Rethinking RE

Another month, another set of reports!

So, a lot has happened over the past month... Another major report has been published (two, if you count the AHRC network report on collective worship and religious observance in schools). A briefing paper on RE was produced for ministers - a sure sign they're starting to get interested, - and the court made a significant ruling on the relationship between RE and non-religious worldviews.

I want to take each of these in turn because I think each shows us something of the nature of the challenges facing RE.

RE for REal

Firstly, Goldsmiths, University of London's Faiths and Civil Society Unit published the long-awaited RE for REal report. Its conclusions were hinted at by Adam Dinham (co-author) at the recent debate on faith and education during the Cambridge Festival of Ideas, so it came as no surprise to read yet another set of recommendations about a review of the law relating to RE, a change in the name of the subject and a call for a national framework for RE. What did surprise me, although perhaps it ought not to have done, was the fact that three out of the four sample groups (year 10 pupils, parents and employers) felt that the core purpose of RE was to promote good community cohesion. Only the teachers disagreed, and the specialist teachers at that, stating that they felt the core purpose of RE is secure religious literacy. What this tells me is that we now have two generations of people who have been formed to believe that the value of learning about religion in schools is to somehow produce a harmonious society. This may be the case, but I see this as an outcome of good RE, rather than a core purpose. Like my fellow specialists, I would argue that good community relations flows from secure religious literacy and not the other way round. There is a piece of work to be done here to challenge the perceptions/assumptions of adults, as well as students.

Bearing in mind that there is general consensus among teachers and other RE professionals that religious literacy is an appropriate purpose for RE (or religion and belief learning, as RE for REal has it), it is still not clear what this means. A point in case: a secondary teacher recently complained on social media about being implicitly criticised for not teaching their pupils to be religiously literate. We teach all the religions, the teacher said, and we also teach the pupils to discuss the key ethical and philosophical issues, especially the relevant and controversial ones. When challenged to provide further evidence, it transpired that what was taught was largely the externals of religion, with a focus on its material basis - rites of passage, festivals, rituals, social action, etc. What was missing from this was any sense of the meaning behind these externals: why do Christians celebrate the birth of a baby two thousand years ago and how does this relate to the bigger Christian narrative (incarnation, salvation)? Why do Muslims prostrate themselves whilst praying and how does this relate to the broader concept of ibadah (submission to Allah, commitment to following the straight path, shariah)? If we don't understand the significance of these practices and the deep meaning behind them, we will not be religiously literate. 

More worryingly, if we don't take the time to understand the deep meanings we will run the risk of seeing people of faith as defined by the things that they do, which leads to (has led to) seeing a whole group of people through the lens of the actions of a few. In other words, I'm not sure we can achieve good community relations without first pursuing secure religious literacy, understood as a rigorous study of religion and belief that goes beyond the externals. What becomes evident from the discussion and debate online is that this is lacking as much in the adults as it is in the students/pupils - not through any fault of their own, but as the product of thirty years plus of phenomenological RE. I really hope the powers that be take this into consideration should the legal settlement for RE ever be reviewed!

Government getting interested?

On that note, it's worth briefly mentioning the briefing paper produced for ministers earlier this month. It necessarily contains generalisations about the current situation, but it does refer to some of the key reports that have been published over the last two years. Worryingly, it seems to contain some suggestions about how the statistics relating to the number of subject specialists can be spun to look better than they actually are, and it seems to imply that RE:Online exists at the behest of Her Majesty's Government, but other than that, it is a sign that someone somewhere in Westminster is noticing the conversation. 

Having said that, it's worth noting that this briefing paper was shared with MPs on the day that a group of parents took the DfE to court for not including non-religious worldviews - specifically humanism - as a core area of study in the new GCSE RS. This action, supported by the British Humanist Association, argued that children ought to be able to study non-religious worldviews in RE. I have absolutely no problem with this happening in schools - the identification as 'non-religious' relates to many in the UK today, even if religious affiliation has not quite died the death predicted by secular philosophies of the twentieth century. For that reason alone, non-religious belief systems should be taken seriously in the school curriculum and RE seems to be the most sensible place for this to happen. 

However - and it's a big however - our pupils and students lack an understanding of religion that enables them to understand and engage with the historical development of religions, their impact on culture and politics, the manner in which they shape the thinking and actions of modern adherents and the evolving nature of the category of religion per se. In practical terms, this means that we are producing a generation who can tell us a little bit about the phenomena of religions, quite a bit about (heavily generalised) religious responses to various ethical issues, but for whom the reality of religion as a living and historical thing has little or no meaning. It is vital that we find a way to communicate this as religion remains a key feature of human life, shaping the way in which millions of people experience the world, society, and each other. I would like to include a rigorous study of non-religion in RE, but not to the detriment of a rigorous study of religion. If we are to include a study of humanism (as an example of a non-religious worldview) in either GCSE RS or KS4 more generally, then someone is going to have to do something about the legal settlement for RE - there is no way we can do both well on 5% curriculum time. 

Why bother addressing the legal settlement? Because if we don't, religious (and non-religious) stereotypes will be unthinkingly promulgated and innocent ignorance will continue to damage relationships between communities, societies, countries. Let's not forget that this is not an argument about whose religion or worldview is better/more important than whose - this is about educating young people and, I hope, adults about the realities of religion and belief. 

What Next?

More than anything, I and many of the teachers I work alongside - primary and secondary - would like to see the following:

• A review of the current legal settlement to address the purpose of RE, its status on the school curriculum, the manner in which its curriculum is produced and reconsideration of the existing parental right to withdraw.

• The production of a national curriculum for RE that clearly states purpose, defines core knowledge and outlines end of phase learning expectations with specificity.

• A proper investment in the recruitment, training and ongoing support of subject specialists at primary and secondary level.

• Significant work around the public perception of RE and religion and belief more generally. 

It's not a lot to ask, right...? Let's see where we are next month!