CoRE Report: Where Next? (Part 1)

RE Online has been posting many blogs by various RE experts about the Commission on RE report which are worth a read (see here). They currently cover mainly recommendations 1 to 3, but perhaps may continue to cover all in time. Here are some of my own thoughts formulated over the last few months... 

Damian Hinds' response to the Commission on RE (here) was that now is not the time for curriculum change, as he actively tries to reduce teacher workload. A noble aim, and one RE teachers still struggling with new GCSEs and A Levels presumably appreciate in many ways.

Yet this is clearly and quite starkly contrasted by the regular stories of RE dropping off the curriculum unchallenged in many schools - for those who care deeply about RE, even one child being deprived of the subject is unacceptable. There is a clear moral imperative to do something, as many including Mark Chater have stated, we cannot stand by and just do nothing. The report explains a number of reasons why this is urgent.

Some have been quite critical of people like myself commenting on the CoRE report, saying that as someone who works in the Catholic sector, these wider challenges are not something you have to contend with ("With your big budgets and protected curriculum time..."). Yet I think they perhaps do not realise the commitment that people like myself are willing to dedicate to wider RE issues. As someone who has supported a number of non-Catholic schools and worked with organisations such as Teach First, Westminster Briefings and indeed Culham St Gabriel's, this seems quickly forgotten - I even organised the two London RE Hub conferences! I share in the wider desire for better RE, whether students are in a Catholic school or not. 

Many of the Catholic responses so far, official or not, have focused on the concern of Bishops authority over the RE curriculum. It is worth considering why this is so important - and what it means. I reshare  the Catholic Church's position, as outlined in a chapter I wrote for the new book, "We Need to Talk About RE" (see <here>). This was written before the National Entitlement was published, but the last line is a pertinent one:

If CoRE were to recommend a common baseline entitlement for all schools, including schools with a religious character, then it is very likely that the RE curricula of Catholic schools would already be in compliance with it. But since one of the conditions of the partnership between Church and state is the right of the bishops to set the curriculum in Catholic schools, then any statutory imposition of just such a common baseline is potentially highly problematic. Of course, given what has already be said, this will only be a problem in principle, not in practice. Nonetheless the principle is a fundamental one and a non-negotiable one for the Catholic Church in England. It is hoped that a way forward can be found that ensures outstanding Religious Education for all without backing the Bishops into a corner where they have no other option but to oppose something that, in every detail but one, they would otherwise welcome and support. 

Why are the Bishops willing to stand their ground on this? It is important to consider what makes a school Catholic. This my own view - there are 3 key things, but they are not equal: Catholic leaders, distinct RE and Catholic students - these then lead to the ethos and community. Admissions policies have been actively challenged for many years, and now potentially RE is now being focused on. One suggestion is that Catholic schools simply have "RE" and then additional "Catholic RE" - yet RE is the enterprise of the whole Catholic school and not just a timetabled lesson; quite simply it is impossible to separate the two. It is also worth remembering the history of the Catholic Church and the state in this country, plus the contribution of the Church to education in this country - do we retain anything distinct if we can no longer ensure these 3 things? 

To force schools of religious character to conform to the NE would create unnecessary difficulty - it is clear that they would look to this curriculum and use it - but we have to ask whether our primary aim is a correctional one or is it the urgent need to raise standards where they are needed the most? I'd like to hope the latter (despite some wanting to do battle with the CES and Board of Deputies!).

----------------

So what next? For me, as I have suggested previously (here), the time is now - we need to start looking at the next step. The Commission proposed a 3 year timetable, but it may be more like 5. Yet with the resources and finances available, we should be able to utilise the expertise in the world of RE to create a truly exceptional RE curriculum - with enough flexibility to work in different contexts and to aim for some consensus. I was doing some work at the DfE recently, and when discussing this, some said, "Surely there is enough of a consensus to establish what a KS3 student needs to know about Islam? Is it as controversial as you seem to make it?"

However, it is worth noting the caution of such a project. Why were the 2013 frameworks not a success? Have the general aims and purposes of RE found some common ground and consensus in the National Entitlement, but would the curriculum content debate result in irreconcilable difference of opinion? Will the ideas of a 'knowledge-rich' curriculum be reviewed in the future as the fad of 2018/9? What would a curriculum look like, and to what extent would it be resourced - to the level of schemes of work, PowerPoints and textbooks?

"With teachers at peak workload, SACREs losing touch with their local area, widespread fragmentation caused by new school types and the sharp decline in local RE advisers able to pull various strings together, this does seem like a timely innovation. All over the country advisers, SACREs and Trusts are reinventing the wheel; a colossal expenditure of energy that could surely be put to a better, or more streamlined, use." Kate Christopher

In her blog, Kate goes on to give two examples - the RE Today model syllabuses and Understanding Christianity. These do give excellent, coherent curriculum that is well thought out by experts - but at a cost. For me the real hope of the National Entitlement is to quite literally 'Save RE' in the places where it most needs saving; we need some kind of safety net when schools are claiming their 'skills day' is their RE. The proposed statement of entitlement while noble and very useful on a theoretical and perhaps legalistic level, is not going to land on the desk of a headteacher who doesn't value you RE and grab the attention of him or her.

I do add a caveat that expertise should be financially rewarded - and as a textbook writer people often feel the need to point out that I am "profiteering" from schools (check out the life of a textbook writer here). If people are putting in their time and effort, especially as full time teachers, they should receive remuneration. The culture of free things can hinder the very best ideas coming to fruition. Let's hope the DfE or one of the charitable foundations in the RE world can help.

It's hopeful that if pitched correctly, the DfE will be open to this type of proposal after their approval of a Music model curriculum (here), which is still to be finalised, but presumably under development as a workload reducing time-saver for schools and music teachers.

It would be prudent to look at what is different about this, in contrast to the Commission report. Music is certainly a contested subject with the various different organisations involved trying to pitch their particular area: composing, performance, music tech etc. Although obviously it is arguably not as political!  To me, the difference is that for Music there is not an entitlement statement, but a ready to go curriculum that schools can utilise where they are struggling for resources and expertise. Obviously, as an RE community we would not have a successful proposed curriculum without the excellent research conducted by the Commissioners in trying to find some acceptable middle ground and consensus.

There is a part of me that likes the idea of the Annex that was produced for GCSE (see here). It gave an overview of what needed to be covered in exam specs. Yet I do not like the way that everything is framed around Christianity, and as a result is artificial in some structures for other religions. Would it be useful to have such a document for KS1-3?

A further interesting development on this idea of curriculum is the Ofsted focus groups (here) which have not gone via subject organisations. They have invited largely full time teachers very much living out curriculum and curriculum change, many of which have demonstrated their expertise via blogs, Twitter and speaking at conferences. I feel there is some real value in this. It is not the Govian "we have had enough of experts", but actually those in the classroom do have a real expertise, just maybe a different one to those working as consultants, advisers, commercial enterprises and at universities. Everyone has something to offer. 

The recommendation (3b) suggests a "maximum of nine professionals, including serving teachers" to devise the curriculum. However, as previously discussed, ED Hirsch has used 150-200 people to some of his events, representing all stakeholders (see here). Would it help reach consensus using new and different voices in the RE world?

I am excited about what this is going to look like. It's got huge potential.

Read my overview of the 11 Recommendations here.

• The final report is available to download here: Final Report of the Commission on RE 
• An executive summary is available here: Final Report (Exec Summary) of the Commission on RE

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

KS2/3 Transition Knowledge Organiser: Religious Education

Each year, a new cohort of Year 7 students arrive. Some subjects have a National Curriculum, others are tested by SATs; there is some consensus about what students will know, and what they will not. However RE is very, very different.

Our Catholic feeder schools will have followed Come and See, a Catholic programme of study used by the majority of Catholic primary schools. We also have the Curriculum Directory which forms the basis of all that should be taught in Catholic schools. This should, or could, make it pretty straightforward to pick up where they left of.

It is important that I stress that primary colleagues do do a great job, and the knowledge and understanding of many Year 7 students is great. This is not designed as a criticism. It is also worth remembering the difference between: "they have been taught this" and "they know this".

However, we have a number of students that come from non-Catholic primary schools, who find RE in a Catholic school a really steep learning curve. Things that are taken for granted, like the Sacraments and the Mass, are totally alien to them. Even with a class set by ability, there is a phenomenal range in the first term (and beyond). Like many schools, we also have students from a range of other faiths: Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs - and of course some students of no faith at all.

ED Hirsch began his work by identifying key weaknesses in the students in his care; they were not succeeding as they had not been taught certain knowledge. It was the fact he cared about this, and believed he could address it, that lead to his work on 'cultural literacy' and identifying the key facts a child should know.

As such, I began thinking about how I could help new Year 7s to adapt and thrive in Term 1 of Year 7 RE (and beyond!). Catholic RE is different to 'other' RE, and we make few apologies for that. However it is also academic, critical and knowledge rich.

My solution was to produce a Knowledge Organiser linked to The Way, our Year 7 syllabus. I also wanted to include some of the key information that we often (dangerously) assume that students in a Catholic school will know. We are historically the 'option for the poor' and the poor has an ever changing definition. Those who are struggling or missing out need our help. Someone once suggested putting all the non-Catholic, or non-Catholic educated, students in one class to help them - I genuinely can't think of anything more horrific, or against the ethos of our schools.

This Knowledge Organiser is in draft format, and the first place I shared was in a Facebook group called Primary Catholic RE to get feedback - I want to work collaboratively on this with primary colleagues. It is not top down, from secondary. It is on a GoogleDoc that has comments open to all to offer suggestion, alternatives, criticisms. I feel it will be a better document if people do this.

KS2/3 Transition Knowledge Organiser: Catholic Religious Education 

Already I have faced some criticism, and I will begin to answer it:

• My intention was never to be "condescending" or "arrogant" to primary colleagues. KS2/3 transition is hard to get right. I want to work collaboratively, hence I am not doing something without sharing as widely as I can. 
• This may not be appropriate in other contexts. This document has been labelled as "OTT", "Ridiculous" and "Far, far, FAR too much". I've asked what knowledge on here is not worth knowing, no-one has answered that so far.
• I do not believe that RE is about rote learning facts. However I do believe knowing certain key information (and knowing it well), will help students understand, analyse and evaluate material in the classroom.
• Proselytising is not the aim of Catholic RE. Knowing the parts of the Mass is not forcing anyone to believe it is true. However, I have seen huge ignorance of the Catholic Church, and ignorance is never a positive thing in life. I've also never known teaching students about the Mystery of the Trinity, or the Mystery of Eucharist remove key questions of faith - quite the opposite! 
• This is not 'another test' for primary school children, I do not believe our feeder schools will take this document and start testing students on it in a high-stakes fashion, like their SATs - of course they won't! However it can be shared with parents and students new to Catholic education to help them 'close the gap'. 
• Yes, it is a bit Hirsch-ian. No, he is not evil. Yes, Gove did cite him on occasion.
• Naturally these 'facts' will be given context, significance and meaning in the classroom.  
• This knowledge cannot be simply labelled as "meaningless" and dismissed. It means something to someone - quite a lot actually. At the very least, it helps to understand the Catholic influence on art, culture, literature and so on. Criticism of Catholic schools via this document is not really that helpful.
• My vision of RE is not just knowledge-based, but imagine what you could do in the classroom if all (or most) students already knew key information? You could do far more deep thinking, meaningful debate and discussion, and extended writing.  

I'm left with a few key questions:

• Can we expect new Year 7s to know certain things? And by this I mean facts, definitions, names, places, dates, stories - is this reasonable?
• How can we ensure it remains low-stakes, but also seen as important? We do not want a Catholic SAT in RE.
• What is the best way to share? Via primary schools, at Year 7 induction, in September of Year 7?
• Will we test it in Year 7? Should this provide the outline of our baseline test (much of it does!)?
• Is there a best way to work with primary colleagues on this?

Next steps

• Is there a way of creating a more knowledge-rich curriculum in Catholic schools?
• How do we reconcile the demands of the Curriculum Directory with such a curriculum model?
• Is a simple Knowledge Organiser for each unit at Key Stage 3 the next best step?
• I have already done this and shared for feedback: The Way - Unit 1: Revelation and Faith 
• Do we need an adapted version for Year 12 students who join our school and study A Level RS? The New Testament element of the course provides a real difficulty for some students.

Image courtesy of Blue Diamond

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 

#TFREConference 2016: Core Knowledge & RE

A grey and misty Saturday morning saw an early start in London for the second Teach First RE Conference, this one entitled REthinking the Curriculum. I was leading a session on Core Curriculum including the work of ED Hirsch and the possibilities it meant for RE.

I will be writing more extensively about this soon, but in the mean time, feel free to see my presentation:

Big thanks to Frances and Caroline for yet again organising such a great day in a wonderful location: