Battle for Ideas 2016: Battle for Education - Religious Education in a Secular Age

Religious Education in a Secular Age

Sunday 23rd October 2016

12-1pm - Frobisher Auditorium 2

<Session>

<Speaker Profile>

It was a privilege to be invited to speak on a panel about RE at my first Battle of Ideas hosted by the Institute of Ideas. Here I share my opening remarks in full, I deviated slightly, but not by much. I will also include my responses to some of the questions and comments as best as I can recall. There will be a video eventually...

"Schools are at the forefront of negotiating the place of religion in society today" This is going to be a sizzler! #battleofideas Frob aud2 pic.twitter.com/85X4CjqqMj

— Gareth Sturdy (@stickyphysics) October 23, 2016

Opening remarks:

Firstly I would like to make it clear that I think there are several potential different debates here - and it is not unusual for people to try and mix them all into one. There is one on the place of RE and a separate one on collective worship. There is also a perhaps complex, legal debate about the place of RE as part of the 1988 Education Act, alongside the GCSE and A-Level subject of Religious Studies. Finally, the place of faith schools also often gets involved.

As an RE teacher, straight out of the classroom and on half term, I am going to focus on some of the practical issues surrounding the study of the subject in schools in England at this very moment in time.

We do not have a clear or shared purpose in RE. Some would say it is as simple as teaching about religion and beliefs, a phenomenological approach as it is sometimes labelled. They feel that this academic, objective approach is likely to be most successful in meeting its wider aims. However, there is an increasing move towards a more sociological approach. Personally, I feel this has a place as part of a much wider study, but we do not simply want to simply give our students of a ‘religious landscape of 2016’. Finally there is a call for students to be ‘more religiously literate’ - yet we are not entirely clear on what this means just yet.

This confusion of purpose is clear in the wide and varying names people have tried to give the subject in their school's: Philosophy and Ethics, Social and Cultural Studies, Beliefs and Values, and my favourite Cultural, Religion and Philosophy - or CRAP for short.

History and Geography do not have this problem. If anything, like Business, we simply need to encourage parity by dropping the Studies or Education and just be Religion. We also don’t need to focus on the students and their beliefs. The strength of Geography is that they study things beyond their local area, and History focuses on far more than just things students can immediately relate to.

For me, part of the problem lies in the colonisation of PHSE, Citizenship, the Community Cohesion agenda, SMSC, British Values, Sex and Relationship Education and even Prevent by RE departments. In the desperate desire for curriculum time and status, RE has watered itself down into some hybrid, confused subject.

RE teachers have tried to rebrand to make their subject sound more relevant and engaging; personally I feel this has been damaging. Some full on hoodwink their students - I have heard of students believing they had the wrong certificates on A-Level results day as their qualifications said Religious Studies not Philosophy and Ethics.

These names are no longer usable. GCSEs require the study of two religions and A-Level one religion or New Testament studies. Some people are upset. It is the job of the teacher to make whatever content they are teaching relevant and engaging. By this I mean, accessible, challenging and with clear purpose not fun and games, and linking to other topics and other subject, not ‘down with the kids’.

The new GCSEs have forced RE teachers to teach more religion. The first unit for many has included the Trinity, Creation, Imago Dei, the Paschal Mystery, eschatology… and this has divided the RE community. Some claim this has destroyed the subject, making it dull and irrelevant to students. Others have celebrated as they are able to really do some actual study of religion, some theology, some proper critical analysis. I have heard of one teacher who has abandoned this section on beliefs and teachings to skip to the ethics to get students on board. How are they going to go back? And what value is the ethics without something to underpin it? It will be just student opinion. Sadly, there is a real knowledge deficit in many departments, especially those with non-specialist teachers.

The EBacc has been hugely damaging to RS, it does not enjoy the same status of its humanities counterparts, despite being in the ‘3rd bucket’. As such, students have often been expected to get through the course in half the time of other GCSE subjects. With the old courses this was possible, but now near impossible. Headteachers often don’t understand the legal status of RE, and the relationship with RS, nor the new qualifications.

We are in a period of unprecedented change in RE - driven primarily by the new GCSE and A-Level. I firmly believe we need to teach students more, not less religion, and the fact we may or may not live in a more secular society is somewhat irrelevant. If anything, we should be desperately trying to teach our students as much as we can about religion as it still holds a huge cultural value, and is vital in the understanding of a significant percentage of the global population.

The 2011 census tells us only 25% of the UK population have ‘no religion’, while the global figure is said to be around 15%. It is absolutely right we teach about these non-religious beliefs in schools, but long before the BHA forced a change in law, this was happening in most schools. A 14 year old will be very quick to point out that they don’t believe in what you are teaching about, usually by saying “I’m not becoming a priest, what’s the point in this?”

Interestingly, it is often experts on religion who argue we need less teaching of religion in schools. It’s like they want to keep that cultural capital to themselves. I think that would be very damaging to the young people I see every day in my classroom.

Religious Education in a Secular Age: Alex Standish kicks off this #battleofideas debate https://t.co/wk7HKBM9ki #re #education #religion pic.twitter.com/wFCPOzpuy6

— Harley Richardson (@harleyrich) October 23, 2016

Responses:

To the question about the inclusion of humanism:

• As someone who has worked hard to include Non-Religious World Views in my new GCSE textbook, I think it is important to make the distinction between humanism and secular humanism. Much of the study of secular humanism involves science, literary etc (as demonstrated by the proposed GCSE annex) which could potentially further confuse the content of RE. It is impossible to cover religion without reference to NRWV, and the content is still relatively new to some curriculum. It will be interesting to see how the study of NRWV grows and gets incorporated into RE curriculum, but for me the primary aim is still to teach about religion and religious beliefs.

To the question about the abolition of RE:

• In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins outlines 129 biblical phrases that English speakers may use and not realise their provenance. They include: the salt of the earth; go the extra mile; I wash my hands of it; filthy lucre; through a glass darkly; wolf in sheep’s clothing; hide your light under a bushel; no peace for the wicked; how are the mighty fallen (See <here>). Everyone in the room has an interest in religion through some kind of RE, to deprive future generations of this would be to give ourselves an educational and cultural privilege.

To the question about the image of RE:

• Things will not change overnight. Teachers need to be delivering great lessons, and then our students will do the PR themselves. They will go home and tell their parents how great and interesting RE is.

To the question about development of western culture and the study of the Abrahamic religions:

• Firstly, I don't think there should be absolute privilege for Abrahamic religions, and the suggestion that there is little space for eastern religions is wrong; there needs to be some balance. To the suggestion that Islam has contributed nothing to western culture, you are wrong - I'm glad you recognised your prejudices.

To the question about getting teachers of faith to teach each religion:

• We don't have enough teachers, and certainly not enough RE teachers. Let's sort that out first! I am still not sure that people of the faith are desirable or necessary to teach their own faith. Faith speakers can be invaluable and this is the role of SACREs in my mind.

To the question about renaming RE:

• This debate is a total red herring until we have sorted the aims and purposes.

To the question about the narrow curriculum of faith schools:

• There was insufficient time for this, but in short, with more than double the curriculum time, many Catholic schools actually spend more time on different faiths to other schools. Obviously the aims of RE do differ, and I still believe that RE in the Catholic school can be confessional, yet academic, rigorous and critical. 

Thanks again for the invite. See you again soon...

Great day at @instofideas #battleofideas at @BarbicanCentre today. Will blog my talk later... pic.twitter.com/PGV7MOsFYj

— Andy Lewis (@AndyLewis_RE) October 23, 2016

The Purpose of Catholic RE: #AmIBothered? RE Conference 18/6/16

I spoken on a panel about the purpose of RE at the "Am I Bothered?" RE conference. I shared something on what I believe the purpose of Catholic RE may be - it was deliberately provocative and resulted in various conversations during the day. I broadcast my contribution via Periscope:

Many, both Catholics and non-Catholics, presume that the core purpose of Religious Education in the Catholic school is either to bring unbelievers to the faith or to grow the faith of the baptised. Sometimes it is referred to a form of indoctrination, with the negative connotations that come with that term.

Good RE in the Catholic school can function as both evangelization and catechesis. This will largely depend on the state of those receiving the education, and it is important to note that neither of those aims are properly educational. Nor do we proselytise in RE; we are not trying claim the non-believer.

Whilst the whole school functions as a catechetical community, the purpose of RE within that community is to ensure that every pupil has a good knowledge, understanding and critical engagement with Catholicism, irrespective of their faith.

Many, both within the Church and outside of it, see RE as a form of moral education; an increased study of ethics is rooted in this. However moral formation is part of the whole school and curriculum. Many schools are talking about a need for “character education” and many are attempting to teach RE in a way that it becomes a religious version of good citizenship. But, as Paul Barber of the CES said: what others are calling “character education” is what Catholic schools have always simply called “education”.

RE may also be a catalyst for community cohesion; good RE leads to greater understanding of other religions and therefore to greater respect for those of other faiths. It may be an outcome, but it should not be an aim. Being respectful of difference and expressing difference in a way which is sensitive to the rights of others, is not a skill which is exclusive to RE.

The Catholic community are not immune from the debates surrounding breadth versus depth; one religion or many; religious studies from the outside versus religious education from the inside; theology versus sociology.

Is it as simple as RE improving religious literacy? This is the most commonly cited purpose recently, yet the term remains fiercely contested. Are we simply moving the question further down the road. What does it mean to be a religiously literate person? Knowledge, understanding of religious belief and commitment, respect for difference and acknowledgement of the important place religion plays in the lives of individuals and communities, as well as a critical engagement, and a thorough understanding of the religious or non-religious beliefs of the student.

Studying “The Big 6” of RS, in a “non-confessional” way, provides a set of beliefs and practices of others. This may lead to an assumption that all religions are basically the same and that the differences between them are cultural rather than substantive. Some call this an agnostic privilege; the study certainly appears as a form of anthropology, rather than delivering anything theological.

The ‘depth over breadth’ argument is often cited in RE. I recall Claire Fox telling me she thought her Catholic education served her well as at least she knew one religion really well! This is why many Catholic schools are happy to refer to RE as a study of theology. There is much depth to the rich intellectual heritage of the Catholic theological tradition.

For some, RE should be evolving to become a sociology of religion, asking questions about what religion itself is and analyzing the divergence within traditions and the interplay between politics, culture and religion – this is often called a study of the “real religious landscape”. This aims to detach the Church and other religions from the RE taking place, which some may claim is preferable.

Catholics have a distinctive vision of education, but we are not alone in our passion for educating. The wider world of RE in 2016 poses both challenges and opportunities. Catholic RE teachers are engaging now more than ever. We may not agree, but there is common ground. I finish with a quote from a friend and fellow Catholic educator: “We want to make sure that when the meal is served we have our seat at the table, even if we reserve the right to select our meal from the a la carte menu while everyone else has the dish of the day.”

• Many thanks to Philip Robinson for his help and guidance with this. 
• Image courtesy of Jane Chipperton 

Porta Fidei: Challenges at the Chalkface

Image courtesy of <here>

I was privileged to be invited by Michael Merrick to present a paper at Porta Fidei in Carlisle on Saturday 27th June 2015:

An academic conference exploring the ambitions, obligations, challenges and obstacles facing faith schools in the United Kingdom. It shall consist of two keynote papers and four seminar sessions, seeking to generate honest discussion and debate in an atmosphere of collegiality and friendship.

We have a variety of speakers - from academia and school leaders, to teachers to public policy experts - presenting papers on themes as diverse as the formation of Catholic teachers, the challenge of secular liberalism to faith schooling, the 'Catholic curriculum', and the challenge of teaching RE in a post-Christian, pluralist society. The day will include two keynote papers and four seminar sessions, entitled: 'What Makes a Catholic School Catholic?', 'Faith and Leadership', 'Challenges at the Chalkface' and 'If Not This, What? Alternative Models of Catholic Education.'

The event is organised in association with the Diocese of Lancaster Education Service. <link>

I spoke about some of the challenges of being a Catholic RE teacher:

Seminar 3 – Challenges from the Chalkface

• Chair: Canon Luiz Ruscillo
• Andy Lewis – ‘Religious Literacy and the Purpose of RE’
• Charlotte Vardy – ‘Are the Curriculum Reforms Good for Catholic RE?' 
• Fr John Millar – ‘The Challenges of Chaplaincy’

Download my paper notes <here>

Podcast (no idea of quality!) <here>

Conference notes LIVE SCRIBED <here>

An Essex Boy in Yorkshire [NRocks 2015 - Part 2]

Here is Part 2 of my write up and reflection (after lunch)... see Part 1 <here>

David Cameron

The REAL David Cameron, not the Number 10 one, who focused on education tourism - and a lot more besides! 

He began by recognising what a tough job we have and reminding us that we will be played... particularly by politicians. David also highlight the fact that teachers are driven by fear, constantly wondering, what will happen next in my classroom? 

There was many name checks of the Twitter/Blogger-sphere including Alex Quigley's 'teaching plateaus that featured recently in the Guardian (see <here>) and Debra Kidd's book where she says, "it is pedagogical activism that will be the butterfly of change.". David then pointed out with conferences such as NRocks that people are not compelled by status to come, they are here because they hope to learn and want to find something to put into practice - and there should be great comfort that many teachers still want to do that. 

He said that if we do not believe in change, then it will not happen. There is much to try and imitate, but adoption doesn't work; it doesn't take things to the heart. 

David cited David Starky's experience in the classroom (see <here>) where we say a world class historian unable to control a class, and unable to teach. Adoption leads to transient movement forward... take the free schools in Sweden - "That's what we need!" said the UK Government - but the OECD report has just declared it a "basket case, failing system". The great marketisation of schools has lead to complete disruption, but we're still sticking with it.

In one of many fun anecdotes, David said that people saying "work smarter" is a valid place for violence in education... it's basically saying, "you are working pretty stupid right now!". A very valid point, it is deeply unhelpful as a remark. He also cited David Brailsford and his marginal gains theory, often used by schools... is it really fair to compare an Olympic cycling team to a school? Is this a good analogy? Personally I have always thought that there is some value in it, but you don't co

me to a conference to nod along to everything.

It was then time for data. Schools have an obsession to get it right for the school, not the child. The idea that teacher can do everything is the very reason that teachers are being burnt out. He cited many examples of how agencies need to pull together and work together for the child.

An interesting comment he made was about 'the club'. We, as teachers, are in the club; we have knowledge. We need to give our children the knowledge so they can join the club. This is the way things work. However, should we not be challenging the rules of the club to let others in? This confused me. I don't know what the club would involve it wasn't the rules as they are... so anyone can get in? Or are we trying to say that knowledge isn't the key to great freedom and choice?

He concluded by saying we are not going to find the answers to our problems in Taiwan or Sweden. We only every talk about adding to teachers workload instead of taking things away... what we need to do with the spinning plates is work out which are Wedgwood and which are Ikea! Which lead to a rousing finale of David shouting about us taking control as the Clash played...

Follow David on Twitter <here>

John Tomsett

It is always a pleasure to hear John speak; he is also one of those who appears to cross the traditional / progressive divide being asked to speak at pretty much every conference going! His blog is always an honest joy to read (see <here>) and he is insightful on Twitter (see <here>)... can't wait to read his book!

The reason I was so keen on this, is that I wanted to see John's meta-cognition ideas in practice. I've been working hard on this, this year and having read a blog back in April, I thought to myself... I do that, I think... (see <here>). For A-Level Philosophy, I simply deconstruct the questions; I underline, highlight, annotate, in front of the students so they know my thinking in approaching a question. I was glad I was no alone! 

John explained how with his Physics class, he knew that they knew the material but couldn't understand why they got such poor marks. He started to look to meta-cognition (the posh word for how your brain works), looking at how it reacts to pressure and what happens when we don't know what to do. So rarely do we train up our brains for exams!

He bought an Ipevo visualiser, gave them another copy of the mock paper and spent time going through questions explaining his own thought process. They annotated as he did. 

John then gave out a third exam paper. Nearly all students went up 3 or 4 grades with no new teaching of content.

We then tackled Hannah and her sweets together! It worked and I am glad my Ipevo arrives next week so I can start looking at other ways to help students with this technique.

The second half of the session included various other nuggets of wisdom from John, based on ideas found in his book: "This Much I Know About Love Over Fear ... Creating A Culture For Truly Great Teaching" (see <here>). He spoke about how school leaders must drive out fear; fear debilitates. We also need to teach students to avoid fear. John spoke about why this must be the reason to take away graded lesson observations for a start. Teachers should not fear the students in their class not getting the right answer... after all they shouldn't be doing easy tasks! He also refered to Rita Pierson's TED talk about being the champion for our students (see <here>)

He ended by highlighting the fact our students are living in a perfect storm. There are cuts to CAMHS and other mental health providers, we have cliff-edge judgements, terminal examinations, harder exams and social media that leaves no down time. 

We ended this time with Joe Strummer... 

Again, it's worth checking out John's blog on his session <here>

Closing

After this there was heated discussion between Mary Bousted of ATL and Sean Hartford from Ofsted about the inspection future.

Then music and silliness. Then the pub... see more <here>

All in all, well worth a weekend in Leeds!

An Essex Boy in Yorkshire [NRocks 2015 - Part 1]

Northern Rocks was many things for me. It was CPD, it was reflection, it was a chance to network, and a time to socialise with friends. I've already written a short post about how great it was to be part of Staffrm on tour and the SLTCamp reunion! Read it <here>

This blog focuses more on the CPD, including some vital reflection. It's probably got an RE and pastoral leadership slant.

Martin Robinson says in Trivium 21c, “Schools need... a culture that is at once traditionalist and progressive”. I was reminded of this as I arrived and was told, "this is pretty left of middle and progressive" (I would probably have known, had I had time to study the programme in advance!). I didn't know if this troubled me or not, as I often find myself drifting towards the traditional and right of centre as I hit 10 years in the job. I become obsessed with students learning stuff, and writing essays, and reading. However I am also a Head of Year and I know that actually to facilitate that, you sometimes need to step outside of the traditional approach to 'make things work' in a specific context.

The opening debate featured discussion on the Ebacc, teacher retention and government rhetoric adn testing. A few things, and reflections, that stick out in my mind:

• There is not enough pressure promoting the importance of arts: government, parents, universities, students themselves... are the arts actually important? (I believe yes, so why are we not doing anything?)
• School leaders are not currently doing enough to protect the arts, they can be rebels!
• Why are there so few teachers willing to run extra curricular activities than enrich the lives of students, sharing their own passions and interests? (Workload is the simple, and probably correct answer)
• In an increasing 'evidence based' culture, can we evidence the arts and the effects of arts education?
• Should a basic curriculum not include art, drama, gardening, cooking, sport, outside learning... and documenting this would include lots of opportunities for reading, writing and maths? Personally despite the noble content, I'm not sure I could cope with such a curriculum!
• Teacher recruitment is linked to the economy and as the economy does up, teachers go down... the labour market is what it is. I can't help feel, government rhetoric doesn't really help though!
• Teachers are made of tough stuff, if you couldn't cope with Gove, you'll never cope with Y9! Totally agree with this from Laura McInerney.
• The fragmentation of training routes is confusing and not helpful to graduates. Most teachers couldn't tell someone who wanted to become a teacher how to become a teacher, let along the 'best' way!
• What do teachers want more of, time or money? (Or both?)
• Andy Knill made a very valid point of valuing teachers aged over 50.
• Marking... became a key theme of the day. Triple impact marking got an absolute slating time and time again as not the best use of teachers time. An example was cited of teachers spending lots of time taking photos of practical lessons to keep them as evidence. For who?
• School leaders are key to workload and need to be clear on what Ofsted want (and don't want) and ensure it is communicated to staff. 

Stephen Tierney 

"We are going to collaboratively plan what we want to teach, teach it as well as we possibly can and then find out what worked and what didn’t.  It’s our new master plan." 

I had been keen to hear Stephen speak as he produce's a lot of really useful resources that he shares via Twitter and his blog (<here> and <here>).

He started off challenging us all to picture great teaching. I admit that it is not a clear vision that I have made explicit to myself, like many, and this is perhaps a worry when you are leading, observing, supporting and challenging. He is Stephen's vision:

He asked some pertinent questions about planning... always ask why you are doing something in a lesson? "Where is the learning?" He reminded us about the best ways to assess and how that should be our start point and work back. Architects ask, "How do we want to live?" rather than "How do you want the concrete poured into the foundations?" Plan learning and cut out the nonsense... are you simply tacking in some resource you found? If you don't know why it is there, take it out.

Stephen also reminded us about the authority leaders have: you dictate how people spend their time in school, what classes they teach, what meetings they attend (reminding me of the Billy Bragg line, "no power without accountability" - and how schools need self-reflection over the 'workload crisis'). He also said that for too long in his career, meetings had too many apologies... if you are simply relaying information, surely there is a better way to do things rather than replicating meetings down a chain of command? he suggested that meetings should be focused on talking about your subject and how to teach it better.

As a leader, you do not want someone doing a great job, and someone doing a useless job, when had you planned it together, they would have both been doing a good job. Learning and teaching is complex and should usually be a team-based decision making process. Too often we use teams for simple decisions and discussions, wasting expertise.

A real interesting piece of information share was that the majority of students get to the right place, by the wrong route... raising lots of questions about post-level assessments, trajectories and flight paths:

Stephen then concluded asking about how well we know 'our people'. Do we know our team / staff's interests, skills and needs? He explained how his schools use a GoogleForm to pair staff up for coaching and mentoring. He also said it is a really high priority to do all that he can to keep good staff, and develop them, as they are what really make the good school.

We were left with some questions as leaders:

• How will you seek to build quality into every child’s learning experience?
• How will you use assessment to support teaching & learning?
• How will you develop teachers (and keep on developing them) to be the best they can be?

For me, the most powerful thing that came from listening to Stephen is that he has really considered the vision that he wants for his students, staff and schools. There appears a great coherence and lots of joined up thinking... observations, planning, appraisal, CPD, teaching... all are part of this. 

I strongly urge you to have a read of Stephen's presentation in full <here>

Hywel Roberts

It is always pleasing when someone who works as education consultant reminds the audience that there are no magic beans! Sadly for too long there have been those who have tried to sell a solution to a school that will solve all things... thankfully Hywel is different, and in many ways more than that! 

He session was slightly controversially named, "Lessons Worth Behaving For", which promoted one or two sat at home on Twitter to make the assumption that Hywel was saying there are also some lessons NOT worth behaving for. This was not the case at all. 

Hywel explained that we have to take some responsibility in setting the tone for our classrooms; we know how kids behave in certain areas and spaces and need to be proactive in our approach. He then went on to talk about hooks... and how staff need a set of experience and skills up their sleeve. It did worry me that we were getting into the 'relevant and engaging' discussion; whereby too many teachers have a potentially dangerous idea of that this. 

However Hywel looked at some ideas to do with studying the Egyptians and then went on to explain how teachers need to be the 'Sherpas of the curriculum' creating deliberate engagement by being organised, meeting and greeting students, welcoming them to the classroom with warmth and intimacy. 

There was some important discussion about survival. I think he is right to say, particularly in secondary, we get obsessed with coverage and travel through the specification for GCSEs. He made a reference to Jaws and the 3 characters who had 3 different views: "We've always done it like this", "We need to do things differently" and "Can we just get it done?".... Too often, we are the goats on the roof simply trying to survive:

(and the goat on the left is doing a learning walk!)

The final thought was this, we need to make children obsessive about their learning, They may leave saying, "Please can we do it again?"... or for a Y9 they may say, "It was alright."!

Overall, a really entertaining session that did make me keep thinking about relevance and engagement, despite quite a few nods to primary teaching, this was well-worth attending.

Follow Hywel on Twitter <here>

Part 2 to come!

Curriculum & Controversy: RE

I have the absolute privilege to be leading a session at this forthcoming conference:

A learning symposium about teaching RE in the current educational climate and networking opportunity for teachers of RE - open to all teachers (not just Teach First trained teachers)

My session will be the Future of RE. Much of my thinking on this will come from a Culham St Gabriel's Thinking Day. There is a lot on Twitter if you follow the #rethinkRE tag <here>.

The RE Thinking Days: #rethinkRE

Day 1 in March 2015, featured a lot of discussion, sharing of ideas... and arguing! It was clear there would be no clear agreement or consensus from the RE community. Our final task of the conference was to try and write a prospective OFSTED subject report for 2020, giving a broad overview of what was good and what needed further attention. At the end of the day our notes were all collected and two reports created. I quote Neil McKain's summaries:

• Report A argued for a core National Curriculum document providing clear guidance as to the key/core knowledge all students in all kinds of schools should be expected to know from KS1- KS3. The annexes for the new GCSE and A Level specs have already set out the knowledge required for KS4/5.
• Report B argued against a national curriculum and wished to reform and improve the current local determination.

This highlights just one of the key divisions in current thinking. Some of the key areas of thinking were the following and I will be exploring these further in my session:

• The Purpose of RE
• SACRE/LAS vs a core or national curriculum (and the problems this potentially creates)
• RE vs SMSC/British Values/Community Cohesion
• Primary vs Secondary
• Knowledge vs Skills 

Neil McKain has written a blog post for RE:Online about our groups discussion on Day 2 and it is a worth while read in it's entirety <here>.

Book your FREE tickets <here>