Assumption is the mother of all...

Penn: Ryback's gone, Dane. 
Travis Dane: Did you see the body? Assumption is the mother of all F*&% UPS!

Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)

It can be easy to assume many things. Doing this in schools, like for those up against Steven Seagal, find out that it generally ends up badly. 

This is one of the reasons I am working towards a more knowledge focused curriculum. Students need to be acutely aware of what they need to know... I firmly believe much of the rest will then come. I want to get Knowledge Organisers published for Year 7s arriving, and then for each KS3 unit. This will then benefit students in KS4. I don't want to just assume they know the right things, I want to identify these things and then ensure that they do know.

It is commonplace to reference something in a lesson and enquire, "You studied this last year?" "No we didn't"

Often they did, and just don't remember (a whole other issue...). However sometimes they have not for a variety of reasons: staff absence, student absence, teacher deviation etc. Gaps end up existing for many students, we have to then try fill them... annoying, time consuming, but vital if we decide that particular knowledge is important. The more we can empower students to fill these gaps, the better.

The more dangerous assumption of knowledge, is that students have certain information already, without us - or indeed anyone else - teaching them. This is part of the rationale behind my Year 6/start of Year 7 Knowledge Organiser (see <here>). 

In my GCSE textbook, for one particular spec point, students need to know two pieces of Catholic artwork. I thought long and hard about what to include: 'classics', personal favourites, something a 'bit different'? I settled with the 'classics': the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo and Rembrandt's The Return of the Prodigal Son. 

I have since had one or two teachers moan that 'other books' (including those for other specs, not just our direct rivals!) pick more contemporary art and artwork more "off the beaten track". This is apparently "more interesting" as they have studied those 'classics' so many times before. To one, I said, "That's a shame as I still think these two have so much to offer..." - the conversation went on and it transpired that actually my critic knew very little about either, particularly The Return of the Prodigal Son. 

Firstly, it's vital to remember we are teachers, and by necessity, we have 'done it all before'. I will teach these two pieces of artwork every year, perhaps to two classes. This is totally unconnected to their religious or cultural value or significance. It is also unconnected to my students knowledge and familiarity of the artworks.

If I had picked two more obscure, but perhaps interesting pieces, would I have been denying students knowledge about two key pieces artwork? These are the kind of questions we don't like - what knowledge do I prioritise? After all, as a teacher, that's what you do. You are not neutral, you are not without bias. 

Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper was my third choice (after all, we don't need to teach to the spec, and teaching 3 pieces may be beneficial if time allows... or more if you don't like my textbook choices!). Despite being hugely well known, actually it is more commonly seen in jokes or modified form. How can you understand these if you don't know the original? 

10 Shows and Movies That Recreated the Last Supper (For Some Reason)

I have to admit, I do have personal investment in these two artworks. The Sistine Chapel is at the heart of the Catholic faith; it is the very room where conclave takes place, and popes are elected. This for me, is a valid reason for it's inclusion. It's also breathtaking, and relatively unusual - my parish church certainly doesn't have a ceiling like it! When I visited the Vatican, this was not even up for discussion on the visiting list.

I have also been fortunate enough to see The Return of the Prodigal Son. When visiting the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg, I was walking down one of the the main rooms when I saw this huge painting (2.5m by 2m). I didn't know it was kept there (my ignorance!), nor did I know it was so big - every copy I've seen is A3/A4 in school halls, parish halls etc. I stopped in my tracks. It was also possible to get close enough to study the father's hands for myself!

So what do we do? How dangerous is it to assume students have knowledge of the 'classics'? Does it matter if they don't? There is a typical argument for not studying classic literature - does it really matter? Dickens, Shakespeare, Austin, Bronte.... 

When I have to decide, as I do, what knowledge to impart, I need to be confident I am sharing the best of the best. I can't take risks. I can't assume students know these things already. That's why we picked the Sistine Chapel and Rembrandt's masterpiece.

Oh and of course Casey Ryback wasn't dead - he is Ryback!

Image courtesy of Grantland

Shootout: GCSE History vs GCSE RS

For those who don't know, I love Westerns. I really don't know why anyone makes any other kind of film to be honest. As my Twitter bio states, if I wasn't a teacher, I'd be a cowboy. However, I am pretty rubbish at horse riding and have fallen off a few times, so I don't think I am really all that cut out for it... 

I decided that actually, instead of just watching Westerns, that I should actually try to learn something about the period so I understood the context of the films a little better... as well as working out fact from fiction. I put out a tweet:

History colleagues -what is/are the best book(s) on the American West? Looking to back up my love of Westerns with background knowledge.

— Andy Lewis (@AndyLewis_RE) May 2, 2017

There were a few responses, but I learnt that Alex Ford had written a GCSE textbook for the OCR specification. I thought this was an ideal place to start - surely if a 16 year old can master this content, I could!?

I was going to skip all the blurb at the start as I felt I didn't really need any of the exam info stuff. However something caught my eye, this book represented 20% of the GCSE course. Now, it is worth noting that the book is 108 pages long, of this, page 8 to 95 are filled with content. There are some pictures and images, but there is a lot of text - I would estimate at least 800 words per double page spread. To cut a long story short, there is a lot to learn here for just 20% of your grade. 

It got me thinking about some of the criticism made about the new GCSE in Religious Studies:

• "There is too much content." - History seems to have as much, if not more.
• "It is not relevant enough." - This is relevant to me, as a Western lover, but this unit only takes the student as far as 1900 - not far enough to fully embrace modern American culture. A 6th former the other day asked me, "Did cowboys even actually exist?" 
• "The interesting bits are no longer there [abortion/euthanasia]" - This is certainly not all gunfights and shootouts! 

I know the aim of OFQUAL was to try and make GCSEs, as close as possible, comparatively hard. RS GCSE has had a steep, step up. I believe History has got harder, and to ensure RS matched up, it has perhaps had to get much harder. There is much more content. there are far more tougher theological concepts, there are Sources of Wisdom and Authority (SoWA) to learn. We can certainly not teach it in an hour a week any more.

I guess we need to think smart, preempt difficulties and take action with the new spec (like Blondie). Otherwise we will be left running around after a lost cause (like Tuco) or completely out of the [GCSE] equation (like Angel Eyes). No-one wants to lose the shootout...

X Years of Expertise - GCSE and A-Level RS Working Parties

The new GCSE and A-Levels have caused great anxiety to many staff. The climate has changed since the last changes (2009 and 2008 respectively) whereby there is greater accountability, greater focus on exams (and technique), greater use of data, the introduction of performance related pay, more in depth exam analysis, ALPS, RAISE... all of these things necessitate changes to the class room teachers approach to Key Stage 4 and 5 teaching. Teachers are demanding more SAMs - but so are the students! A few comments / emails that I've had from my own students, with no prompting I hasten to add:

• "Sir, how can there only be one SAMs? We need a bank of possible questions to practice." [GCSE Student]
• "Will there be an examiner reports produced for us on the SAMs to read before the final exams?" [A Level]

Exam boards have been under pressure given the speed of exam reforms, but there are few and far opportunities for teachers to get together and use their collective expertise. So I thought I would organise some, thankfully backed by my school who lead a Teaching Alliance.

The affirmation I needed, was sending a colleague on a course for A-Level preparation (not exam board, and not the best), where one of the key recommendations was joining the respective Facebook groups, the A-Level one I admin myself! [GCSE Edexcel and A-Level Edexcel].

My rationale was this:

1. Most examiners are experienced classroom teachers.
2. All examiners are human beings, who need to interpret a mark scheme.
3. Teachers can do the same - in fact they do exactly this on a regular basis!

I did some Maths.... If I could get 10 teachers in the room (sums done using GCSE figures)

• 10 teachers X average 5 years teaching = 50 years total
• 4 unit tests + 1 mock marked per student per year = 8 exam questions marked per student per year (the reality may well be far higher!)
• 40 students taught on average per year (some schools only having an option group, some schools teachers having 2 classes in full cohort entry)

50 x 8 x 40 - Approx 16,000 GCSE questions marked by those in the room

That has  to count for something. Those teachers have sat with an exam board mark scheme, interpreting student answers time and time again. I'd also recon they have done that with a reasonable degree of accuracy - how often do you get your students grades to within one?

We know, from the desperate adverts, that some of our students' marking will be done by NQTs in the real thing. We know the exam boards will put in place fail-safes with their marking teams to ensure marking is as accurate as possible. We know some students will need to challenge their result and to have their marking checked. We know we will be pleasantly surprised with some students, and bitterly disappointed with others. We have to keep faith that the system works, reasonably well. 

However, I thought it was important to create an opportunity to sit around the table and discuss with other experienced colleagues. Therefore:

The Agnus Dei Teaching School Alliance are hosting two events where teachers of the new Edexcel A-Level and GCSE qualifications in Religious Studies can meet to work collaboratively, discuss current issues and support one another. The sessions will include:

• “What we know” - exam board published resources, including updates
• Discussion of mark schemes / assessment objectives
• Discussion of current marking - teachers to bring samples of work / marking
• Sharing our resources
• Writing our own exam questions
• Final conclusions - including compiling a list of questions for the chief examiner

The A-Level event would cover all study options
The GCSE event would primarily be for schools studying Spec A: Catholic Christianity

The sessions will be run at St Bonaventure's School in Forest Gate, East London (E7 9QD) at a cost of just £10 to cover refreshments.

• GCSE Flyer - Wednesday 24 May 2017
• A Level Flyer - Wednesday 14 June 2017

Book online here: http://www.stbons.org/register-for-training/

HOWEVER a number of colleagues from around the country have said they can't come due to distance. Why not arrange your own? There are companies charged hundreds of pounds to provide what is freely available from exam board websites. Is it possible to have enough confidence in our own professionalism? Yes there are things that will need clarification, but talking it through with other experienced colleagues will hopefully help regain some of our confidence. We are able to deliver these new specs, and we are currently doing a bloody good job given the circumstances!

Edexcel are now offering some online and face-to-face training for next academic year. These are £240 (or £118.80 online). The fact you pay to enter students for the exam is not enough to expect free training to mark! Book via <here>

GCSE RS: Extended Writings Questions

"We are all teachers of literacy"

(Every English teacher / literacy coordinator, ever!)

Many RE teachers have been panicking about content and delivery time with the new GCSE in RS, quite understandably. However I have come to the conclusion that actually we also need to explicitly focus on literacy, namely writing good 'argument' essays. There is a potential situation where we allow only our students with good knowledge and understanding of RS AND good literacy to succeed in our subject. 

I teach the new Edexcel RS GCSE and I realised in my first few assessments a number of students were not even attempting the D style essay questions. These carry 12 marks (or potentially 15 with SPaG) and this meant losing 12 out of 24 marks. On questioning, they shrugged and said they were too hard. Upon further probing, it was clear that they knew some key bits of knowledge; this was not the fundamental problem in their lack of response. 

Firstly, it is vital to get away from the 'old part D' mentality. For Edexcel, that meant "3 points for, 3 points against". We can't just tack a conclusion on it this and hope for the best. Yet I understand why this may be a reasonable start point for less able students. They can pick up some marks for this, which is better than achieving nothing.

Secondly, I admit that my thinking has moved on from when we were under pressure to complete my textbook and devise strategies to help students write Part D questions. I am looking forward to working in future publications to provide more help and guidance to students and teachers with this. We initially looked to a approach similar to above (with developed, rather simple points), as more information trickles out of Edexcel, I am sure we will review for future editions.

Thirdly, we need different teaching techniques to our marking techniques. We cannot use the old Edexcel system of "simple point = 1 mark, developed point = 2 marks". The exam board keep repeating the fact that we need to be looking at the level descriptors. If I am honest, I as an A-Level teacher, I am finding this an easier adaptation from a marking point of view. However, I feel that are not particularly accessible for GCSE age students. As such, I have produced a resource in a format that I have used for A-Level before:

Student Friendly 'deconstruction' of the Part D (Edexcel) mark scheme

(Please comment on the document if you can see ways to improve)

One Size Fits All?

Different questions may require different approaches. Edexcel published some timing guidelines and suggested that "2 minutes thinking time" was built into each question. I'd suggest this is thinking and planning time, considering what the multiple views are, or what the different religious perspectives are. A simple template, especially "FOR, AGAINST, CONCLUSION" just won't work for some. Sadly, a one size fits all writing frame also will not always work.

Preparation

Some activities I have completed in class to help students:

• Providing a list of statements from Part D questions and getting them to identify what the multiple viewpoints may be - and linking to various religious views.
• "Walking Talking" (PiXL) practice - talking the students through answering it, before getting them to write themselves.
• Drafting questions as a class / in pairs / with textbook and then redoing in timed conditions.
• Providing the content, and getting students to focus on literacy skills (see below).

I am conscious of the cognitive load placed on students while completing these questions. If we are asking them to recall information that is not secure (in their long term memory), given we are completing the question in the lesson where content has been delivered, plus asking them to do some relatively advanced essay writing, it is likely to overload their working memory. Therefore, for many D questions in class, I give the students the basic content and ask them to construct a good answer, focusing on their literacy skills. (Read more on CLT <here>)

Edexcel Spec Language

• Deconstruction: Putting in your own words as to show a full understanding, including the separation/identification of key ideas
• Logical Chains of Reasoning: Accurately using key connectives such as: therefore / as a result / in contrast / however / this shows that / this means that / this demonstrates that

New Info

Edexcel have released an 'update' with some further guidance; download <here>. A few things are apparent:

• Unless all bullet points in the question are referenced, it is limited to Level 3 (which is what mark scheme does suggest)
• A lack of clear conclusion does not mean an award of zero marks (thankfully!)

SPaG

The "Double Advantage / Double Disadvantage" of SPaG has always annoyed me. The way I see it, the student who can write well (a generally good proxy for intelligence and exam success in humanities) can get an extra 12 marks across the paper, which is more than likely an additional grade. Additionally, the level criteria in D already factor in elements of SPaG with "coherent and logical chains of reasoning".

Less able, SEND and EAL students therefore are put at a disadvantage I believe. Additionally, I have no idea how such a subjective criteria will be consistently applied. What is the difference between reasonable, considerable and consistent accuracy? The only one I'd be confident on is awarding 0 if nothing was written.

We are not using on unit tests, ie 24 mark questions; 3 mark SPaG is too significant. We will have to use on the mock no doubt. I am aware of some teachers who totally ignore throughout, therefore any marks they pick up for SPaG are a bonus.

I believe the inclusion of SPaG was a DfE requirement, not the choice of Edexcel.

Arguing: A 'New' Approach?

It was helpful that Charlotte Vardy shared this video from her GCSE training course detailing her suggestions for attempting AO2 questions. It is worth watching for yourself, and it is generic, but most exam boards share a similar structure:

She points out that these extended questions are not just looking for two views, that is simply information (and therefore presumably just AO1). This would be the mistake of using techniques from old Edexcel spec.

She argues that the best approach is to see questions as looking for a view (thesis) backed up with various reasons. Students should work out their position before starting to write (remember the 'thinking time'!). This allows responses to begin with a view; this fulfil the Level 1 requirements for a conclusion. It is not simply a personal response, but a confident belief in the right answer. It is necessary to have counter arguments, and it is vital to link to particular religious beliefs. 

The structure suggested is therefore:

• View
• Reason 1
• Reason 2
• Reason 3
• Religious groups / Denominations who would agree
• Religious groups / Denominations who would not agree
• HOWEVER / BUT...  - this is the evaluation, allowing a counter claim, but dismissing it
• SO in conclusion, repeat initial view (backed up by most significant reason)

This avoids a simple description of different points of view.

I'd recommend watching the video rather than relying on my notes / interpretation.

Conclusions

I used to often use exam questions as consolidation at the end of one lesson, or a starter of the next. I more frequently use them now as a teaching tool. We don't write notes and then use them answering a question. The exam question is often their 'notes'. This may help them actually remember the material better if Dan Willingham is correct in his belief that students remember what they think about (read an overview <here>). They need to think far more deeply answering a Part D than just copying notes down. 

I also think this is excellent preparation for A-Level RS study. It is not easy, and certainly a challenge for less able students, but if we reduce the cognitive load in the first instance, we can be teachers of literacy, getting them to write well, in the context of our subject. For me, there is a great joy in this. A joy that was not there in the previous Edexcel spec. Even now, some of my most able students are writing essays that are enjoyable to read! 

Images courtesy of TimeSlip Blog

When do we start the GCSE in RS?

Key Stage 3 Religious Education is largely unregulated, just like most other Key Stage 3 subjects. I obviously don't mean internally, or by SLT, or by Ofsted, but since the removal of Year 9 SATs (which only concerned a small number of subjects), the first external examination of a child's achievement in secondary school comes 5 years in, as a GCSE.

The new GCSE specs, across the board, are more rigorous, academic, challenging and content filled. I think this, in the main, is a good thing. However it poses some serious questions for teachers and schools. When do we start the GCSE course?

Some of the options:

1. Keep the status quo - GCSEs are designed as a two year course, therefore they should be teachable in the given time frame, as long as you are given sufficent hours in the week (and some RE teachers have not in the past).
2. Erase Year 9 - Start the GCSE a year early, giving over 50% more time. This caused problems with new specs as they were not finalised until late in the 2015-2016 academic year when some had been teaching since September 2015.
3. Shorten Year 9 - Start the GCSE at some definable point such as January or after the Easter holidays. 
4. Start in Year 7?

Now some subjects lend themselves to less definable start points - some have suggested the Maths GCSE starts in pre-school and just builds and builds... likewise with English. Academies with the freedom to not teach the National Curriculum have tweaked current schemes of work and assessments to work towards the new GCSE with little issue.

As always RE is more complex with it's local determination, Locally Agreed Syllabuses, faith school curriculum option etc. However my aim as a Subject Leader is to try balance our offering to students. I feel there is much to be achieved in Key Stage 3, building a strong foundation for the GCSE by covering a range of topics - and crucially for us - covering other religions. 

The choices I have made are as follows:

• To modify assessments to ensure students focus on knowing key information from their units of study.
• To modify assessments to ensure greater literacy and essay writing skills with longer answer questions, aligned with the structure of GCSE questions.
• To introduce terminology such as SoWA (Sources of Wisdom and Authority) into lessons and tasks. 

I feel this is a compromise. It feels like you are doing students disservice by either getting rid of Key Stage 3... yet also a disservice by ignoring the demands of the GCSE which (as a Catholic school) they will all sit.

What are you doing?

Year 7 Assessment SAMPLE [You can view only via GoogleDrive]

SoWA (Sources of Wisdom and Authority) Poster [You can view only via GoogleDrive]

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Haters Gonna Hate (New RS Specs)

Here are some lists. What have I missed?

Some reasons people don't like the new GCSE RS specs:

• Perceived 'dullness'
• Too much religion
• Not philosophy and ethics focussed
• Too hard
• Not relevant to my students
• Just don't like it 
• Painful
• "It's killing RE"

Some reasons why people were never going to be happy regardless:

• People don't like change (and teachers especially don't like change)
• Old lessons need to be binned and replanned from scratch - costing time (something no one has in abundance)
• Experts in exam questions and mark schemes are no longer experts
• The vast array of resources available via TES, YouTube etc are no longer relevant

Some reasons teachers need to get on with it:

• They are not going to change, probably for around 10 years
• It is a primary responsibility of the teacher to make content interesting, engaging and relevant 
• We are not alone - other subjects are not happy either - but every teacher will have a different view and there is probably little consensus anyway
• Resources will come
• Familiarity with the spec, questions and mark schemes will also come
• If it is an option choice, your potential future cohorts depend on it 
• Students are not stupid, they pick up on a teacher's attitude to a topic. It's even worse when teachers vocalise it... 

Reasons the old specs had to go:

• Not enough actual content of religion and belief
• Too much value placed on unjustified opinion
• Agendas such Community Cohesion given too higher priority
• It could be taught in half the time of other GCSEs

Reasons previous exam reforms didn't have as much negativity:

• No social media

Some things I really like:

• 12 mark evaluation questions
• A body of 'core knowledge' for KS4 (DfE Annexe)
• More indepth theology
• Greater use of scholars and text

Somethings that could have been better:

• More time at every stage of the process

Some things we as an RE community could do:

• Stay positive - if we don't fight our corner who else will
• Share and collaborate - add to Google Drive, upload to TES, write for publishers, host planning meetings...

Image courtesy of Pixabay

RS Exam Reform

Religious Studies GCSE and A-Level were part of 'Phase 2' of the exam reform, ready for September 2016 teaching. This process could only really start with the final publication of the GCSE content in February 2015 (see <here>), even this long ago, some warned that the timeline was too short. In December 2014, when RE teachers raised their concerns about the timeline at the DfE, they were told not to worry. Others said it was vital we were in 'Phase 2' to have any chance of being in the EBacc (never happened anyway), and to be part of the Progress 8 measure (Phase 3 subjects can be counted in the 'open' group, exactly where RS is anyway).

Looking back now, maybe we should have campaigned harder to have the RS GCSE delayed to September 2017. The subject does have certain complexities that other subjects do not, including a greater number of stakeholders (not least the faith communities). It has a far wider range of options that need to be covered, and the introduction of a second religions is a significant training need for many.

However, let me clear, I am not advocating a boycott or petition to get the qualifications delayed. 'Phase 1' (English and Maths) are already "getting on with it", and many other subjects are in the same position as RS, struggling to be ready for September 2016. RS is not that special, but as it is my area of expertise forms the basis for this case study. At the end, I will put forward some suggestions.

Accreditation Timeline:

Proposed GCSE accreditation timeline (see <here>):

• August 2015 - Awarding organisations submit draft specifications, sample assessment material and assessment strategy to Ofqual for accreditation.
• September 2015 - Ofqual panels of subject experts review awarding organisations' submissions.
• October 2015 - Ofqual decision on the accreditation of specifications.
• October 2015 - Ofqual inform AOs of their decision on accreditation. AOs then make any necessary changes and submit revised specification and assessment material for re-accreditation.
• Late Autumn 2015 - Accredited specifications submitted to schools to allow teachers enough time to prepare for first teaching in September 2016.
• September 2016 - First teaching of new RS GCSE specifications in schools

Actual GCSE accreditation timeline - the dates when the accredited specifications were provided to schools:

• February 2016 - AQA - 4 months after planned date, 6 months before teaching
• March 2016 - OCR - 5 months after planned date, 5 months before teaching
• May 2016 - Eduqas - 7 months after planned date, 3 months before teaching
• June 2016 - Edexcel - 8 months after planned date, 2 months before teaching

Actual A-Level accreditation timeline;

• April/May 2016 - AQA/Edexcel/Eduqas/OCR accredited*

Accreditation Process:

For reasons unknown, it took longer than envisaged for exam boards to submit their specifications. Probably as they were totally overloaded by the pace of the reform and had a whole range of subjects to write specs for, without the full time staff to do this. Again, RS had it's added complexities with the wide range of papers available. It is hard to say where GCSE RS would have fitted in their priorities.

There was also confused messages from the OFQUAL about what their exact role was - to simply make sure specifications fitted the DfE annexe and the OFQUAL Assessment requirements - or to ensure comparability across specifications. Some have said the number of resubmissions was high (up to 5), if feedback had been sufficient from the start. There have been reports from a variety of sources, that some feedback was vague, and lacked constructive comments to rectify what was wrong. I do struggle to believe the exam boards were simply incompetent. No doubt, OFQUAL were also overrun and unable to cope with demands being placed upon them.

*UPDATE*

I've had contact from someone who wanted to make clear that OFQUAL are a regulatory body and it's role was decide if spec met requirements set out by DfE. It's role was not to offer suggestions to improve specs, as boards are in competition with one another. To provide feedback that would influence quicker or slower approval would not be acceptable. It can give examples of where things have, or have not been met. There is obviously a fine line here, saying "You have not included this" is very similar in many ways to "Add this". All examining bodies had the same criteria to work with, and the questions about why some did it quicker than others will no doubt remain unanswered!

The Consequences:

• Teaching from September 2015 with only DfE Annexe - Many schools teach a 3 year GCSE. The DfE said this is not how GCSEs are designed, but it's this, or not at all for many schools. This is not unique to RS, but is perhaps more common with RS. Teachers have been using the annex or having to change after each submission.
• Many textbooks are not ready - Some GCSE books will not be with teachers until October / November 2016. A Level ones potentially later, maybe even September 2017. These are vital guides to teachers about level of depth required. Also some scholars cited on A-Level are apparently out of print, new resources are needed to resurrect their work and contributions, or at the least present them in an accessible way.
• Some textbooks have errors - This is as their publication was rushed. This includes those accredited by the exam board (Pope Francis is from Argentina, not Brazil, for the record.).
• Budgets  - Departments have had to find finances for both GCSE and A-Level textbooks at the same time. Some schools have been able to provide additional funding, but not all.
• Editable schemes of work not published - A huge time-saver for teachers, usually provided by the exam board and currently (13/7/16) not ready for some boards. Particularly at A-Level they also indicate the required depth / time spent on areas. A colleague mentioned that he worked on these for the 2008 exam changes and believes whole process is 6 to 12 months behind at this point.
• Additional resources not ready - Again another time-saver for teachers when planning, some exam boards have not got these ready, as they have put their focus on getting specs accredited.
• INSET - Some teachers have attended INSET from exam boards, cascaded to staff, and then had to redo after changes made, especially to exam technique. A clear waste of time.
• Key Stage 3 Review - Given new demands of GCSEs, there has not been time to adequately adapt KS3 including content and assessment.

Teachers are not able to use their 'gained time' during the final few weeks, and are giving up weekends and holidays to attend courses provided by third parties, sometimes out of their own pocket. There are schools organising their own planning days (in the holidays), and teachers desperately posting in panic on Facebook groups created to share, and crucially help. One teacher said they had cut their family holiday to work on preparing for September.

In 2014, the DfE did a workload survey. These exam reforms have placed a huge additional workload on teachers, and the timescales have produced unnecessary stress, and further damage to work/life balance. Everyone has a part to play in reducing workload, but it feels somewhat hypocritical of the DfE. There are already recruitment and retention issues; has this helped or hindered that situation?

Current Feeling:

Via Twitter:

Save RE Facebook Group:

The RE Teacher's Forum Facebook Group:

The Other Side of the Argument:

There are a few reasons why some have said we should just get on with it (and let's be honest, we don't have any choice really!). It is right to be excited about the new qualifications, as they are indeed better. It was also mentioned that 'Phase 1' have gone ahead, and so there is no justification for delaying 'Phase 2'. Teachers have also been working super hard to get ready, and a delay at this stage would be catastrophic (I agree, and hence never suggesting this). Plus the bottom line, is that teachers will go above and beyond to ensure their students don't suffer (Of course they will, that's what we do - but it doesn't mean this is right).

Suggestions:

• The DfE need to listen to teachers - In December 2014, concerns were raised. They were ignored, and countered with threats that to miss September 2016 would mean no Ebacc and no Progress 8. We are still not in the Ebacc (and not likely to be), and I can't see how we would have been excluded from the 'Open' group in Progress 8?
• The DfE need to listen to exam boards - Apparently, they raised concerns with pace of reform, but were ignored. The same mistakes were made with 'Phase 1', and will be made again with 'Phase 3', The DfE believe all accreditation will take place before Christmas 2016 for September 2017 subjects - what exactly has changed this time around?
• GCSE and A Level changes should not come together - If the GCSE changed in 2016, and A Level in 2017 or ideally 2018, this would have a drastic effect on teachers. It would also mean A Level students in 2016 or 2017 would be better prepared for the increased rigor and demands of the qualifications. 
• '6 month cutoff' - It may be worthwhile having a cut off point, that if accreditation has not happened by the end of February, 6 months before first teaching, it is not allowed for teaching that coming September. This may prompt exam boards to submit earlier, OFQUAL to accredit quicker, with better feedback, and teachers to have sufficient preparation time.
• OFSTED, S48 (SIAMS / CES / etc) Recognition - A public statement recognising the current situation schools are in regarding the transition, particularly for S48 inspections. Most RE Departments would be happy with a S48 this year as everything, quite rightly is in place, this will not be the case next year. Imagine such an inspection in Autumn 2016? 

Solutions:

• Great Collaboration -
• SACREs, NATRE Local Groups, Dioceses and any other groups need to think carefully about how best to use their time over the next two years. Instead of meetings where information is cascaded, think about including time for co-planning, moderating marking, resource creation. 
• Facebook groups with GoogleDrive / Dropbox are a really useful. Teachers need to be proactively uploading and sharing, as well as waiting for resources to download. Someone once suggested to me that it is just 2-3% of teachers willing to upload/share. 
• Willing schools, perhaps those with Teaching School status, may be able to host evenings or days for teachers (and not just HoDs) to work together. Imagine what 10 RE teachers in a computer room could achieve in a day?
• Awareness - 
• Heads of Department need to be alerting their line managers / SLT / headteacher of the current situation. They should know already (it's not only RS!), and it should obviously not be an excuse for poor standards. Realistically planning cannot be in place for both GCSE and A Level for the two year course for 1st September 2016. In some schools this is being asked for.
• It is also worth nothing that OFQUAL have said they will not publish grade boundaries until after 2018 exams, anything teachers produce will be an approximation. CPD / meeting time may need review to use time most productively.
• Being Realistic -
• You will not have even the whole first year planned and resourced for September 2016. Don't beat yourself up about it. Review termly, plan collaboratively.
• Your lessons will become more engaging as your familiarise yourself with the spec. Consider adding useful videos to this document <here>. Your lessons in September 2017 for Y10 will be better than those this September, and that's okay.

Conclusions:

A useful mantra for the next few years is this:

"Chunk. Collaborate. Share." Mr D Kenny

There is a great opportunity for schools to work together, embracing technology and existing networks. Teachers need to be given some time and leeway to do this. Teachers also need the confidence to share - your resources are worth sharing!

I did think GCSE RS needed reform urgently, there was good reason in my mind as to why the old qualifications were not in the EBacc. I also think A-Level RS needed reform, perhaps less urgently. 

However, the timescales for this were all wrong. Teachers are further overworked, and students will suffer. DfE, this isn't right. Please learn from it. Some of us will probably be here next time around...

*I struggled to find more accurate dates - if you let me know, I will update

Image courtesy of YouTube

Read My Textbook

Read the current proofs <here>

PLEASE NOTE - NOW THIS IS AVAILABLE TO BUY, YOU CANNOT READ FOR FREE ONLINE

The final, printed version will reflect the approved spec and sample assessments. Exam support will be provided and all tasks in the textbook will match the final, approved spec.

To request inspection copies and class sets from this series, please email schools.orders.uk@oup.com, quoting K42995. For each title that you order on inspection, we will send you the corresponding free online drafts as soon as they are available.

It has been a shame that Edexel (Pearson) have been so late to be approved, and I worry that some schools will have picked specs for the 'wrong reasons' (first approved, first textbook available etc) rather than what they genuinely believe is the best spec, with most straightforward assessment and best resourced. 

The CES has been directly involved in the writing of the specs for Eduqas and AQA, which does mean that those specs are to a high standard. However the CES have also worked with this textbook to ensure that, as a resource, it is of the highest quality, authentic and accurate in every detail. 

Many staff have said they want to plan over the summer, and despite the delays, now with the electronic version ready and available to view they are now able to do that. 

• Read more on my website <here>
• Read more from OUP <here>
• Download latest SAMs and Spec from Edexcel <here>
• SoWs / Course Planners etc <here>

How Do You Pick An Exam Spec?

"I just want a change so I am moving from Edexcel to AQA."

"WJEC is just easier. I'm changing to that."

"I like the look of OCR."

"It just won't suit my students."

"I'm just staying with Edexcel."

"AQA have always been good to my students."

Like may subjects, the RE world is busy discussing the soon to be approved GCSE Religious Studies options. Since I have been writing a textbook for Edexcel, it would seem foolish to teach anything else; even if it is not perfect, at least I know it very well. However, having looked at the specs from the earliest stages, I think I would struggle to pick which exam board for students to study. I just don't know what my criteria would be.

I've never been a Head of Department. In my first job, we did AQA and my current school we do Edexcel; in both cases, I just got on with it. Both had their advantages, but equally their weaknesses. Is there a 'perfect' exam and spec? I doubt it.

Some things that I think are true:

• All exams will now cover the same content (as set out in DfE documentation)
• All exams will be equally hard (as ensured by OFQUAL)
• All exams will have an equal amount of content (as ensured by OFQUAL)
• All exams will include extended writing

So what things do teachers consider when making a decision:

• Resourcing - Who is writing textbooks? Who is producing online resources? What will they cost?
• Popularity - Linked to the above, the more people teaching it, the more resources will be shared on TES, UKEdChat etc.
• 'Approach' - How have the spec writers organised the material? Is it like the DfE Annexe or has it been rearranged thematically, perhaps around the popular philosophy and ethics themes?
• Assessment - Some teachers prefer a predictable exam structure, some have already show preference for certain types of questions in the published SAMs.
• Marking - How accurate has marking been? Have their been multiple 'marking scandals
• History - I've always done it...

After asking on the Facebook groups Save RE and The RE Teacher's Forum, a few responses got me thinking. Many cited assessment... but then said they simply wanted to be confident in how their students would be assessed. At this stage, when specs and SAMs are not confirmed, how can this be a deciding factor? It can't, yet some people have already made their decision based upon this. I do think assessment is vital, but in certainly feels like a bit of a stab in the dark at the moment. Some have said they like particular mark allocations though, and this is to be confirmed whether they will change or not.

Many of the exam boards seem to be taking a more formulaic approach, which is better for less able students as they can be thoroughly prepared for types of questions. I think in some respects teachers would love an unpredictable paper to really test their students out, but in reality, when we all need to be conscious of grades, we must ensure students do as well as possible.

Content does vary slightly, in so far as some boards are only doing some of the ethics and philosophy themes. This may influence some teachers as they perceive certain topics to be more or less appealing. The popular GCSE themes of euthanasia and abortion now only feature as a small part, which many are disappointed about (I'm not too disappointed, but that's another blog...).

Some are still citing perceived easiness of one board over another, but given the time OFQUAL have spent and the large consultation, it would be disappointing if there was the case. RE teachers have been kept waiting as OFQUAL want to get it right. I really hope they have. I do think it was one of Gove's great ideas that never came to fruition... one exam board for each subject.

Exam boards have been working hard to get the attention, and business, of teachers. Perhaps it will be the boards that offer the most support: schemes of work, free resources, free INSET? Will it be a rush at the start, or will there be imbedded, long term support to help teachers? Sadly only time will tell.

Others have genuinely cited "gut instinct", others 'teachability' or suitability. Others have said they are with an exam board for another subject, and want to stay the same. Some have said they want the fewer changes the better. A few have claimed that they are looking for what is most relevant and engaging... I think this is perhaps the teachers responsibility?

I've picked my GCSE course, but still not sure on A-Level yet... For both A-Level and GCSE, I know I will planning and preparing as I go. I'm not going to get too stressed right now.

Image courtesy of Formico

Humanism and RE

Yesterday I had a little rant on Facebook about the high courts decision in regard to the BHA case (see <here>).  Before reading my rant, I want to state something categorical:

I believe that there is a place for non-religious world views in the study of RE and in the current and new GCSE RS specs. I think they are vital in the broad understanding of religion and beliefs for our students. I think it is impossible to teach about religion without giving alternative, non-religious viewpoints, and often students demand to explore them. Of course these are just as valid as religious viewpoints and beliefs.

So here is my rant here, but appreciate it may not be as technically accurate as I first believed. I do remain confident that some of my reasoning for not having a humanism annex / paper is correct.

For some reason, the high court has decided that humanism needs to be studied at GCSE RS and it was against the law to exclude it from new specs.

1) RS is not RI, we don't 'advertise' a range of religions and invite students to 'take their pick'. As such, we don't need humanism as an option for students to 'pick from', nor is it relevant if they are religious or not. Religious studies should be about studying religion, even if there was not one religious person in England.

2) RS is an academic study OF religion. Like history is of history. People don't just study religion because they are religious. Even if you claim all the violence in the world is because people are religious, surely that makes it deeply fascinating? 

3) A humanist option at GCSE could result in students gaining a GCSE in RS with a 75% study of non-religious views. Would you get a Science GCSE for studying 75% non-scientific stuff?

4) Even the BHA can't tell people exactly what should be taught as part of this humanism spec (they attempted something which was a soft / confusing option). I invited them to speak about it at The London RE Hub and they declined. They had a rep in the audience who chose to not answer questions on it.

5) Non-religious views are always part of RS anyway. Why is it an 'either-or' for the BHA? 

6) Taking away the religion from RS would make those without religious knowledge suffer greatly in understanding religion and belief. That's bonkers. The world needs more knowledge and understanding, not less.

Interestingly one of those who took this to court sends her child to a faith school and this ruling won't effect faith schools. Did she just fancy a day out in court? Thankfully the DfE have already said new GCSE specs will now not change. I suspect this will not be enough for the BHA and they will continue to roll their media machine trying to fight for this change. Maybe they will actually come and speak at my next conference to explain what it is they want taught? Apologies for this lunchtime rant. If you have got this far... WELL DONE!

I also cited, Robert Orme's article from earlier in the year, which is feel is vital reading (see <here>). He provides a far more eloquent and articulate set of reasoning as to why humanism should not be in the curriculum as an option like other religions.

What is at the heart of the legal precedent that has now been set is as follows:

While the Government will not be immediately compelled to change the GSCE, religious education syllabuses around the country will now have to include non-religious worldviews such as humanism on an equal footing, and pupils taking a GCSE will also have to learn about non-religious worldviews alongside the course.

Firstly, I am relieved. A DfE spokesperson confirmed:

“Today’s judgment does not directly affect the detailed content of our reformed GCSE and will not affect the current teaching of the RS GCSE in classrooms.” (via <NATRE>)

UPDATE: Full statement <here>

There was a group of teachers who went into panic mode that the GCSE specs which are already running late (see <here>) would be further delayed. Andrew Copson tweeted me pointing that GCSE specs weren't being taught yet (so could still be changed?), which is correct, but specs, syllabuses, textbooks and resources don't appear overnight. Obviously those doing a 3 year GCSE have already started too.

So what does it mean?

It seems to be the law on RE will have to be changed slightly, indicating that non religious world views should now be covered in RE. Now, it's important to remember the current law on RE is already much flouted as we have this complexity between the requirement of RE and the GCSE subject RS. Will there really be supplementary lessons to GCSE RS to cover NRWV? Or will the references to NRWV that are already in many of the new GCSE specs be sufficient? Or will the fact that students always ask about people that don't believe in God be enough? I don't know a teacher who manages to avoid NRWV already.

My concerns remain as below:

1. The law is already complex when it comes to RE; it is also often ignored. Will this be ignored or will the BHA have an active campaign to challenge schools where they feel it is being ignored? (Although perhaps this will be a good thing in seeking out poor RE? Not always easy to fix though...)
2. What is this content that we need to teach? The proposed GCSE annex is not really RE but a mixture of science, culture, English literature, etc (See <here>). As Mark points out in his blog, will there be a lot of, "humanists tend to have a range of opinions on this issue which probably revolve around being nice to each other" (see <here>).
3. The BHA seems to promoting that their 'brand' of Humanism is what now needs to be taught, however this is not the only NRWV and obviously, we may now see other groups pushing to be included in RE, by law. Scientology? The Illuminati? Will the law allow for restriction or determination? I think the DfE need to be really clear on this or we could end up with a mess.
4. There seems to be, from some, a desire for a new subject that is a mix of culture, morality, reflection, self exploration, review etc. This sounds lovely and would maybe be popular. I don't think it is a direct replacement for RE. Find an extra space in the curriculum for it, and I am sure schools would be interested... the study of religion remains relevant regardless of the religious persuasion of those studying it.
5. If students are reading Dawkins or Hitchens in their spare time, that is genuinely great. However it means they probably need some teaching of Islam in their RE lessons. We need to overcome this belief that 'my students are not religious so they are not interested'. Do we exist as teachers to simply teach them what they are already know, or to open their horizons?
6. What is the next step? The BHA seem to want an option paper for Humanism in the GCSE. Maybe this is right and correct. However, with it's current format, it just doesn't work. Maybe the work will happen to make it a comparable study. What worries me is that if this does happen, it will be one version of humanism rather a genuine exploration of a range of NRWV. 

Rob concludes (quite correctly):

There is certainly a place in GCSE RS for studying the nature of atheism and its challenges to, and impact upon religions. Humanism would be included in this – but studied on its own terms as a non-religious world-view, not falsely cast into the mould of a religion.

Non-religious world views should be studied alongside a study of two religions; it should not be an either-or. This would make for an enriching conversation and deepen understanding of religion and belief, rather than withholding this understanding from those who already lack it the most.

Mark Shepstone has also written a good blog highlight his concerns, as a humanist, but lover of academic, good RE. Read it <here>.

We do need to revisit our aims, and maybe our name (read Dawn's excellent blog on this <here>), but RE remains in a bit a of a mess. Maybe this will force the RE community to sharpen up. Maybe there is now political climate for a law change. Just don't expect it to happen over night. 

Image: http://www.styliwallpapers.com/funny-monkey-pictures/ 

Catholic Schools & Islam at GCSE

Schools Week (6/11/15) covered a story on P4 of this week's paper by Sophie Scott. It's worth reading it in full in the print edition (a seemingly edited version appears <here>), before reading the rest of my blog which addresses some of the information in the article. At the heart of the article, was a decision by the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales to collectively decide Catholic schools should study Judaism as their second religion at GCSE.

On a personal level, I found the tone somewhat inflammatory, but as a practising Catholic, I am used to dealing with criticism of the Church and in particular Catholic schools and education. I absolutely understand some of the issues that people have with the Church and Catholic schools. Yet I am also reminded of the quote by Archbishop Fulton Sheen, "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

As such, it is best in such circumstances to focus on the facts:

• The letter came from the Bishops and was their decision. It was simply communicated by the CES, as is their role; the article does not make this clear. The CES offered advice to the Bishops, but they make their own decisions (Perhaps worth noting that some CES staff worked on the AQA GCSE spec which included options to teach both Islam and Judaism). The CES has certainly not "decreed" or ordered anything. In any Diocese, it is the individual Bishop's responsibility to make his own decision; many go with the decision of the collective conference.
• The article begins "Catholic schools will no longer teach Islam as part of GCSE RS". It is worth noting that many did not anyway. The majority of schools teach Catholic Christianity. Any that did teach Catholic Christianity and Islam previously would have done so without formal permission of Bishop's Conference BUT presumably with their own Bishop's knowledge and approval (through Diocese / Section 48 inspection). It is possible that if the Bishop allowed it previously, he will do so again.
• The article says each religion must be "equally weighted". This is absolutely not the requirement of the new GCSE; it requires a minimum of 25% coverage of a second religion. Some specs will provide a 50:50 split, but this is a choice not a requirement.
• The article says, "regardless of whether they are trained to teach other religions, such as Islam.". I don't know of many RE teachers that are trained so specifically for teaching Islam in any schools, let alone Catholic schools? Teachers in Catholic schools are employed primarily to teach Catholic Christianity; that is their job. It would be reasonable to expect their training and expertise would be in this. Their expertise in other faiths is, however, also vital and would be used as KS3, possibly KS5 (in general RE type lessons) and equally still at GCSE! This is a misleading comment.
• It is claimed by an anonymous Catholic RE teacher that this decision was made for "purely academic reasons", as if this is a bad thing. What other reasons would there be? A desire to fit the Community Cohesion agenda? To "fight terrorism"? These responsibilities do not belong to RE alone; they are whole school issues, just like SMSC. Surely RE, particularly in the Catholic school, should be an academic subject? It should have its own integrity and its own measures of success irrespective of the context and "current climate". Do other academic subjects "sway with the times"?
• The choice of studying Islam in Catholic schools previously was not one based on academic rigour, not to help Promote Cohesion arguably.  Schools more likely picked it as they thought they would get higher grades with their particular intake. Is this a reason to be defended and upheld? 
• Catholic schools do, and will continue to teach Islam; the article implies this is not the case. It will feature in Key Stage 1 to 3, as it always has done.
• What has a primary school with 90% Muslim pupils got to do with GCSE RS? These pupils will learn about Islam alongside Catholic Christianity just like all pupils in Catholic primary schools.
• It is not true that pupils in Catholic schools "must be religious" (this 'fact' features in the print edition - no longer online?). This is only the case in over-subscription, and even then, the parents of a student with a statement of SEND could request, and be granted, a place in a Catholic school (as well as other situations such as LA students etc). This reinforces the idea of proselytising and forced religion in Catholic schools; something which I absolutely do not believe to be true.
• The anonymous teacher claimed "all lesson material would need to be rewritten". I cannot see why this would be the case? The majority of the GCSE remains Catholic Christianty, as has been taught previously. Indeed much lesson material will need reworking, but this is due to the more rigorous GCSE course rather than the inclusion or exclusion of Islam. 

This is my personal response to the article, and the inaccuracies within it. I feel that schools with a religious character and those without should be trying to work closer together, reducing the 'them vs us' mentality, especially within RE. There is common ground. However articles such as this are not helpful. The story could have been reported very differently, and more accurately, but that wouldn't have been as exciting as an 'exclusive' for Schools Week. 

NOTE - Since publishing this, Schools Week editor Laura McInery has been in touch to let me know the online version is a corrected version. She also let me know the CES have been given the opportunity to write their own article for next week. Thanks to Laura for this, a sign of good journalism for me! However my concerns remain that often the media, in general, are very quick to report inaccuracies about Catholic education.

Image courtesy of The Telegraph

Edexcel GCSE Religion & Media

Image courtesy of The Guardian

Firstly, I think religion and the media is fascinating. I always do some really good work on Islamophobia with Y9 for example. However I also feel it is done quite badly on the Edexcel GCSE RS course. It is also an area where teachers are often looking for inspiration...

Background Reading

• Why are we watching Shrek? by Robert Orme - "RE teachers should not have to pretend that there are important religious insights to be gained from spending lessons watching Shrek, Finding Nemo and Bend it like Beckham."
• DVD RE by Dawn Cox - A more general overview of why we use DVDs but also highlights some of the problems.

At the end of the day, for the next two years, we still need to teach it.

This year I have left the media content to the end, in the hope that by doing a distinct 'Religion and the Media' unit, I can cover it a little better. The four areas to cover are:

• How two television and/or radio programmes and/or films about religion may affect a person’s attitude to belief in God.
• How an issue arising from matter of life and death has been presented in one form of the media, for example in a television or radio programme, or in a film, or in the national press.
• How an issue arising from matter of marriage and the family has been presented in one form of the media, for example in a television or radio programme, or in a film, or in the national press.
• How an issue arising from religion and community cohesion has been presented in one form of the media, for example in a television or radio programme, or in a film, or in the national press.

The debate of what media to use comes up frequently on Twitter and Save RE, so I thought it would be valuable to collect some data on what RE teachers are using...

If it is not possible to use the embedded form, please click here: http://tiny.cc/religionmedia - and share widely!

The important bit... see the results here: http://tiny.cc/viewreligionmedia (if you want to be added as an editor to help keep it tidy, please email me at TalkingDonkeyRE@gmail.com)