A Reflection on #REWords16

I have just arrived home from a fabulous weekend at the Words Beyond Words conference jointly arranged by NATRE, AULRE and AREIAC. Now, you might think that the obvious thing to do would be to unpack, eat and sleep, but instead I've decided to blog...

The theme of the conference was an exploration of religious literacy in relation to RE. This is a theme close to my heart as I and my wonderful colleagues, Kathryn Wright (@kathrynfenlodge), Jane Chipperton (@jchipperton) and Olivia Seymour (@ollyseymour), have been thinking about, talking about, listening to others' views on and writing about this topic for some time now. You can read our most recent thoughts here.

The conference generated a lot of discussion and not a little positioning (!), but the experience generated fantastically creative and productive discussion, often in the quiet moments between sessions. I know that I have come home with the beginnings of the third revision of our conversation piece about religious literacy, as well as some specific changes I intend to make to various ongoing projects.

However, having had the chance to think about the keynotes, workshop sessions and many conversations during the long car journey home, I've realised that there's one very important thing to come out of this conference.

The conference was the first one of its kind to be jointly organised by NATRE, AREIAC and AULRE. These three subject associations represent three distinct groups: RE teachers, RE Advisers/Consultants/Inspectors and academics involved in various disciplines relevant to RE. I have attended conferences for each of the separate associations and the difference between these and this joint conference was striking. It was helpful for teachers to have the chance to engage with the latest thinking and research at HE level, but equally it was very helpful for the AULRE members to get the chance to engage at length with both the thinking and practice of the teachers. There was helpful reflection on the relationship between theory and practice that had a real sense of urgency. There was also lots of discussion about the ways in which each group could be an agent of change to impact positively on the experience of RE in the classroom.

So, what about the RE Advisers? Well, I observed two things (and please feel free to completely disagree, colleagues!): firstly, we were more likely to take - and stick to - a position. Now, in and of itself, that's not a bad thing. However, where it becomes unhelpful is when we get distracted from focusing on the teachers and young people in the classroom. Secondly, we hold a unique position in this family of RE professionals. We regularly have contact with actual teaching practice, but have the time and mental space that our teacher colleagues do not always have the luxury of to engage with the latest academic thinking. Equally, we are often aware of or participating in the most cutting edge theoretical and practical research, but have a more easily accessible conduit directly into the classroom. This gives me great hope - just like the openness and collaboration of this weekend, I look forward to a creative and collaborative few weeks and months ahead. And all of this with one aim in mind - to do the best we can by the young people learning RE in our schools and academies.

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!

RE in 2020

This month’s challenge in the RE and Philosophy Echo Chamber is to imagine what RE will be like in 2020. If I were cynical (and those of you who know me know I’m anything but…), I’d say that I’m not entirely sure that I’m expecting to see RE on the timetable in 2020 at all.

However, being an optimist at heart, I am hopeful that the subject will be flourishing, whilst also recognising the urgency of setting in place now those conditions that will make this possible in five years’ time.

RE in 2020

So, what do I think it will look like in five years’ time? Well, I hope it will have parity with other curriculum subjects and will be delivered by staff who are fascinated by and passionate about the world of religion, faith and belief in all its forms. I hope that they have sufficient training and support to help them deliver the subject confidently. I sincerely hope the subject is not the driver of or servant to social change, as I’m increasingly wary of binding any curriculum subject to this, even for the sake of ensuring survival! As Clarke and Woodhead point out in their recent report, this is to load the subject with too much or too little significance. The particular problem with this, as far as I can see, is that it could lead to the subject being changed at the whim of short-term political goals – or not being changed at all.

Education and Formation

An interesting debate is opening up within the RE community about the purpose of RE. At a recent meeting of local RE subject leaders, I asked them what they thought the purpose of RE was. Out of a group of twelve different people, I received six different answers… This is something that must be addressed and I know many of many colleagues are doing just that. However, I’d like to pull apart Clarke and Woodhead’s recommendation that RE be renamed RME, as it is called in the Scottish education system. To call our subject ‘Religious and Moral Education’ is to open some doors and close others. It raises questions about the relationship between our subject and formation – religious, moral, spiritual, ethical. Students studying Moral Education are presumably being asked to reflect on issues of right and wrong, both in terms of what different religions and worldviews believe, but also what they themselves believe. In this sense, they are explicitly participating in moral formation as part of their studies. The manner in which the curriculum material is presented is therefore key to the way in which the student understands right and wrong.

I don’t know about you, but as an educator, I’m in the business of formation. I don’t work in a mechanistic world that produces identical automata who are ‘economy-ready’; I work to help individuals develop their humanity through a love of learning and an engagement with the whole person. Much of the discussion about the future of RE considers the age-old associations many people often make with the subject: religious instruction and religious formation, alongside religious education (or studies – take your pick). For the most part, in my day-to-day work these associations are distinctly unhelpful. I spend much of my time reassuring concerned parents – and sometimes confused governors – that RE is not religious instruction even in a Church school and RE is only formative insofar as any other curriculum subject is formative.

However, I’ve been reflecting more deeply on Clarke and Woodhead’s view that any form of religious (or non-religious) formation needs to be clearly advertised (A New Settlement, 49). There seems to be an underlying assumption, firstly that faith schools and schools with a religious character are somehow covertly forming their pupils in a particular religious tradition and secondly that there is something insidious about formation per se.

The thing is, faith schools and schools with a religious character patently do not hide that fact that their ethos relates to a particular faith tradition. For the most part, the clue to the ethos is in the name of the school… And should we believe that any given ethos may be something potentially damaging, then we need to consider very carefully what may replace it. It is not as though there were such a thing as a value-free ethos.

Religious Formation and Religious Education

How does this relate to RE? Well, it appears to be very difficult for many people to separate religious education from religious formation. There is a fear that if a school has a religious character, then its RE will be necessarily biased towards that religion to the extent of coercion into that faith or distortion of other religions and beliefs; in other words, that its RE is more about formation or instruction than education.

This is really worrying; I am not in a position to assert that no school – religious or otherwise – delivers RE in a coercive or distorting manner. However, I am able to assert that the schools I work alongside do not and nearly all of them are Church of England schools. It is understood that the formation offered by these schools – openly Christian in its foundation – is delivered across every aspect of the life of the school. In this sense, RE is no more formative than Maths or Literacy and it is every bit as academic and rigorous.

Hopes for 2020

My hope for 2020, then, rests almost entirely on clarity of communication and understanding. What we have at the moment is chaotic to say the least with a lot of confusion about what RE is and what it is not. There are many, many interested parties involved in the discussions about RE (the quietest voice sometimes is that of the teachers themselves) and it often feels that we are talking at cross purposes. Ultimately, the consequence of this is that we are continuing to let our students down.

I hope that by 2020 we have a clear statement of purpose and a clear understanding that religion, whether delivered educationally, formatively or instructionally, is not necessarily interchangeable with coercion or distortion – indeed, any more so than any other world view or belief system. 

Education and Adoption Bill

Some thoughts about schools, their future and the Education and Adoption Bill:

•  This Bill indicates that the power to intervene in the leadership and management of schools and academies will be increasingly centralised;
• This Bill requires that primary schools will need to achieve 85% of pupils achieving a certain level of progress and attainment in reading, writing and maths (the current baseline is 65%) to avoid being termed ‘coasting’, but there are currently no national standards from which to judge the required level because the new SATs will not be taken until 2016. This means schools do not know what they are working towards and cannot direct their resources accordingly, which impacts on their ability to avoid being termed ‘coasting’ or failing;
• This Bill requires that secondary schools will need to achieve 60% of students achieving appropriate levels of progress in Progress 8 subjects (the current baseline is 50%). The secondary curriculum has already been significantly impacted by the EBacc and, although the Progress 8 measure allows for a broader collection of curriculum subjects to be taken into account, in practice, many schools are sticking tightly to the EBacc subjects. As an RE teacher and adviser, I feel quite strongly about this, as doing many of my colleagues who teach art and design, drama, music, and so on. This focus on the EBacc, even in Progress 8, impacts on the ability of students who may not thrive in academic areas to achieve the required baseline in Progress 8 and thus on the school’s ability to avoid being termed ‘coasting’ or failing;
• The Bill makes no provision for infant or middle schools;
• The Bill takes no account of context (e.g. rural schools entering under ten pupils for KS2 SATS, where 50% of these pupils have additional needs, schools with exceptional Value Added, but lower levels of academic achievement, schools with high proportions of students with English as an Additional Language, or with a high turnover of staff or student population….);
• The process of conversion to academy status will be overseen by Regional Schools Commissioners – a group of people whose job title is to “work with school leaders to promote and monitor academies and free schools” (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/schools-commissioners-group) and whose performance is judged, at least in part, on the number of schools that are converted to academy status on their watch. This would suggest that they have a vested interest in as many schools as possible being designated as either ‘coasting’ or failing;
• Governing bodies of schools with a religious character have a conflict of interest, insofar as they can be compelled to facilitate conversion to academy status under clauses 4(A1) and 4(1)(b) of the Bill, but may be prevented from doing so as trustees of the charitable trust under which the school was founded, particularly where there may be issues around preserving the religious character of the school after conversion. Similarly, the trustees of the land upon which the school is built may be in a position to object to conversion, even where the governing body of the school can be compelled by the Secretary of State to facilitate conversion. This could lead to protracted negotiations, with a direct impact on the pupils at the school.

In addition to this, recent financial pressures are likely to have a real impact on schools’ ability to avoid being judged to be ‘coasting’ under the new definitions in the Education and Adoption Bill:

• The fixing of school budgets at the current level will lead to an up to 12% cut over the next five years;
• The National Living Wage will require that any staff currently receiving minimum wage (e.g. lunchtime supervisors) will need to be paid £9 per hour by 2020 – this will also apply to any companies with which schools do business (e.g. site management, food preparation, etc.) and may have an impact on costs they currently charge;
• Recruitment of teachers is currently a huge challenge at all levels, but especially at leadership levels;

Nobody – me included – wants their child to be let down by their school; everyone wants the children in our country to receive the best possible education. But context matters. I taught in a large comprehensive school in north London, but it was not until I moved to Lincolnshire and started working alongside small rural primary schools that I realised how utterly London (or perhaps city)-centric educational policy is. In many cases, the requirements – and this is true of the Education and Adoption Bill – are just not workable in these very small schools. Moreover, in the course of my work, both as a teacher and as an educational consultant, I have never come across a head teacher, teacher, teaching assistant or anyone else who works in our schools who thinks that it’s ok to just ‘wing it’ in relation to pupils’ progress and achievement. I have never met or worked alongside a lazy teacher who doesn’t care about their pupils’ future. In other words, I have never met any educational professional who ‘coasts’. I have met hundreds of consummate professionals, who are doing the best they possibly can in the context in which they work to provide the best possible future for their pupils and, in many cases, their pupils’ families. I have more admiration for their patience and commitment – not simply with their pupils, but with the Department for Education – than I can possibly say.

Dear Nicky Morgan, please, please think very carefully about this Bill and its implications – if only for the fact that, in centralising responsibility for ‘coasting’ and failing schools, you are making the person who is the most accountable for the success or failure of our country’s education system the Secretary of State for Education. Do you have the time, resources or expertise to be held accountable? Do the various academy sponsors who will be needed to intervene to support ‘coasting’ and failing schools have sufficient time, resources and expertise to manage what may amount to many hundreds of conversion orders the moment the Bill is enacted? If not, then what?

If the intention is to merely compel a selection of ‘coasting’ or failing schools to convert to academies (given that you have reserved yourself the right to choose when to use your new powers in relation to ‘coasting’ schools) in order to evidence that the Bill, and thus government policy, is working what, then, is the long-term purpose of the Bill? It would be a truly terrible thing if this Bill, which represents the quite frightening diminishment of autonomy and local influence, is merely a political tool with short-term aims. Given that your Government is currently devolving large amounts of power to local regions, it seems particularly interesting that this moment has been chosen to state that local regions are not capable of taking charge of education. Transport, apprenticeships, housing, yes; education, no.

On the description of your ministerial role, it states that you have responsibility for “school improvement” and “the establishment of academies and free schools” (https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/secretary-of-state-for-education). I feel like the crux of the matter here is which of these responsibilities the Education and Adoption Bill is aimed at…

Encountering Faiths and Beliefs: Thinking about Truth

Swiftly following on from the Clark-Woodhead report, A New Settlement: Religion and Belief in Schools, is a report published by the Three Faiths Forum (3FF, @threefaiths) on their work and its relationship to what they call 'Intercultural Education' (IE) in schools. Encountering Faiths and Beliefs:The Role of Intercultural Education in Schools and Communities focuses on the broader issue of the ways in which young people - and others - are enabled to encounter a range of different faiths and beliefs. This relates to their earlier publication, Beyond RE: Engaging with Lived Diversity, which considers, in part, the purpose of RE and its current use in schools as one safe space in which young people can encounter different faiths, beliefs and cultures. Both reports add to the already extremely diverse conversation around the purpose of RE and the future shape of this subject in the British (English?) education system. 

 Intercultural Education

Both reports quite clearly advocate a form of Intercultural Education, which is defined as a form of education that provides “the skills and attitudes needed to live peacefully and happily together in a diverse society” (Beyond RE, 1). This is to understand religion, faith and belief in their social and cultural contexts; the authors acknowledge that this does not reflect everything of what they are about. Encountering Faiths and Beliefs helpfully provides a practical and successful structure for providing this form of education in schools (Encountering Faiths and Beliefs, 9):

1.      Teach the tools (create a 'Safe Space' agreement, develop necessary skills, e.g. 'the art of asking', 'the art of empathising');

2.      Focus on the personal experience of the individual ("Speakers... create [their] stories in a way that is both pedagogical and personal but which shows diversity within their own faith." Encountering Faiths and Beliefs, 10);

3.      Foster dialogue, not debate ("Focusing on the personal distinguishes discussing controversial issues from debating them…" which opens up a "space for curiosity" Encountering Faiths and Beliefs, 10);

4.      Tailor the approach to the context and the challenges the community is overcoming;

5.      Support the participants to reflect on learning and take it into the wider world.

Interestingly, 3FF clearly link the outcomes of IE to better cultural literacy (“The promise of effective Intercultural Education is of a more literate public where people have strong, productive, and positive relations and are better positioned to counter ignorance and hate." Encountering Faiths and Beliefs, 15), which is not a million miles from the current discussions around RE and religious literacy.

Encountering Faiths and Beliefs

Encountering Faiths and Beliefs opens by stating that the founding principle of 3FF is that "belief is something that is 'lived'" - that is, "how individuals express their personal belief"(4). I have been attending a residential for the South Eastern-Eastern Region RE Advisers (I get in by the skin of my teeth!) and we have spent some time discussing the relationship between belief and truth. We considered the idea of religions as containing sets of truth-claims about God, the way the world is and the nature of humanity. In discussion, we realised that many of the RE teachers and subject leaders we support feel very uncomfortable with the language of truth and far happier with the language of belief; truth is, they feel, somehow a closed-down thing, whereas belief is (or can be) open and outward-looking. It felt particularly pertinent, then, that this 3FF report focuses on 'belief' and, in particular, the ways in which individuals express their personal beliefs. The methodology of the 3FF schools' programme - that is, enabling children to encounter individual stories, rather than generalised versions of religions - fits neatly with this approach to belief as individualised, personal, dialogic. However, I’m not convinced that quite covers the fullest implications of belief, which includes taking a view on truth – and potentially making a commitment to this view. This is one of the places where belief and faith becomes religion, and it is Religious Education that we are delivering in schools.

Considering Truth

CharlotteVardy's recent blog considered different ways of looking at truth, focusing particularly on the ways in which a Jewish understanding of truth differs from other religious (and non-religious) approaches. I found this a really helpful piece of writing. Vardy posits that ‘truth’ in the 21^st century western context has derived from two places: firstly, the 18^th century Enlightenment approach to knowledge that states that humans are able to observe, experience and draw conclusions about what is and what is not and secondly, the postmodern relativistic approach, in which something can be true for me, but not true for you. In both these instances, she points out, truth is human-centred, human-oriented. The Jewish understanding of truth, however, begins with God and the story of his chosen people. What is true in this context is the story that endures. In other words, you and I may not ever know if it is true or not because its truth is dependent on it enduring far beyond our lifespans. In this sense, what is true is what we share as a community, not what is true for me, or what is ‘objectively’ true.

Communities of Truth and Belief

If we are to enable our pupils/students to fully encounter religion, belief and faith, I think we have to consider communal belief, which is to say, at least in part, communal truth-claims and the communal living out of these truth-claims. (I’m starting to wonder if I’m using ‘truth-claim’ as a synonym for ‘belief’… and if that’s ok!) This fits around some of John Westerhoff’s more recent thinking around what constitutes Christian community (common story, common authority, common ritual, common life together) and it raises some seriously interesting questions around what ‘counts’ as belonging to a religion – is it intellectual, emotional, spiritual assent to key beliefs, or is it about belonging to a community of assent, living out in that community? What implications does this have for understanding religions and, more importantly, teaching about religions? What happens when you don’t feel like you belong? Does that affect your self-confidence in understanding what it is you are supposed to be teaching? Can you only 'do' Religious Education from within? If you don't, are your students not quite getting it? Do they have to be within to get it? 

Comments welcome!

A New Settlement: Religion and Belief in Schools

I should start by saying that, although this is my first blog in my current role, I have a long history of blogging as a teacher and researcher - I've always found it a really helpful way to engage with the wider community of educators, as well as a great way of plugging my students into a new world of research, debate and discussion. 

I have always loved studying and teaching RE - it was the only subject that ever made my brain hurt, thus reminding me I had one! I did degrees in Theology and Religious Studies, nearly completed a PhD in Theology and Literature (one day I'll finish it...) and trained to teach RE in secondary schools. In the event, I ended up teaching both RE and Philosophy and the relationship between the two both in terms of curriculum and perception could warrant another blog post, I think. 

Since 2014, I've worked as the RE Adviser for the Diocese of Lincoln. This was not only my first foray into church school education, but also my first experience of RE in primary education since I left primary school many, many, many years ago. In the Diocese, we look after 138 primary schools and just 4 secondary schools, so I've inevitably had to upskill in understanding the place of RE at primary level. The multitude of recent reports on RE have really helped (see here, here, here, here and here), and Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead's recent report, A New Settlement: Religion and Belief in Schools, has helped me develop my knowledge of and interest in the relationship between RE and educational policy-making. 

I've reread this report several times over the past two weeks, read many of the blogs on #BlogSyncRE and spoken with colleagues around the country. Although very little of what it contains is new - certainly to those of us working in RE, - there is something about this report that has stimulated a more optimistic discussion than many I've had after previous reports have been published. 

I want to look at three areas in particular:

1. Definitions of and recommendations about RE
2. 'Faith schools' and my experience of supporting church schools
3. Issues that I think need further clarification or discussion (including the title of the report!)

1. Definitions of and recommendations about RE

This report, like so many recent reports on RE, accurately outlines the opportunities offered and challenges faced by RE in schools. Unlike some other reports, it focuses on trying to provide an accurate definition of what RE is, picking apart some of the most frequent confusion and misconceptions. This began with a discussion of the purpose of RE:

The first, and most important, is a recurrent theme relating to confusion about the whole purpose of the subject... Confusion over the proper relationship between religious education, ethics, moral guidance and community cohesion… (30)

Now, I know Kathryn Wright (@kathyrnfenlodge) is writing her PhD on this topic, so look to her for more detail about this, but I wasn't convinced that renaming the subject as 'Religious and Moral Education' (RME) will significantly address this problem. I noted the influence of the the Scottish government's Principles and Practices of RME and so read it in detail. There were some interesting points. For example, the first outcome of RME in Scotland is to, "recognise religion as an important expression of human experience." It also talks about RME in relation to "meaning, value and purpose in life", "reflecting on values and capacity for moral judgement" and the "intrinsic value in learning about religion as well as learning from religion, as children and young people develop their understanding of diversity in our society and their own roles in it." The repetition of 'values' and focus on social diversity offers a particular interpretation of the purpose of RE and made me reflect on the extent to which this has influenced Clarke and Woodhead's thinking. As a theologian by training, I also found it noteworthy that there was very little emphasis on the notion of the divine in either document; they focused instead on religion as a human experience of living. In other words, we are being offered religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, but no theology.


A New Settlement goes on to distinguish between Religious Education, Religious Instruction and Religious Formation. In and of itself, I think this is a helpful thing to do, but I'm not sure I was completely convinced by the explanations of Religious Instruction and Religious Formation. I'll be honest, I'm no expert on the history of the ways in which our subject has been defined, but there seemed to me to be some assumptions being made here that were unhelpful. It worries me that Clarke and Woodhead could be read to be suggesting that Religious Instruction cannot be done in an outward-looking, self-critical way. This is very close to suggesting that confirmation classes and the like are a form of brainwashing. The recommendation that Religious Instruction should not be permitted to take place during the school day is a very definite statement about the authors' views on the relationship between religion and the state (in this sense, as represented by our education system). I'm not sure that a total divorce between faith (as opposed to religion) and public sphere (here, the education system) is going to help the trend identified by Clarke and Woodhead: 

The influence of more conservative and 'fundamentalist' elements of religion relative to less activist liberal or 'moderate' majorities is also like to increase. (16)

This does not mean that I think pupils should be compelled to participate in Religious Instruction; but, in the appropriate setting, I think it is important to provide opportunities for those who wish to access it to do so. 

Again, it worried me that there were some underlying assumptions about Religious Formation on p. 34 of the report. Whilst the authors accepted that there is a place for Religious Formation in both the formal and informal curriculum, they cautioned against lack of opportunities for "agency, questioning and criticism" and ignoring, distorting or caricaturing other religions or beliefs. To a non-specialist, this may well be read as suggesting that Religious Formation as it currently exists in the education system does just these things. Placing Religious Education, as defined on p. 34, in the context of Religious Formation is something that currently happens very successfully in many of the schools I encounter on a day-to-day basis, and I hope this is something that could be acknowledged by any national curriculum that may result from future discussions. I think it could also have implications for withdrawal from RE. 

Personally, I feel that withdrawal from RE is a historical overhang from the time when RE was, in fact, Religious Instruction - in that context, withdrawal is understandable, but in today's education system, it is not desirable at all. Having said that, if RE were to placed in a broader context of Religious Formation, it would be necessary that 'faith school' admissions criteria require parents' willingness to accept in-school formation (p. 57) in order to ensure that no students would be withdrawn from RE. I also noted with interest the recommendation on p. 62 that 'faith schools' ought to retain their own inspection processes for "the content of collective worship and religious formation" (my italics). This would be a significant change for the Section 48 inspection of schools with a religious character, which currently inspects RE in Voluntary Aided schools and considers RE in the context of the religious character of the school for Voluntary Controlled schools. 

I strongly agree with the report's comments on the need for stronger religious literacy: 

... 'religious literacy' is or should be a requirement for a very wide range of jobs in both the public and the private sectors. (44)

This is why it came as such a surprise that the report recommended that RE should only be taught up to KS4 and, even then, be re-framed as "religious, spiritual, moral, ethical, social, and cultural values". If such a re-framed version of RE would "be different from and complementary to the GCSE in RE" (43), would it actually be RE of the sort that is needed to provide adequate religious literacy (if this is our aim)?

2. 'Faith Schools'

Many elements of this report are fantastic and I know have been warmly welcomed by RE teachers and advisers. I work for the Board of Education of a Church of England Diocese, so I have a vested interest in what the report has to say about 'faith schools'. No doubt, you will have noticed that I keep writing 'faith schools' rather than faith schools, church schools or schools with a religious character. On p. 17, the authors state that they are aware of the misleading nature of this nomenclature, but choose to use it anyway "because of its simplicity and currency". Just because something has currency, it doesn't follow that it is accurate! Nigel Genders' description of Church of England schools is helpful here (and quoted in the same report!):

Our schools are not faith schools for Christians, but Church schools for all. (55)

There is a real difference between a school intended for those of a faith and a school operating through a particular religious ethos for the benefit of the whole community. In either case, RE, formation and instruction can be outward-looking, critical, dialogical, and so on, but I'm not sure you get a sense of that from reading the report. There are implications here for schools who do self-identify as faith schools, who currently offer Religious Instruction/Formation and see this as a central element of their identity. Having taught mostly teenagers, I would also be interested to see how Religious Instruction/Formation competes in the myriad of draws on young people's time outside of school - the very small amount left after homework, revision, etc.! 

But I think what frustrated me the most was the almost dismissive paragraph on p. 58:

As far as independent faith schools are concerned, the issues are entirely different, as pupils have to pay for their places and there is no state funding. This situation does not seem to require reform by any change in law.

It seems to me that many of the strengths of the report lie in their relevance across the whole education sector. To strongly urge 'faith schools' in the state sector to address their admissions policies, inspection processes and employment procedures, but to go on to say that independent schools do not need the same self-scrutiny seems confusing. Is it as simple as suggesting that if you can pay, you can be educated according to structures deemed inappropriate for state schools? How fair is this to those pupils who wish to receive a faith-based education, but cannot afford to pay for the privilege? How fair is it - if we accept that these 'faith-based' structures are indeed inappropriate - to those students who do attend fee-paying schools? 

3. Other issues needing clarification or discussion

I realise that I have been going on for a bit now! There are just a few other bits and bobs that I thought were worthy of mention and discussion:

1. A new role for SACREs in relation to Religious Instruction (45)
Again emphasising the separation of faith from education, but perhaps also suggesting some means of formalising Religious Instruction?

2. The continual emphasis on preparing students for "life now and in the future" (15)
Raises the bigger question about the nature and purpose of education per se - fostering curiosity and love of learning? training up model citizens? (Bearing in mind, of course, the fact that this report's target audience is not only the RE and faith communities, but those in Government who may be in a position to affect change...)

3. The potential to continue freighting RE with "too little significance or too much" (7)
In removing the obligation to deliver RE at KS4 and KS5, we bring it in line with other curriculum subjects but the fact that it is not part of the EBacc suggests that, in real terms, it will continue to be afforded too little significance. If we maintain the obligation to deliver it at KS4/5, we presumably continue to give it too much significance. Similarly, if we pitch it as a key element of evidencing 'British Values' or safeguarding against certain forms of religious extremism, we give it too much significance. Rock and a hard place...

4. The capacity of OFSTED to monitor and inspect any statutory curriculum across all schools, including independent schools (64)
It's struggling to maintain capacity as it is...

5. The title of the report
In all the discussions online and in the media, much has been said about Collective Worship, RE and 'faith schools'. However, the title of the report states quite clearly that it is considering the place of religion and belief in schools, that is, in one of the major public arenas in this country. This feels like a much broader - and more political - thing than merely discussing SMSC, RE and admissions policies. Just a thought...

Anyway, those are my thoughts - let me know what you think!