious people engage in complexes of practices in order to gain access to and communicate or align themselves with these superhuman powers. The hope involved in the cultural prescribing of these practices is to realize human goods and avoid bads, especially (but not only) to avert misfortunes and receive blessings and deliverance from crises.’[vi]

Thus, the primary focus is on practices, but the practices are seen as based on beliefs or ideas. As he develops the argument, Smith offers supporting points. Religions also have secondary aspects including the forms of identity, community or aesthetic expression associated with the primary practices. Participants don’t necessarily hold the ‘established’ related beliefs, so religion consists in the cultural meanings handed on; these are realities apart from individual experiences, and it is as religiousness rather than religion that individual experiences matter hugely.

What might Smith’s analysis mean for RE teaching? To sketch it out, teachers would engage pupils in an enquiry into a range of religious practices. Firstly: what happens during these practices? For what goods do they aim? There would then be two secondary layers of enquiry, one into how repeated religious practices flow into aspects such as social identity, aesthetic expression and power, another into religiousness at the individual level.

This form of RE might flow from a clear conceptual account of religion, but it has limitations. It doesn’t include a philosophical element, so pupils don’t exercise a right to be critical about truth-claims that may be associated with the practices and meanings. It doesn’t include a reflexive element where pupils reflect on their own viewpoints, how these affect their own views of what’s studied and how their own ideas and values may have developed through their studies. Still, the approach could be compatible with both elements. The study of non-religious worldviews might have to come from a different angle, because it may not be possible to view these primarily in terms of practices. Nevertheless, I would certainly recommend Religion: What it is, how it works, and why it matters as stimulus to further thinking and discussion regarding the conceptual category of religion within RE.

[i] RE Council of England and Wales, Religion and Worldviews: The Way Forward. A National Plan for RE, London (RE Council of England and Wales): 2018, page 31.

[ii] Ibid., page 4.

[iii] Ibid., pages 30-31.

[iv] We’ve reported part of the book at What is religion?

[v] You can read Jose Casanova’s review of the book at https://academic.oup.com/jcs/article-abstract/61/1/126/5303792?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[vi] Christian Smith, Religion: What it is, how it works, and why it matters, Princeton and Oxford (Princeton University Press): 2017, page 3.

Teachers and educationalists have taken part in two incredible days exploring Theologies of Reading at the Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge.

Why describe it as incredible?

The level of expertise in the room from primary and secondary teachers, RE advisors and educationalists complimented an inspiring series of lectures and discussions on aspects of RE.  Lectures came from post-doctoral experts in their fields of study providing a  ‘deep dive’ and nourishment into elements of RE as well as careful thought on how the themes could be transferred into different education settings.

In the course of Theologies of Reading Day One Hermeneutics, Qur’anic Recitation, Religious Commentaries in Midrash and Biblical Language in texts were explored.  These challenging concepts were enlightening, particularly with expectation of translating them into my own context of primary education.  The key to doing this for me was to breakdown each lecture into simple terms; Hermeneutics crudely became different viewpoints, Biblical Language and Texts became authorship and Religious Commentaries became evidence-based argument.

I then selected two of these concepts to develop into a teaching block from the Understanding Christianity resource – The Kingdom of God.  It linked to the liturgical calendar as Pentecost was upon us, this allowing me to explore the story of Pentecost through authorship and biblical evidence.  A great find to enable this was the purchase of an Infographic Bible!

The second element allowed me to explore the theological impact of Pentecost on the beliefs of Christians in the context of The Kingdom of God.  Healthy debates were held on the reasonableness of Jesus ascending to heaven and whether people did actually experience the Holy Spirit within them.  At times this digressed into wider discussions about the origins of the universe and the nature of the miraculous.  Year 6 pupils raised the idea that for the big bang to happen someone needed to create the space for it to happen – was that proof of God?  This obviously made for more thought as a couple of days later when a Year 3 child asked if God created everything then who created God?  Another child made the connection that maybe we could interpret the big bang as the creation of God – were they one and the same?

Day Two of the Theologies of Reading seminars allowed us to showcase our work and to explore some further concepts back in Cambridge. As part of this day we visited the university library and explored some of the treasures of the sacred texts that they hold.  It was a genuine privilege to ‘get up close’ to text dating back in some cases over 500 years.  To see personal notations and additions in pontificals as well as the evolution of script into scholastic ‘textbooks’ was amazing.  I was particularly inspired by the intimacy of the Book of Hours we saw.  I pondered how these very personal collections of bible verse, prayers and psalms could be translated into an assessment piece for Year 6 as a culmination of their total RE learning.

This visit was complimented by a lecture on Practical Criticism and coming to a text with purity, no context and experiencing it as a reader.  We read collectively as a group, discussed our stumbles and our cohesion.  Brought light to the semantics of the verse and offered our reflections.

So what next?

Taking the concept of reading a text ‘cold’ not only for RE but also across the wider curriculum may be a possibility.  Likewise transferring and connecting the skills of RE across the curriculum.  A fellow colleague posed the idea of what if you presented a religious text in a format that removed the ‘religiousness’; a bible text without the verses or chapters or a psalm presented as a simple poem.  Would the children interact differently to it?  Would it be better?  Some exciting ideas to explore…

For further information about the Theologies of Reading series contact Kathryn Wright  ceo@cstg.org.uk

Details of the original Theologies of Reading seminars which inspired this CSDP programme can be found here: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/theologies-of-reading

For information about the Understanding Christianity resource: http://www.understandingchristianity.org.uk

For information about University of Cambridge Treasures collection: https://www.50treasures.divinity.cam.ac.uk

Introduction 

At a recent NASACRE AGM Dilwyn Hunt asked a question about the educational value of RE as expressed in  the Commission on RE Report. This is an important question and for this reason we are publishing a blog which sets out Dilwyn’s views. Culham St Gabriel’s strongly supports the recommendations of the Commission on RE and its vision for RE. On Friday I attended an event entitled ‘What next for Religious Education?’ This brought together teachers, researchers, policy makers, curriculum developers as well as philosophers of education. Many of the points raised here in Dilwyn’s blog were debated and discussed. Whilst I may not agree with Dilwyn’s position, it is very important that we have robust conversations about these matters.

Kathryn Wright

CEO, Culham St Gabriel’s Trust

Has the CoRE brought clarity?

For some the Commission’s proposals ensure that RE is no longer burdened with personal and spiritual aims as it now has one very clear purpose, it is the academic study of religious and non-religious worldviews.

If this is what the CoRE had in mind it certainly provides RE with a straightforward purpose but it also weakens the educational value of the subject.  It’s all very well teaching young people knowledge about religions and worldviews but unless young people are taught material which they can engage with and reflect on, that informs their lives and answers their questions all we would be achieving is filling up the minds of young people with what Michael Grimmitt called so much ‘verbal lumber’, which is inert and quickly forgotten.

Religious Education at its best has two principal ambitions or purposes.  Of course, one of those ambitions is the study of religious and non-religious worldviews.   The second is to help young people in their own attempt to find something in life, it may be a worldview, or it may be something much looser, whatever it is it helps them to make sense of existence.

Religious Education is not just a spectator activity which studies religious and non-religious worldviews.  The subject is also for participants in that it supports young people in the human desire to find something in life that helps them make sense of existence.  We are poor creatures if we choose not to think very deeply about the world and in the light of what we make of it live our lives accordingly.  It is this second ambition that moves RE into high gear in terms of its educational value.

The idea that RE has two ambitions is not new.  Back in 1971 the highly influential ‘Working Paper 36’ affirmed that RE has two ambitions and expressed this neatly in the statement, ‘We incline to the view that religious education must include both the personal search for meaning and the objective study of the phenomena of religion’ (p.43).  The words ‘phenomena of religion’ didn’t just mean the religions.  Non-religious worldviews was also clearly on the agenda.

Why do some people think the CoRE has abandoned the idea that the subject has two main ambitions?  Commission members have expressed surprise that people have this view
but the CoRE’s report does lend itself to this interpretation.  The report is over 23,000 words but only around 200 words are about pupil’s own personal worldview and what is said is often ambiguous.  The CoRE’s entitlement statement is over 500 words but only around 30 are about making sense of life.  What is written tells us that pupils should be taught about, ‘the different roles that worldviews play in providing people with ways of making sense of their lives.’ (p.12) What does this mean?  It looks like an entitlement to explore the ways other people’s worldviews help them make sense of their lives.  What it doesn’t say is that pupils have an entitlement to reflect on their own their own worldview.

In the report there are only two or three brief references to pupils and their personal worldview.  For example, we are told, ‘It is one of the core tasks of education to enable each pupil to understand, reflect on and develop their own personal worldview’ (p.5).  These words are more or less repeated on p.26.  However, both of these statements are not about Religious Education, they are about education in general.  The CoRE’s view appears to be that young people’s own exploration of meaning is not a matter for which RE has a special responsibility but is a whole-school responsibility.

Of course, it is true that RE is not the only subject in the curriculum that can contribute to young people’s exploration of meaning but by placing it in the wooly area of being a whole-school responsibility with no subject being given responsibility for it is a recipe for weakening this aspect of education and weakening RE.

To be fair in Appendix 2 in the last few pages of the report there is a clear statement that as well as the study of worldviews the subject must also provide ‘space’ for pupils ‘to reflect on one’s own worldviews.’  Appendix 2 has none of the ambiguities that are in the rest of the report.  It effectively articulates the two ambitions of RE expressed in ‘Working Paper 36’.  This raises a number of questions – why the pretence that a ‘new vision’ is being offered when much of what is in Appendix 2 has been a part of RE for over four decades?  Why rebrand the subject as Religion and Worldviews when this is misleading people into thinking the subject is just the academic study of religion and worldviews and nothing else?

There are plenty of questions and issues that arise from the CoRE’s report.  Before we spend yet more money on political lobbying and demand legislation we should be having an open and frank discussion.  We should be listening to each other and not pretending that there is broad agreement when some see the report as a green light to just offering a study of religion and worldviews while there are others that see the subject as one that goes well beyond that and aims to help young people to think more deeply about life and what it is they stand for.

Gert Biesta isn’t sure. He thinks that the benefit of research is to offer ‘informed uncertainty’ to them; teaching is a journey with pupils into the unknown. So, in response to a short presentation from me that showed how engaging with reports on Research for RE had built teachers’ confidence, he wondered whether that is a good thing or not.

This conversation happened during the AULRE[i] conference of May 9-10 at Newman University, Birmingham. We’re planning a series of blogs that reflect on this conference, in which the other writers and myself are asked to weigh up what the AULRE conference offers to teachers. It’s a good question, since AULRE wishes to become an association for a broad range of RE professionals and (I’d argue) the research presented at its conference needs to reach teachers to develop RE. If it can, it has tremendous potential. I’ll try to show why by drawing on a few of my conference experiences.

First, back to the confidence dispute. Having had time to think about it, I don’t disagree with Gert, the issues just need spelling out. This definition of positive emotional energy from the sociologist Randall Collins helps:

“. . . a feeling of confidence, courage to take action, boldness in taking initiative. It is a morally suffused energy; it makes the individual feel not only good, but exalted, with the sense of doing what is the most important and most valuable . . . Emotional energy has a powerfully motivating effect on the individual; whoever has experienced this kind of moment wants to repeat it.” [ii]

That’s what kept me going for thirty years as a teacher. Arguably, the contested nature and content of RE make this kind of confidence particularly needed. I do think that RE teachers need to have confidence, but it’s the confidence to face difference, uncertainty and ambiguity with pupils, so that they grow up able to relate to the world as it is. We need to be professionally robust and epistemologically humble.

The AULRE conference had three keynote sessions, all of which visited this same kind of territory, as all three speakers resisted the narrow accountability model that continues to dominate English education. Joyce Miller spoke on the CORE report and its reception, regretting that some commentators had seen an overemphasis on content knowledge and lack of attention to pupil self-awareness and reflexivity. [iii] David Aldridge considered a pedagogy of belonging; an alternative to technicist models, emphasising attentive listening, slowness and love. I was particularly provoked by Pat Hannam’s address, on education, RE and the future of the world. She illustrated the crises of environmental degradation, children’s unhappiness and policy drift (namely the Ofsted definition of ‘good’ education which alludes to neither the world nor children) and underlined our responsibility to bring children to action. It was commented that they may be doing so already without us, and whilst this may be true, it doesn’t remove our responsibilities as educators.

It was an excellent conference, and many more examples could be given, but it’s time to come back to the question of how teachers might benefit. Well, I hope it’s clear that visionary thinking is happening in our subject. At one level, I’d like teachers to be aware of it, participate in it and help it to build RE’s future; at another level, I’d like it to have to connect with the everyday reality of school. The two levels can be bridged, of course, and I’ll just mention one more AULRE conference example, Frances Lane’s presentation on using research communities of practice to support trainee and beginning teachers. It’s at this kind of interface where I see Culham St Gabriel’s research strategy developing in the future, as well as supporting later stage teachers to become researchers via master’s and doctoral work which informs classroom practice.[iv] If you are interested in making this kind of professional journey, you might well find inspiration and possible starting points at the AULRE conference, so do take confidence and get in touch if we might support you to attend. Kevin@cstg.org.uk

[i] The Association of University Lecturers in Religious Education now describes itself as the network for learning, teaching and research in religion and education. See http://aulre.org/

[ii] Randall Collins (2004), Interaction Ritual Chains, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pages 39, 49, 121, 134, 105-9, 108, quoted in Christian Smith (2017), Religion: what it is, how it works and why it matters, Princeton: Princeton University Press, page 223.

[iii] See my May blog at https://www.reonline.org.uk/news/kevins-blog-religion-worldviews-and-big-ideas-where-do-you-stand/

[iv] We do already support doctoral researchers to present at AULRE through a bursary – again, those interested are welcome to email me.

At every conference I attend, you will find me with a neat notebook and pen poised to take down as many ideas as I possibly can from the sessions I select. I find it useful afterwards to go through and highlight the key ideas that will stay with me either for immediate use or for me to think about more and maybe even read up on! This year’s AULRE was no different and with 18 pages of notes I thought I would try to distil some of it here:

• We need to teach the pupils about people. Pupils are also people.

This came from Joyce Miller’s opening keynote. She was talking about avoiding the use of the easy label in RE. Let’s stop talking about people being Christians or Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus and so on. People of faith have jobs, families, hobbies, communities, wider interests…..and so do our pupils. Let’s recognise that people are more than a label. We need to avoid our pupils feeling that they are not a part of the RE landscape. Avoid the disconnection they can feel and make them see that just like, for example, Christians, they have a view on matters in RE too.

• We teach children, not just RE.

This theme was one that came up in papers by Julian Stern, Elizabeth Russell and Pat Hannam. RE isn’t just about teaching our subject and for many of us, it is not the primary focus. Teaching has an ethical aspect and we want to positively impact on the lives of the young people in front of us. We need to care about them. Our key motivation for teaching may vary but the day to day is always about children.

• Collaborating with others leads to impactful innovation.

This came from a paper by Frances Lane about a module for her NQTs. By insisting they work in small RE teams and clearly identifying a joint project, they were encouraged to support, problem solve and innovate their way through their NQT year. I bet they had fun doing it too!

• Stop using the word ‘explore’.

As a learning objective that is. We don’t often head out to explore anywhere in RE! Thanks to Nigel Fancourt, Liam Guilfoyle and Jessica Chan for reminding me of this. There must be better verbs for what we are doing in class?

• Brainwashing might work, and be quick, but it is not what we want to do.

Dave Aldridge also gave us an introduction to time travel (yes, really!) but it was this point about brainwashing that I found most striking. Yes, we could, but we don’t. The kind of knowledge that could be imparted this way is probably not the kind of thing we want to teach.

Last week I attended the AULRE 2019 conference in Birmingham. AULRE is an association of members interested in learning, teaching and research in religion and education. This year around 70 delegates attended, this included university lecturers, PGCE tutors, advisers, consultants and teachers.

Not surprisingly, responses to and critique of the Commission on RE (2018) report flavoured many of the keynotes and papers presented. Joyce Miller stressed the importance of the inclusive nature of the report which she argued comprehensively presents a vision for all. She made a case for understanding the socio-political context of RE, re-examining the content of the subject through overarching conceptual categories and embracing the term ‘worldview’ as a way of providing meaning to the subject for all. She hinted at ways in which a Buddhist worldview might be explored through the vision of the Commission. I found this inspiring and hope Joyce will go on to consider other ways in which the Commission’s vision may become a reality. This has the potential to transform curriculum design in our subject and impact on classroom practice.

I attended a number of parallel papers, and one common theme running through them was the importance of the teacher’s context, career journey and own worldview when considering how they understand the subject of RE. For example, one researcher talked about how teacher’s understanding of the subject might be more relational or more subject focussed. Some teachers may have a stronger sense of vocation, some are influenced by policy change, but others are not. Professional learning was regarded as important in terms of implementing policy changes. If teachers do not engage with professional learning the research found that teachers were not aligned to policy changes and would often continue as before. There is a huge overlap between subject construction and the identity of the teacher. This provides some important questions for policy makers who want to bring about change. For example, it shows the importance of professional learning when a new agreed syllabus is introduced or when new approaches to teaching and learning are advocated such as the RE:searchers project or a resource like Understanding Christianity. In addition, if the recommendations from the Commission are to be taken forward, it shows how important the engagement of teachers is in this process.

One piece of research suggested that an understanding of the aims of RE is rarely static for a teacher. One important point made was that teachers are influenced by socio-cultural factors as well as ontological (beliefs about the subject) and epistemological (knowledge of the subject) ones. When beginner teachers embark on their careers the epistemological factors are very strong as they learn about the subject, but as they progress through their career the socio-cultural factors often become much stronger. In fact, it was argued that sometimes the epistemological factors have no bearing on the teacher at all once they are an established teacher unless they engage with research. This raised some important questions for me about the importance of interaction between researchers and teachers and the value of action research especially during times of change.

References:

Keynote: Dr Joyce Miller: Religion and worldviews- the way forward?

Parallel Paper given by Dr Elizabeth Russell

Parallel Paper given by Alexis Stones