Core Knowledge: The Catholic 100

Until I sit down with a few of my fellow Catholic educators and write the Canon of Catholic RE (or even a whole school curriculum), we are working hard in my school to right wrongs about what our students do and don’t know. 

For a year, with a lot of debate and discussion, I have worked on a list of 100 words that I wanted all of Year 7 to know. There are 75 essentials, and 25 advanced words. 

100 Key Words for RE

With a little hesitation about how people would perceive the task (“How does this get them excited about RE in secondary school?”), I included my task in the transition booklet alongside English, Maths and Science. Actually most people seemed to think it was a great idea!

For each word, students had to self evaluate:

• I recognise this word
• I understand this word
• I can accurately use this word in a sentence

They then had to write, 'My own definition'. This was just one sentence, of original material, that needed to fit in a concise box. 

The expectation was that each student would have at least 75 definitions at the start of Year 7 that they could refer to, learn and be tested on. They would feel more confident about RE, and we'd be able to move faster in lessons.

However, the main aim was to close the gap that exists in Year 7 in a Catholic school. We have some devout families who would be fluent in this vocabulary (and therefore knowledge), while others will join from non-Catholic schools, and be from non-Catholic, perhaps non-Christian families. It is important to recognise the bewilderment a young Hindu, Muslim or Skih has when the teacher starts talking about the Creed, praying the Rosary, attending Mass and celebrating the Sacraments.

Additionally, the religious vocabulary (religious literacy some would suggest) does not link to other data. Scaled scores and SATS results mean little; a student in our higher sets could be struggling in RE, while one in a set with less able students may excel in RE. It’s why our department data sometimes looks odd. 

We then decided that actually, we have put a lot of work into this, and we do need to ensure all students in Key Stage 3 have this vocabulary. As such, all students in Key Stage 3 now have their booklet and Year 8 and 9 will be completing over the next few weeks.

The students seem to really like it. We’ve had a lot of positive comments, and they really see the value of it. Many are excited about it - especially about mastering the advanced words! 

We will be testing these words at least weekly. 5 a week... and I’ve agreed 4/5 as the pass mark for Year 9. This can't just be a task, it has to end up as a long term learning exercise. 

Students really do enjoy knowing things and learning things, and improving their vocabulary, regardless of their  own faith position or background, is vital. It may be we look at having different lists / booklets for them to work on in different year groups. GCSE already have their own... 

The list is always up for review, even after a year of reviewing, so keep suggestions for improvements and modifications coming in... 

Image courtesy of Spokane Favs

CoRE: Interim Report (2) - Building a Knowledge Curriculum

Recently, I wrote a first response to the Commission on RE Interim Report (see <here>). My final paragraph was this:

I would love to see the Commissioners sit down, with all their expertise, experience, knowledge and understanding of religion and belief, and set out a knowledge based curriculum, that teachers then help develop into Key Stage standards of attainment. I honestly think this is the best thing we could do for the students in our care. 

I have also written about ED Hirsch before in a series of blogs (see <here>), and it seemed like perfect timing when a video appeared online of him discussing how to develop a list of core knowledge. This is what I believe the RE community needs to do.

Hirsch begins by explaining that within society, there exists a cultural, competency and language gap - and that if this is not addressed, it is reinforced through the education system. This is true in RE, evidenced frequently in the media - many people simply do not posses even basic religious knowledge. 

In many of Hirsch's books, he sets out lists of knowledge that need to be learnt at different ages. He explains in these books that an initial list was created, studying current culture and trends - what do students need to know to engage with the culture that surrounds them? These books were created in the 1980's, but have since been reviewed. Hirsch acknowledged that the knowledge required for 'cultural literacy' does change.

In this video, he explains further how a consensus was found. His initial, researched, lists were then taken to conferences of between 150 and 200 teachers and other involved in education. The delegates were then able to allocate knowledge to different age groups, and (perhaps crucially) substitute content if they felt it was appropriate to do so. The delegates needed to feel fully engaged with the process. It was also important to have the antagonists involved in this process, Hirsch makes clear. 

He explains that it was important people realised there was no "political axe to grind", and he said people did so quite quickly. It is natural for people to want to equalise educational opportunity... everyone believes in this, but this was an attempt to actually do something in a concerted way. People bought in.

One interesting thing that he makes clear is that he wanted to focus his knowledge based curriculum in elementary (primary) schools. Students can then arrive in high (secondary) school, with a vast amount of knowledge and 'cultural literacy'. Imagine the possibilities. 

Implications for RE / CoRE

Someone has got to start this job off. Someone, or a group of people, need to come up with a body of knowledge that they believe is useful in RE, matched to different Key Stage or year group expectations.

This may well include provisional knowledge, which we know is an over simplification (but appropriate for certain age groups), it might include contested knowledge, it might not include everything we would ideally want for a 'religiously literate' person. Some religious people may not fully agree with what is included about their faith, those with particular interests such as history, religion and art, sociology, philosophy etc may not get everything they feel should be included. I think that's okay.

I quite like the subject content document that the DfE published for the new Religious Studies GCSEs (see <here>). It was initially published, put out for consultation, and refined. It may not be perfect, but it is the closest we have to a list of core knowledge for RE.

------

Huge thanks to Laura McInerney‏ for asking the question; I hope the Commission take on board this idea for the RE community.

Watch the video (8 mins) here: http://developingexperts.com/cpds/12

CoRE Interim Report: My Response

In February, I presented some evidence to initial evidence gathering session for the CoRE (see <here>). In October 2017, they published an interim report, with a call for further evidence. I strongly urge RE teachers to take the time to read, reflect and respond to this (read the report and find the link to the questionnaire <here>). It feels like an opportunity for change, but one that may be missed. This is a personal response. 

The first question is about the introduction of a national entitlement statement. While I broadly agree in principle, this may be another name for a National Curriculum, and would certainly strengthen RE in areas of weakness, help alleviate inconsistencies and improve the subject's status, the implementation of this needs careful consideration. Some Free Schools and Academies have already put in place great RE curriculum - perhaps it is worth looking at them (and crucially their content... more of this later) before imposing such a statement? If we don't use good models of RE already in place, we have no hope of driving improvement.

Faith schools are more problematic. The Catholic Church's position is very clear, as outlined in a chapter I wrote for the new book, "We Need to Talk About RE" (see <here>):

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.

Therefore, such a NES, cannot be universally imposed. Some critics of faith-based education will highlight the issue with this and see it as a reason to try and eradicate the 'two-school system', but I feel to do so forgets the positive contribution that faith schools often to make to RE, especially for their students. I urge you read the full chapter, to understand the history, it's complexities and nuances.  

The questionnaire then outlines the proposed NES. For me, it remains problematic, open to interpretation, and seeking to please the sociological approach which seems to have become dominant in many RE debates (a focus on 'reality of belief', the 'religious landscape' etc). It also does little to eradicate the influence of PSHE, citizenship or sex education in RE. We cannot plan RE around 'what some people believe, or don't, in 2017'. For example, the Bible has been here for ~2000 years and had huge influence on our culture, history, art, literature etc. I think this needs to be central to any RE curriculum. 

The part of the initial response from the CoRE that is missing for me, is any kind of discussion about knowledge - what do students need to know? An attempt at this would be the single most important thing the commission could do. 

We actually have a start point with the GCSE Annex (see <here>).  It is worth being clear, this is not perfect. Some have claimed the writing was too hurried, others that all faiths had to conform to a Christian-based framework. However I would strongly argue that until it was produced, written down, set out... there was little debate about "What knowledge?" 

Curriculum design is not something that all teachers are expert in, nor is assessment. Many teachers have no idea what students should know when. Secondary colleagues often have no idea what students should know about religion when they arrive in Year 7. As such, a comprehensive overview from EYS to KS5 would be of huge benefit. KS4 and 5 is largely done, for the minute.

Yet we (the RE community) often fear making 'over simplified' or 'broad brush' statements - other subjects such as as science seem far more comfortable with this provisional knowledge. Therefore age related expectations, in regard to knowledge, would be helpful to map out this progression. It would ensure the complexity and diversity of religion and belief is accurately built upon. 

Knowledge is contested. However, what is clear, many RE teachers have a great deal of it. It allows them to have these very debates, and yet even dismiss the need to focus on knowledge in RE. Our greatest gift to students is the knowledge we have, how can we best ensure that it is passed on as effectively as possible? I am not sure it is this version of a NES. 

I would love to see the Commissioners sit down, with all their expertise, experience, knowledge and understanding of religion and belief, and set out a knowledge based curriculum, that teachers then help develop into Key Stage standards of attainment. I honestly think this is the best thing we could do for the students in our care. 

Knowledge: The place of a core knowledge curriculum in RE [Series]

I will be publishing a series of blog posts which were initially to feature in a book about RE. This is the part two on Knowledge.

1. Abstract
2. Hirsch
3. Knowledge [This blog]

Why focus on knowledge in RE?

Too often in education, well-educated people have argued that others need less education, or namely, less knowledge. Those in favour of a knowledge based curriculum, have pointed out that people who don’t know things will be excluded and marginalised, and division will be created. This is a social and cultural reason, which is at the heart of Hirsch’s idea of cultural literacy. 

People in positions of power and influence rarely reach such office without being supremely knowledgeable. The groups on the fringes of society are generally those who are lacking in knowledge. Those who claim success despite a lack of conventional academic education are in the minority when compared to all those who have not been successful; for every Alan Sugar there are hundreds struggling to survive on the minimum wage. or handouts from the state. 

If all students are given equal access to a powerful cultural curriculum, then they are less likely to continue to be excluded. Otherwise, a status quo will continue: the elite will continue to educate their children in such a way that they become the new generation of elite. Power and influence will produce more power and influence; divisions will simply be perpetuated. If we want students on the margins to gain access to the opportunities and possibilities that their parents didn’t have, they need access to the knowledge that makes others successful. 

It seems logical to try and identify the knowledge with the most cultural capital, as Hirsch believes he has done, and ensure this is the minimum taught to all students. Once students have a wide body of knowledge, they will be able to learn to critique. Ignorance and unawareness have never helped anyone.

Teachers can often be uncomfortable with economic terms being used in education, however the idea of ‘opportunity cost’ has crept into education in recent years. We have limited time with our students, and we need to carefully consider how we best use this time. For example, Personal Learning and Thinking Skills (PLTS) are generic skills that some have claimed are essential to life, learning and work. Yet, is time not better spent on developing a real depth of academic subjects? Other ‘21st century skills’ are really things we’ve always known and have learnt naturally over time. Do we know that spending time doing group work in Key Stage 3 ensures students are able to work collaboratively in a career that is still many years away?

Some have claimed that the progressive education provided in the late 20th century, and into the 21st has lead to teachers focusing too heavily on these skills and not on an academic education (see Progressively worse: The Burden of Bad Ideas in British Schools by Robert Peal for more on this). This lesson time could instead be dedicated to providing students with more to think about, and lots of practice thinking about these things. With this knowledge, it can be argued that students will be able to contribute more to collaborative working and solve problems which are both complex and difficult. 

Arguably the most important reason for teaching a knowledge based curriculum is the effect is has on cognition. As Hirsch points out, the difference between students is often the quantity and quality of their prior knowledge; quite simply, the more you know, the better you are able to think. Without knowledge, it is virtually impossible to meaningfully engage with a given topic. An opinion without any knowledge to back it up is of little value in any context.

Critics have argued that teaching knowledge in the 21st century is unnecessary, indeed a pilot was trialled in Denmark where students would have access to the internet during exams in 2009. As Hirsch points out, “Google is not an equal opportunity fact-finder, it favours those with knowledge, it exacerbates knowledge inequality.” (2015 Policy exchange lecture)

We are not always aware of the background knowledge which is subconsciously influencing our thinking processes. However it is clear that our brains are full of many types of knowledge, which are useful in different situations. Our ability to engage with what are often labelled as ‘Higher Order Thinking Skills’ in schools is totally dependent on what we know. We can not create, analyse or create without a wide knowledge base. Hirsch has said that in order to become good readers, children need to develop a large vocabulary and a lot of knowledge about the world; these are “plants of slow growth” (2015 Policy exchange lecture).

Many suggest the 'knowledge versus skills' debate is a false dichotomy, which is of course true. However in RE, there has been a real focus on skills and personal exploration at the cost of knowing deep and complicated things about religion in some schools. This was exacerbated by GCSE questions that simply wanted personal response. However considering a knowledge basis for an RE curriculum forces the RE teacher to consider many things, namely what knowledge to teach, who decides? 

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Hirsch: The place of a core knowledge curriculum in RE [Series]

I will be publishing a series of blog posts which were initially to feature in a book about RE. This is the part one on Hirsch.

1. Abstract
2. Hirsch [This blog]
3. Knowledge

---

Who is Hirsch? 

Eric Donald Hirsch, Jr. is an American educator, academic literary critic and author of a series of books about Cultural Literacy and Core Knowledge. He is currently professor emeritus of education and humanities at the University of Virginia in the United States of America.

He could not understand why many of this undergraduate students could not read and accurately interpret information about the American revolution. Hirsch realised this was because they simply did not have the background information to do so. He also noticed that this was predominantly among black student who could interpret other passages on different topics, such as those about their own lives. The conclusion that Hirsh made, was that his students were receiving an inconsistent schooling, often based on race, and this lack of knowledge was stopping their further learning.

As a result, from the 1990’s onwards, Hirsch began writing and publishing a series entitled the Core Knowledge Grader Series which detailed Core Knowledge Sequence (CKS) for each grade. Each book contains detailed information as well as related readings and resources, and have been updated over the years. These have lead to the formation of Core Knowledge schools of which there are approximately 1,260 schools (2013-2014) in 46 states.

It is important to remember that the USA does not have any national leaving exams, like GCSEs or A-Levels. It does not have any form of national curriculum, and there is little national education policy. Even major Acts of Congress such as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) did not provide a national achievement standard; crucially, education is not mentioned in the constitution. Each state has different education policy, and each state is split into separate school districts which have varying degrees of freedom and/or control. It is estimated that there is around 14,000 school districts, each of which can create their own curriculum. As such is it is difficult to monitor, measure and regulate.

Some saw Hirsch’s CKS as a way of bringing in some consistency to such a fragmented system.

His overall belief is well summed up in the introduction to his latest work, Why Knowledge Matters (2016; p2): "The achievement gap is chiefly a knowledge gap and a language gap. It can be greatly ameliorated by knowledge-based schooling."

Hirsch in the UK

The schools Minister Nick Gibb and former Education Secretary Michael Gove have both stated on numerous occasion that Hirsch has inspired the government’s recent work on schools and in particular the new National Curriculum, as well as GCSE and A-Level reforms. The think-tank Civitas has even developed an English version of the Core Knowledge Programme.

However there are some key differences between the USA and UK which need to be noted:

• The UK has less variation in pre-university education as students complete external exams that have an element of comparability, even pre 2015 reform. This is nationally monitored by Ofsted and ISI.
• There is a National Curriculum (NC) which has been used for many years. Some academies now opt out of this, but much of the content and skills built into the NC remain.
• The Department for Education (DfE) and OFQUAL do provide national achievement standards.

Key Issues with Hirsch

There are three main issues cited by Hirsch’s critics:

The first is that by introducing a knowledge focused curriculum, rote learning is encouraged. This is potentially detrimental to a lifelong love of learning. Progressive educators have criticised Hirsch as they did not agree with the prioritisation of knowledge and facts. However, even some pro-knowledge educators have criticised Hirsch as his approach is superficial and not conducive to grasping the deep and complex concepts.

Secondly, students forget things. Despite learning bodies of knowledge at different points in their academic life, there is no guarantee that a student will remember it for any length of time.

Thirdly, and this is perhaps the most fundamental, who decides the body of knowledge? In the context of Hirsch, who is responsible for deciding what is ‘common’? In the UK the understanding of Hirsch is that a prescribed list is produced by an expert to ensure all children are equal, yet Hirsch has made it clear that he means students should be equally able to understand what is commonly understood by people in universities.

Is it easy to identify the information that will enable students to be more successful in later life? Hirsch’s central argument is that there is an identifiable body of core knowledge which students need to know to contribute effectively to society. Schools must undertake a primary responsibility for this, as parents may or may not be able to provide and contribute towards it.

Context for RE

There is an element of the fragmentation seen in the USA in the Locally Agreed Syllabus system, alongside the academy / free school opt out, plus curricula for schools with a religious character. Some have estimated there are around 150 different RE curricula followed in England.

The DfE annex (see <here>) now sets out the knowledge, in essence, that a GCSE in Religious Studies needs to cover. This has arguably been inspired by Hirsch.

There are key questions we need to be answered about any RE curriculum (feel free to add more in the comments section):

• Which religions are studied?
• Is the information from insider or outsider perspective?
• How are 'big questions' / complex concepts addressed?
• What, if any, prior knowledge can be assumed at any given stage?

Image courtesy of Politico

Abstract: The place of a core knowledge curriculum in RE [Series]

I will be publishing a series of blog posts which were initially to feature in a book about RE. This is the introduction: 

1. Abstract [This blog]
2. Hirsch
3. Knowledge

---

The Matthew Effect  - For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. - (Matthew 25:29)

ED Hirsch Jnr has cited The Matthew Effect in his writing and lectures. Quite simply there is a great danger in our current education systems that the ‘rich get richer, while the poor get poorer’. He maintains that in order to avoid The Matthew Effect we need to cumulatively and systematically build up the background knowledge and vocabulary that students need to understand classroom discourse; long range preparation is key to avoid this undesirable effect on achievement and future prospects.

The RE teacher understands the context of The Matthew Effect within the Parable of the Talents; despite not being created entirely equally, God rewards the effort of those who work for his will. Students in the classroom are limited by the level of effort that they put in, but they are potentially equally limited in their achievements by the education provided. Hirsch calls this cultural literacy: educated, middle-class families may provide this at home, but for some students it is imperative that it comes from schools and teachers.

Critics of Hirsh’s approach of setting out systematic and cumulative core knowledge that should be learnt at each stage of a child's education, point out that in the UK we do not have the fragmentation of education like in the US. We have state exams, we have a National Curriculum. However in RE we have around 150 Locally Agreed Syllabuses, a growing number of free schools and academies (who can opt out of their LAS), plus schools with a religious character who can opt to study their own syllabus. The quality is variable, and the work (and expense) of writing and reviewing syllabuses immense.

It seems that this may be the moment to consider if RE would benefit from a core curriculum that sets out the knowledge that students should have at each key stage. This knowledge should not be seen as a limiting fence, but more an open gateway to importing their knowledge and understanding of religion and beliefs, as well as developing critical thinking skills. Such a system would provide a minimum standard for all syllabuses, improve the rigour and academic nature of the subject and even provide a benchmarking tool for schools with a religious character.

This series of blog posts aims to explore the possibilities, advantages and criticisms of such an approach to RE.

Image courtesy: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Hals_-_St_Matthew_-_Museum_of_Western_European_and_Oriental_Art,_Odessa.jpg