RE Online has been posting many blogs by various RE experts about the Commission on RE report which are worth a read (see here). They currently cover mainly recommendations 1 to 3, but perhaps may continue to cover all in time. Here are some of my own thoughts formulated over the last few months...
Damian Hinds' response to the Commission on RE (here) was that now is not the time for curriculum change, as he actively tries to reduce teacher workload. A noble aim, and one RE teachers still struggling with new GCSEs and A Levels presumably appreciate in many ways.
Yet this is clearly and quite starkly contrasted by the regular stories of RE dropping off the curriculum unchallenged in many schools - for those who care deeply about RE, even one child being deprived of the subject is unacceptable. There is a clear moral imperative to do something, as many including Mark Chater have stated, we cannot stand by and just do nothing. The report explains a number of reasons why this is urgent.
Some have been quite critical of people like myself commenting on the CoRE report, saying that as someone who works in the Catholic sector, these wider challenges are not something you have to contend with ("With your big budgets and protected curriculum time..."). Yet I think they perhaps do not realise the commitment that people like myself are willing to dedicate to wider RE issues. As someone who has supported a number of non-Catholic schools and worked with organisations such as Teach First, Westminster Briefings and indeed Culham St Gabriel's, this seems quickly forgotten - I even organised the two London RE Hub conferences! I share in the wider desire for better RE, whether students are in a Catholic school or not.
Many of the Catholic responses so far, official or not, have focused on the concern of Bishops authority over the RE curriculum. It is worth considering why this is so important - and what it means. I reshare the Catholic Church's position, as outlined in a chapter I wrote for the new book, "We Need to Talk About RE" (see <here>). This was written before the National Entitlement was published, but the last line is a pertinent one:
If CoRE were to recommend a common baseline entitlement for all schools, including schools with a religious character, then it is very likely that the RE curricula of Catholic schools would already be in compliance with it. But since one of the conditions of the partnership between Church and state is the right of the bishops to set the curriculum in Catholic schools, then any statutory imposition of just such a common baseline is potentially highly problematic. Of course, given what has already be said, this will only be a problem in principle, not in practice. Nonetheless the principle is a fundamental one and a non-negotiable one for the Catholic Church in England. It is hoped that a way forward can be found that ensures outstanding Religious Education for all without backing the Bishops into a corner where they have no other option but to oppose something that, in every detail but one, they would otherwise welcome and support.
Why are the Bishops willing to stand their ground on this? It is important to consider what makes a school Catholic. This my own view - there are 3 key things, but they are not equal: Catholic leaders, distinct RE and Catholic students - these then lead to the ethos and community. Admissions policies have been actively challenged for many years, and now potentially RE is now being focused on. One suggestion is that Catholic schools simply have "RE" and then additional "Catholic RE" - yet RE is the enterprise of the whole Catholic school and not just a timetabled lesson; quite simply it is impossible to separate the two. It is also worth remembering the history of the Catholic Church and the state in this country, plus the contribution of the Church to education in this country - do we retain anything distinct if we can no longer ensure these 3 things?
To force schools of religious character to conform to the NE would create unnecessary difficulty - it is clear that they would look to this curriculum and use it - but we have to ask whether our primary aim is a correctional one or is it the urgent need to raise standards where they are needed the most? I'd like to hope the latter (despite some wanting to do battle with the CES and Board of Deputies!).
----------------
So what next? For me, as I have suggested previously (here), the time is now - we need to start looking at the next step. The Commission proposed a 3 year timetable, but it may be more like 5. Yet with the resources and finances available, we should be able to utilise the expertise in the world of RE to create a truly exceptional RE curriculum - with enough flexibility to work in different contexts and to aim for some consensus. I was doing some work at the DfE recently, and when discussing this, some said, "Surely there is enough of a consensus to establish what a KS3 student needs to know about Islam? Is it as controversial as you seem to make it?"
However, it is worth noting the caution of such a project. Why were the 2013 frameworks not a success? Have the general aims and purposes of RE found some common ground and consensus in the National Entitlement, but would the curriculum content debate result in irreconcilable difference of opinion? Will the ideas of a 'knowledge-rich' curriculum be reviewed in the future as the fad of 2018/9? What would a curriculum look like, and to what extent would it be resourced - to the level of schemes of work, PowerPoints and textbooks?
"With teachers at peak workload, SACREs losing touch with their local area, widespread fragmentation caused by new school types and the sharp decline in local RE advisers able to pull various strings together, this does seem like a timely innovation. All over the country advisers, SACREs and Trusts are reinventing the wheel; a colossal expenditure of energy that could surely be put to a better, or more streamlined, use." Kate Christopher
In her blog, Kate goes on to give two examples - the RE Today model syllabuses and Understanding Christianity. These do give excellent, coherent curriculum that is well thought out by experts - but at a cost. For me the real hope of the National Entitlement is to quite literally 'Save RE' in the places where it most needs saving; we need some kind of safety net when schools are claiming their 'skills day' is their RE. The proposed statement of entitlement while noble and very useful on a theoretical and perhaps legalistic level, is not going to land on the desk of a headteacher who doesn't value you RE and grab the attention of him or her.
I do add a caveat that expertise should be financially rewarded - and as a textbook writer people often feel the need to point out that I am "profiteering" from schools (check out the life of a textbook writer here). If people are putting in their time and effort, especially as full time teachers, they should receive remuneration. The culture of free things can hinder the very best ideas coming to fruition. Let's hope the DfE or one of the charitable foundations in the RE world can help.
It's hopeful that if pitched correctly, the DfE will be open to this type of proposal after their approval of a Music model curriculum (here), which is still to be finalised, but presumably under development as a workload reducing time-saver for schools and music teachers.
It would be prudent to look at what is different about this, in contrast to the Commission report. Music is certainly a contested subject with the various different organisations involved trying to pitch their particular area: composing, performance, music tech etc. Although obviously it is arguably not as political! To me, the difference is that for Music there is not an entitlement statement, but a ready to go curriculum that schools can utilise where they are struggling for resources and expertise. Obviously, as an RE community we would not have a successful proposed curriculum without the excellent research conducted by the Commissioners in trying to find some acceptable middle ground and consensus.
There is a part of me that likes the idea of the Annex that was produced for GCSE (see here). It gave an overview of what needed to be covered in exam specs. Yet I do not like the way that everything is framed around Christianity, and as a result is artificial in some structures for other religions. Would it be useful to have such a document for KS1-3?
A further interesting development on this idea of curriculum is the Ofsted focus groups (here) which have not gone via subject organisations. They have invited largely full time teachers very much living out curriculum and curriculum change, many of which have demonstrated their expertise via blogs, Twitter and speaking at conferences. I feel there is some real value in this. It is not the Govian "we have had enough of experts", but actually those in the classroom do have a real expertise, just maybe a different one to those working as consultants, advisers, commercial enterprises and at universities. Everyone has something to offer.
The recommendation (3b) suggests a "maximum of nine professionals, including serving teachers" to devise the curriculum. However, as previously discussed, ED Hirsch has used 150-200 people to some of his events, representing all stakeholders (see here). Would it help reach consensus using new and different voices in the RE world?
I am excited about what this is going to look like. It's got huge potential.
Read my overview of the 11 Recommendations here.
- The final report is available to download here: Final Report of the Commission on RE
- An executive summary is available here: Final Report (Exec Summary) of the Commission on RE
No comments:
Post a Comment