CoRE Report: The Recommendations (Part 2)

Following on my overview blog, here, this is focused on the 11 recommendations with my thoughts on each. It's vital that you read at least the executive summary, found here.

• Recommendation 1: Has this ‘name change’ caused unnecessary and distracting debate? It almost seems to be a feature of any report into RE - put a name change at number 1 of the recommendations to grab the newspaper headlines! Some feel that this change opens the door for a purely sociological teaching of ‘religion’ (yet the NE states a variety of approaches), others are wary of a secular humanist agenda (while the NE could potentially be covered with very little NRWV), while some question a seeming parity of religious and non-religious views in curriculum content. There are always the "somes", it is impossible to say if any of these concerns are valid before we actually see any curriculum models. Maybe it is important to show the law on NRWV is being covered? Or has it simply been a device that has opened up much needed discussion on the curriculum content? What hasn’t been helpful for teachers is the many headlines suggesting atheism, agnosticism and secularism will be taught for the first time in schools. It does nothing for the public perception of the subject who often think it is still RI anyway!
• Recommendation 2: This will be problematic for some schools with a religious character. If this is the battle that some want to insist on, it will delay helping those schools who need urgent RE help the most. It is likely that many curricula would be compliant, but to force it upon Catholic schools would be unwise. If they freely chose to use, that is a totally different matter. As I stated in Part 1 (here), it is not the practicalities of this, it is the principle and precedent. 
• Recommendation 3: A complex one... the tensions between ensuring something is good and robust (needing ‘gatekeepers’?) and allowing the very best of practice and existing excellent RE to form part of this. “Whose knowledge?” is always contested - does this do enough to ensure we get it right? The key question is always going to be - who are the 9? How many will be teachers
• Recommendation 4: I do find it hard to justify hard work being replicated unnecessarily around the country. London particularly exacerbates the problem. How different is good RE in Norwich compared to Liverpool or to Brighton? How different is good RE in Newham compared to Hackney or Tower Hamlets?
• Recommendation 5: Worth including - I’d like to hope that would not be an issue. I also hope the next exam reform is a good way off!
• Recommendation 6: More training, bursaries and funding is always welcome. It is great to see the current support for this already including SKE funding from DfE. Subject knowledge can be real issue in RE with willing and keen non specialists teaching - and we know it is so important for effective teaching.
• Recommendation 7: Again, more money is good... however it does return to the question as to who the national body are, and what are their interests. I am reminded of CPD providers being involved in government funded organisations who would be accrediting CPD... (see here)
• Recommendation 8: This does recognise the good will, time and dedication of those working locally for RE. I do feel now may be the time to review their roles. Some RE teachers do not have access to local faith representatives - let’s train them up and get them working with schools, teachers and students!
• Recommendation 9: Section 48 again is problematic - for example an inspector of a Catholic school, judging RE provision, perhaps should not be judging the RE in accordance with the governments criteria? There is a quite a shift in purpose in this scenario - some could claim it is small, technical, trivial almost and 'no big deal' - but inspectors employed by the Bishop, are then judging based on state criteria rather than just the Bishops criteria. The relationship between faith school providers, particularly the CoE and RC and the state has been long and worked well. It is important to consider the implications of pushing for this change, especially knowing it would be strongly resisted (and be potentially damaging to the whole process). However a greater focus from Ofsted to ensure good RE would be helpful. There is no point Nick Gibb making comments about its compulsory nature in the Houses of Parliament without that being monitored through inspection.
• Recommendation 10: RE can be counted in the Progress 8 despite not being an EBacc subject (I think for 97% of our students it was in the third bucket), and as much as I want the profile of RE raised, obviously consideration needs to be given to the impact of change. Imagine if schools had to legally study RE, which meant some students didn’t do History or Geography - would that be an acceptable compromise? Many schools did use the Short Course to facilitate their legal duty for RE, and now can’t (a bigger issue than EBacc?). Potentially less students are now doing RE - but those who are, are doing better RE? Do we build our subjects reputation on being a desirable option rather than compulsory? As always, there are strong arguments for both.
• Recommendation 11: The right of withdrawal is something that needs review, and clarification. It is important to respect parental rights, and "the state knows best" remains a dangerous rhetoric. Yet it seems sensible to work towards an RE is sufficiently academic to eradicate the need for withdrawal - a subject where students do not want to be withdrawn, and nor do their parents want to ask for withdrawal! I think it is likely to stay - to avoid complex legal cases - but the ideal is surely less withdrawal in the short to mid term future. 

Overall: For me, this is definitely the best of the reports that have been published on RE, as you would expect. I think the primary aim must be ensure at least adequate - if not good - RE, according to the current law, in all schools. I would like to see an 'Entitlement Lite' - a 3 to 5 short bullet point summary of the most important aims that could easily be placed in front of headteachers where needed. 

I do fear that if members of the RE community decide they are going to focus on ensuring schools that currently control their own RE curriculum and are inspected via Section 48 are legally bound by this entitlement, it will be problematic and distracting to the primary aim. As I've stated before, the best case scenario is that the religious groups that run schools freely agree to conform and ensure their curricula are compliant, as many will be, rather than have it forced upon them. To do this could drive further divide in the RE community rather than unite it as this report has the potential to do. The period of further reflection indicate by Damian Hinds is my preference, as we begin to understand what this will look like in reality. As always, I am a champion for RE in all schools, but I cannot wholeheartedly endorse all the the Commission proposes, because I do not believe that the state should be in control of the RE in Catholic schools. We have given much to the education system of this country, and worked well with the government of the UK for long enough to retain this right. 

A huge thanks must go to the Commissioners for their hard work on this report. 

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

The Great Textbook Battle

Last week I attended I attended the Policy Exchange event hosted by John Blake and featuring Nick Gibb, Emma Lennard, Robert Orme and Robert Peal. The event has been widely reported already (TES - Nick Gibb: 'Teachers will lead the move back to textbooks'). I am a textbook writer myself (GCSE and KS3 RE) and I realise the value of a good textbook, and want all my students to have access to one.

18 arguments for the use of textbooks in schools:

• Knowledge has already been fact checked - rather than relying on Wikipedia on a Sunday evening
• Knowledge is carefully sequenced - enabling students to successfully develop schema
• Environmental impact is lessened - photocopying is often wasteful in schools, costs can be similar, if not less for textbooks over a number of years
• Workload - Using a textbook rather than producing a resource from scratch is hugely time saving
• Literacy - Students should be reading books; reading is good 
• Differentiation - A well planned and constructed textbook can aid with differentiation not hinder it 
• "DBPP" - Death by PowerPoint - Why do teachers spend hours typing up a textbook into a PowerPoint?
• Tech Issues - Wifi not working, iPads not charged, Student X has downloaded Angry Birds...
• A launchpad - To further reading, to carefully constructed activities... they do not kill creativity.
• Social leveller - Geographical areas that struggle to get specialist teachers do not disadvantage students. 
• Non-specialist areas - Even a history specialist may not be a specialist in all areas of History in new National Curriculum, or an RE teacher in all religions. 
• Primary education - Is it possible to be an expert in all areas of curriculum?
• Standards / Quality - How many lessons does a teacher deliver that are okay, but not brilliant?
• Student preference - Many students prefer actual books rather eBooks
• Student learning - Students appear to comprehend more, and remain more focused with actual book rather than digital resources
• Academic study - A good textbook will cultivate a student and introduce them to more academic and rigorous content - rather than Horrible History approach. 
• Copyright - Has already been sorted rather than resources 'nicked' from all over.
• Resource sharing - If teachers are using the same textbooks, resources can be shared with ease. Some textbook writers have shared their accompanying lessons resources for free.

Some issues to overcome:

• Some current GCSE / A Level books have been rushed due to speed of reforms - corrections can be made, but not helpful for schools who already have class sets.
• Some are prohibitively expensive - schools need to carefully work out how to deploy funds, and budget accordingly. 
• A culture (high stakes / accountability?) where there is a huge demand for board specific / exam focused / 'endorsed' textbooks - which naturally go out of date. 
• Why...
• Are teachers who use textbooks considered lazy? ("Just one page ahead")
• Are (newer) teachers often actively discouraged from using them by colleagues?
• Do many claim they "kill creativity"?
• Do some refuse to even consider there could be good textbooks and dismiss them all?
• Should we refuse to even look at international systems that successfully deploy textbooks?

If the problem is quality, let's write them. I have been fortunate enough to be given an opportunity to do just this. If this could reduce workload, and help ease recruitment and retention problems, surely it must be considered? 

Of course, no one knows your class like you do, but for how long can you make everything from scratch? Will the profession consider the evidence presented to us, or will we simply reject the idea because Nick Gibb said it?

Related blog: The Life of a Textbook Writer

More Catholic Schools?

This week Humanists UK have revisited a briefing that contains 5 claims. This is, in part, in response to MPs recently asking questions about the Conservative policy from September 2016 to remove the 50% cap on new school admissions. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP cited the Conservative party manifesto pledge while Catherine McKinnell MP suggested it would be a way to improve education in the UK.

Their main claim is one relating to Canon Law. Humanists UK cite the Catholic Education Service (CES), “which claims that the 50% cap on religious selection ‘contravenes canon law’ and that Catholic schools must select 100% of their places on the basis of religion.” (see article in full <here>)

Firstly, Canon Law is not a book of law as many would understand it, and crucially it is not the same as UK law. Canon Law is the law of the Church, as interpreted by the magisterium, and is essentially, not a useful tool for critics. This is because, a bishop is the ultimate jurisdictional authority of Canon Law in his diocese. If he rules an action contravenes Canon Law, then quite simply, it does. 

Whilst there is no canon which explicitly states word for word that an admissions cap is illegal, the inevitable consequences of a 50% cap would put the Church at odds with its own law. A Catholic school which turns away Catholic pupils because they are Catholic and where a bishop does not have total control over the school’s governance cannot be recognised as a Catholic school. This principle is the same all over the world.

Other faith free schools that have opened (Islamic and Hindu, for example), do not have the demand for places that Catholic schools do. This is why the 50% rule has demonstrably not worked in creating diverse schools. It is ironic that the only faith provider the cap has affected is the Catholic Church, and it does so specifically because Catholic schools are popular with families of all faiths and none.

The bishops simply want any new Catholic schools to be allowed to accommodate all the Catholic pupils who apply. For more than 150 years the Church has been able to do this, but organisations like Humanists UK want to strip parents of this right.  

Returning to their opinions on Canon Law, I give this short rebuttal.  

a) the vast majority of Catholic private schools in England do not select all their places with reference to religion;

• This is due to the fact that Catholic private schools are not oversubscribed in the way other Catholic schools are. It is without doubt that if private Catholic schools had sufficient Catholic families willing to pay for education, they would be prioritised, and certainly not turned away.

b) many Catholic state schools in Scotland do not religiously select their pupils

• Again, there has not been the demand. However, due to the the increasing popularity of Catholic schools in Scotland, many are now implementing faith admissions.

c) a recent OECD survey identified only the UK, Ireland, Israel and Estonia as countries that permit religious discrimination in state school admissions;

• Many Catholic schools overseas are missionary and do not operate in the same way as the UK. They often, charitably, provide education to those who would not normally be able to access free education. It is also worth pointing out, the Church saves the British taxpayer tens of millions of pounds each year through the management of land and buildings. The Catholic community also raises a significant amount of money to support its schools, saving central government funds, which seem ever more scarce in education. Therefore it is only fair that Catholic students get priority. 

d) there are already Catholic state schools in England that do not select all their places on religion;

• Some areas have an abundance of Catholic schools places and can easily meet the local Catholic need. If a school in this position wanted to allocate places to children of other faiths it is more than entitled to do so. Crucially however, this is the local bishop’s decision to make. An arbitrary, state imposed cap contravenes the bishop's canonical right to have this total autonomy. 

e) the Catholic International Education Office – of which the CES is a member – states that a ‘Catholic school is an inclusive school, founded in intercultural and interreligious dialogue. A non-discriminatory school, open to all… It must constantly promote intercultural and interreligious dialogue’.

• English Catholic schools are inclusive. They are the most ethnically diverse schools in the Country and educate significantly more pupils from the poorest households than the national average. What secularist campaigners often forget (or possibly try to ignore) is that despite their mantra that religion is on the way out, the Catholic Church is the largest religious organisation the world with a presence in every country on earth and a following encompassing a sixth of the planet. Therefore the mission of Catholic schools around the world are going to be completely different. Some are there to educate the world's poorest free of charge others are designed to bring different communities together. Arguing that a Catholic should be allowed to attend a Catholic school does not make English Catholic schools discriminatory. 

I went to a wonderful Catholic School and got a great education. I personally hope the 50% rule is lifted. Would love to see fantastic, rigorous, deep & rich RC education combined with Free School & Academy dynamism. @CardinalNichols @CathEdService @JustineGreening https://t.co/wfbTrY9Eyw

— Dame Rachel de Souza (@Rachel_deSouza) 23 November 2017

Catholic schools are popular and in demand by parents. Whether it is ethos, mission, pastoral care, results, or a combination of all these. There is a plan to open 35-40 Catholic free schools in areas of need.

Unless the policy changes, Catholic schools could have to turn away Catholic students. This is not a compromise that the Catholic community wants to make - many of our schools were built by the hands, and out of the pockets of the Catholic community. They have served the UK education system well over the last 150 years. We have a unique history of Christianity and education in the UK and want to continue our positive relationship between Church and state.

What can you do?

Write to your MP requesting the 50% cap is lifted, as promised in the manifesto - do so via <here>

Invite you MP into school - see <here>

Sign this petition - <here>

Image courtesy of Laicismo

CoRE Interim Report: My Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW BOOK: We Need To Talk About RE

There is always a great sense of satisfaction when you get a book in your hands - a book with your name on, or in. I remember the excitement when I first got my hands on my GCSE textbook - it was an amazing feeling. 

This one feels like a real professional affirmation, the fact I was invited to be part of the project and then allowed to write, what I consider a really important contribution, on the place of Catholic RE within discussion of reform. My extract is here: 

This chapter begins by briefly exploring the history of RE in Catholic schools as a context

within which its distinctiveness will be defined and is best understood. Then I explore how

the Catholic vision of good RE fits within the broader vision of RE held by the RE 

community as a whole in England, arguing that RE from a religious perspective brings an 

important breadth to what has always been a pluralistic discipline. Following from that, I look at the current contested areas within RE and consider how the Catholic RE community might respond to these threats and challenges, while spelling out those areas which would be non-negotiables beyond which Catholic RE could not pass without losing its authenticity. With all of this in mind, the chapter concludes by considering some possible futures for Catholic RE. In this section I argue for the importance for pupils in all schools of a study of religion which allows a deep theological engagement with at least one tradition, as is exemplified by Catholic RE. Such an engagement is the only one which allows for a proper grasp of historicity, nuance and complexity, all of which are essential skills in navigating a world of simplistic religious extremes.

I must also add that this chapter was co-authored, and I am very grateful to those who helped me put this together. You know who you are.

This book contains the thoughts and writings of many that I respect and admire in the RE world, although I admit, I don't always agree with. Healthy discussion and disagreement is useful for us in trying to improve the standard of RE in all schools. Here is an overview of who is included in the book:

 

The quotes on the back of the book should be enough for anyone who wants to get clued up on the current state of RE to get reading:

This diverse and accessible series of reflections provides an excellent route map navigating the complex terrain that is contemporary RE. It offers a range of radical solutions guaranteed to prompt debate about the future of the 'RE space' in a post-religious, post-secular contemporary world. (Alan Brine, Former HMI and Ofsted National Adviser for Religious Education)

This book, in the words of two of its authors, does the same as effective RE in classrooms. It offers 'demanding material... a framework for talk, thought, misconceptions and deep engagement' and a discussion of 'unsafe topics'. It is timely and informed and everyone who cares about RE should read it. (Dr Joyce Miller Associate Fellow, WRERU)

This timely book assembles huge amounts of wisdom and experience. It is a valuable addition to a growing literature on the place of RE in our schools. I strongly endorse the message captured in the Postscript : be absolutely clear about the purpose of RE and teach it well. The rest will follow from this. (Grace Davie, Professor emeritus, University of Exeter)

This book may not be for all, but I hope to have been part of something that offers a useful starting point for ensuring all students in the UK get the very best standard of RE teaching. It's too important for us not to get right.

I look forward to your views on my (our) contribution, and the book in general. 

We need to talk about RE.

CoRE: Evidence Presentation

On Thursday 23rd February 2017, I was able to speak at an evidence gathering session for the Commission on Religious Education (see <here>). This is not the view of the Commission; it is my own personal view. Here is a copy of my script:

2017 sees an unprecedented moment of change for secondary RE teachers: 

• New GCSE
• New A-Level
• Life After Levels
• Potential revamp of KS3

It is also worth asking the question - What will this mean for Primary RE?

I believe a fundamental problem in RE is the fact our aims and purpose are not clear.

Some see RE as a 'special' part of the curriculum, others a ‘safe space’, or a place where there is time for lots of personal opinion, somewhere there is no right or wrong answers . 

However - we are not the only subject that looks at 'big questions' and it should not be the only place for SMSC, Community Cohesion, PHSE, Citizenship and British Values - this colonisation has been allowed and even encouraged in the search for legitimacy, higher profile and curriculum time.

The decision to not include RS in the Ebacc has been damaging - but when teachers were able to deliver the previous GCSE in half the time of other GCSEs, is it any wonder? However, there have then been many complaints that new specs are too academic - and contain too much religion! Perhaps our subject has seen one of the biggest shifts in the new reforms? This undoubtedly requires support for RE teachers.

For me, the subject may well provide the 'other' development (personal, spiritual, moral, ethical, philosophical etc), yet at its core, needs to be an academic, rigorous, critical subject that teaches about religion and NRWVs. It should be more knowledge focused, enabling students to develop skills that will be useful for a lifetime. The ‘other’ development is important, and something I believe all teachers in all subjects have a part to play in ensuring students receive.

If there is to be legal change, it first and foremost needs to be the right to remove. The current situation indicates that what we are delivering is still RI, not RS. This may necessarily lead to a further change in the law regarding the compulsion to study it. This law has served RE well, but for the long term future of the subject, do we want to survive by being forced upon students? Can we survive by own merits?

I honestly believe RE is one of the subjects that has changed the most since the parents of our students were at school. Many schools have thriving RE departments with large numbers, even where it is an option. They lead on T&L and are well supported by SLT. I believe this is something for all to strive towards. 

Too much time is wasted on the ‘name of RE’ debate, again another search for legitimacy. My favourite is still Culture, Religion and Philosophy - it was only when the head of CRaP had his name badge printed that he realised an error had been made! We can call the subject what we like, but actually it is defined by what happens on a daily basis in the classroom. 

The great diversity of RE syllabuses is still celebrated by some, I’ve always found it impossible to find out exact numbers, but potentially anything up to 150 LASs. It’s hard to continue to argue the case for local determination - surely if something is good enough for students in one area, it is good enough for the next area, which in London might be another school just 100m down the road. Some argue there is a financial interest in keeping LASs - people are employed to do the writing every 5 years. It is worth noting some have had new LASs this year on top of new GCSE and A-Level - avoidable? At the heart of this, could this time, money and effort be better spent supporting RE teachers in the classroom towards a more universal RE curriculum?

If RE teachers were working towards something more centralised it would be far easier to share resources; an opportunity that the internet has offered in an incredible way. It would also allow RE teachers to move from one school to another and not have to learn and resource a whole new KS3 syllabus! Primary specialists could continue to be specialists, even in a different local authority. Currently RE teachers can get away with teaching what they want, how they want and then assessing how they want. Is there any real comparability before GCSE?

Save RE is a Facebook group that sums up what I frequently refer to as 'the Good, the Bad and the Ugly' of RE and it may be worth the Commission spending time looking at some of the threads on there. Some frequent issues that come up:

• Lack of parental support - including parents wanting to withdraw, refusal to go on schools trips to Mosques etc
• Lack of curriculum time - especially for the demands of the new GCSEs, some trying to deliver in an hour a week still
• Lack of specialists - sometimes including the head of RE, linked to lack of subject specific provision of CPD, INSET etc (especially in school hours)
• Lack of clear department teams - sometimes there is a head of RE with 8 or 9 non-specialist teachers doing 1 or 2 lessons each (and the workload this creates)
• Lack of resources - especially for certain GCSE and A-Levels options, timescales imposed by DfE made resource publication for the start of courses impossible
• Lack of guidance and advice - especially in 1 person departments
• School refusal to follow statutory guidance - also confusion about law given academies, free schools etc
• Burden of Citizenship, PHSE, British Values etc

However this group also highlights the huge inconsistency of what goes on in classrooms. Again there is some great stuff - and I would direct you to the blog of Dawn Cox (https://missdcoxblog.wordpress.com/) for some of the best thinking on curriculum design and assessment in RE, often shared on Save RE - but there are ideas that have divided the 5000+ members: studying the Illuminati, holocaust cake baking, churches made of biscuits and “the crucifixion jelly hand” being some of the most controversial examples in my own personal memory. 

Some RE teachers spent June last year covering the murder of Jo Cox and the shooting at the Orlando nightclub. Both interesting topics, but when you only have an hour a week, is the 'teach what you like’ culture not damaging to the subject? Would these not be better covered in form time? Our search for relevance and engagement can be deeply damaging - and confusing - for students

(The above was shared with Commissioners as what I consider a good example of engagement and relevance)

The online community of RE teachers shows exactly what a “broad church” we are. There is great value in this, but also notes of concern. I strongly urge the Commission to get into as many schools as possible - and not just those who are vocal on social media and in existing RE circles. Perhaps find schools that wouldn’t normally extend an invite because they are under pressure and struggling? Find out why.

The GCSE Annex has provided a clear benchmark for RE. All specs needed to ensure this content was covered. As this has been put together by faith communities and curriculum experts, does it not make sense to transpose this document down to KS3 and primary? Even for faith schools with their own RE curriculum, this could provide a useful bench-marking tool.

RE has the potential to be a key and important part of every school’s curriculum. RE teachers are often up against it for a variety of reasons. How can we all work together to best use our time, money, effort, energy and resources to ensure every child in this country receives the best possible education in RE?

Read more about the session <here>

Does religion have a place in the modern curriculum?

This was my unsuccessful application for TEDxNorwichEd 2017. Obviously if it ever got anywhere close to being an actual TEDx talk, it would be a lot more refined and polished. Just thought it was still an "idea worth sharing", even in it's current application form state:

The Quick Pitch (50 words):

Many claim we live in a largely secular society, many claim their students are no longer religious - and as a result - some suggest surely it is time to remove religion from schools? 

However, I'd argue exactly  the opposite.

More than ever, current and future generations need to know more about religion rather than less. They need to be inspired to discover more about the driving force which has influenced, and continues to influence, billions worldwide. Neglecting this would be catastrophic.

A Brief Outline (400 words):

What other subject comes under as much scrutiny as RE? Why did the GCSE content 'annex' have to be approved by the Prime Minister himself? How does it sit as such a peculiarity: a legal compulsion, but locally determined? Part of the 1988 Education Act, but not part of the National Curriculum?

It is often a subject that polarises students, parents and teachers... love it or hate it?

I'd argue that the fact that we may be an increasingly secular society is irrelevant. I'd argue that the fact that less students in our classes are clearly defined as religious is irrelevant. 

The study of religion needs to be reclaimed from PHSE, Citizenship, British Values, the Community Cohesion agenda etc and return to a subject that can inspire future generations by helping them better understand the past, present and most likely (and perhaps most crucially), the future.

There is history, politics, philosophy, geography, poetry, music, literature and much more involved, but the study of religion and beliefs remains fundamental in understanding all of the above, and more. Omission from the Ebacc has done damage to the study of religion, but how else can students comprehend the complex world that surrounds them. People still live and die for their faith.

• How can they understand why some Muslim women wear the burqa (and why this is can be a problem)?
• How can they understand why Jews don't eat pork?
• How can they understand that a knowledge of the bible is fundamental to understanding the English language and culture? [And why Richard Dawkins agrees on this in the God Delusion]
• How can they understand why Sikhs are allowed to carry a sword?
• How can they understand why Hindus believe in reincarnation (and what this means for the way they live their life)?

Oddly those who argue for the removal of religion from the classroom, are often experts in the field. We cannot allow future generations to be deprived of this privilege. To be a truly great future generation, we need to enable students to understand more, rather than less - and I firmly

believe the study of religion plays a really important role in this wider education. We need to inspire the future generation to be more peaceful, respectful, understanding and tolerant - yet challenging when necessary... we  should not respect or tolerate all beliefs. This will not coming by removing religion from the curriculum.

Is study of religion really as dangerous and indoctrinating as some claim, or is it simply a vital tool to help inspire a generation to better understand the world going on around them?

Maybe I'll try for TEDxNorwichEd 2019 with something a little less controversial...  "You should never speak about religion or politics."

Image courtesy: https://popefrancisnyc.org/fun-facts 

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

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

Religious Education in a Secular Age

Sunday 23rd October 2016

12-1pm - Frobisher Auditorium 2

<Session>

<Speaker Profile>

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

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

— Gareth Sturdy (@stickyphysics) October 23, 2016

Opening remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Harley Richardson (@harleyrich) October 23, 2016

Responses:

To the question about the inclusion of humanism:

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

To the question about the abolition of RE:

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

To the question about the image of RE:

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

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

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

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

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

To the question about renaming RE:

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

To the question about the narrow curriculum of faith schools:

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

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

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

— Andy Lewis (@AndyLewis_RE) October 23, 2016

10 Reasons

10 reasons teachers are on strike today:

1. School budgets are being cut by 8% (in real terms) - in a small secondary school that could be £500k with little warning.
2. Teachers are being made redundant - including the good ones.
3. TAs are being made redundant - reducing the provision for weaker or SEND students.
4. Class sizes are getting bigger - less chance of any 1:1 attention.
5. Workload is increasing - teaching time/marking etc... something has to give.
6. No money for CPD or training - no chance to improve unless you do it in your own time with your own money.
7. No money for resources - with new GCSEs and A-Levels beginning which will be harder and more academically rigorous.
8. Less money for photocopying, glue sticks, exercise books - it will be BYO everything very soon.
9. Less subject choice for students - some schools do not give 'options' at GCSE anymore.
10. Less vocational / arts teaching - it's all about a focus on Progress 8.

The public, and particularly parents, need to be aware of what is happening in schools. They need to understand why their kids' schools may not be able to provide the same high standards, or choice, of education. Schools will need to ask parents for more and more money to bridge the gap in funding. It's happening, it's real.

Education cannot improve, let alone thrive, in these circumstances.

• Read about my current school's financial problems <here>
• Some schools are suffering more than others with this. If yours is not so bad - you are fortunate! 

Teaching: A Vocation?

In many a staff room, blog or conversation with friends or family, a teacher has claimed, "but it's not just a job, it's a vocation". Recently while out with a friend, and fellow teacher, we discussed the fact that this claim may used as an excuse for poor working conditions (including workload) and expecting people to do things without getting paid for them - or even paying out of their own pocket for resources and CPD.

I like my job. This is much more than many people who simply tolerate their job, or indeed hate their job  There are some aspects that I love, and some moments of absolute joy. However, often I do finish the day frustrated, annoyed or feeling inadequate. Too often I don't feel I can get the job done within the constraints placed upon me.

Some of the key reasons for me going into teaching:

• The skills I perceived that I had matched the demands of the job
• The pay would give me reasonable standard of living - certainly better than many others in the UK
• The holidays were a real bonus - especially with a family
• My mum was happy as a teacher and many of my own teachers seemed happy and content with their jobs

However is this claim that my job is a vocation why I am sat at the table marking in an evening rather than playing with my son or watching TV with my wife? Does it legitimise the extra hours I put in before school and late at night? Is it why I give up my Saturdays and evenings for CPD and attending conferences without recompense? Do I buy things out my own pocket for school, and for my students, due to this? Am I reluctant to take a day off, even when ill, as a result?

There has been a sentimental rhetoric peddled by the government and their agencies; "no one forgets a good teacher" (Thanks TTA), and more recent TV adverts filled with smiling, energetic teachers and smiling, enthused students (Thanks DfE). Yet, my main memories from school are of the teachers where we messed around. I do also remember some things about the good teachers, but this is not reason alone to go into the job. Is it real romanticism to say teaching is 'a calling', in the way few other jobs are?

Of course, I do try my best to teach my students things (and help them remember this information), while being some kind of marker and guide through their turbulent years. Of course I will be there in their moment of need, pick them up, smile, help them out. However, I think teachers should also realise their limits, their remit, their actual job description. If you are trying to do everything you maybe could, for every student, or for every colleague, quite simply you won't last long. You will burn out. Your vocation could be short lived.

This is not to devalue our jobs; they are important to individuals, and to society. Collectively, we do change lives, we give our students qualifications enabling them to go on and achieve great things, earn a good income and have their own families. Maybe they will even remember our name somewhere down the line. 

Fundamentally I enjoy my job, far more than I think I'd enjoy many other jobs. The children I teach often make me laugh. I love sharing my subject specialism. I thrive from the energy in schools. It feels like a privilege to do this. I'm certainly not on the 'ready to quit' list. Yet I am not naive to say I never would be. In fact, I think the optimum would be 3 days teaching, 1 day doing something education related, but not teaching, and an extra day with my family - I think this would make me a really happy, productive and effective teacher. This would also force me to ditch any TLRs which are often disproportionately low payments for the extra workload.

We must continue to ask "why do people teach?" Don't kid yourself, for many it is a pragmatic and convenient choice. People get made redundant and want a career change, or they have had kids of their own and want something that means they can have holidays with their offspring.

For some it may be a true vocation, they may feel a true calling, but this is not the case for everyone. We certainly can't tell people it is a vocation to make them feel like they should, or could, be doing more. Teaching has been called the 'martyr profession', but just because some teachers like to lay bare their stigmata, it doesn't mean everyone should feel that they should, and it's okay to feel like you have no stigmata at all! 

If we stop labeling teaching as a vocation, could we improve the job in hand? People should be paid for what they put in, rewarded for going above and beyond, and have reduced workload demands so that they are not simply working out of the goodness of their heart (or fear of repercussions).

I'm just not entirely convinced teaching is a vocation in a true sense, and maybe, by doing so, we are contributing to the morale and recruitment crisis. Teaching is not simply being John Keating (Dead Poets Society) or Erin Gruwell (Freedom Writers) every day, and if we sell that as the dream it can only lead to disappointment. Maybe teaching is a vocation, yet because of this, teachers are not getting treated the way they should. If it simply means we get exploited as a result, I'd rather just have a job!



WARNING - this last bit is God related! I am an RE teacher in a Catholic school and vocation always features in discussion about why we teach, and why we work in faith schools. There is potentially a whole other blog to be written here...

How about teaching in a Catholic school, especially RE, surely that is a vocation?

Many do claim that there is a real vocation to working in faith schools. Perhaps staff make sacrifices, such slower promotion due to less opportunities if they want to stay in faith school system? However the dangers still remain, and potentially they are greater. I was once told of a church school where staff were reminded of the evangelical counsels (sometimes known as the counsels of perfection): chastity, poverty and obedience. This is a horrendous message to give to staff.

I do feel a vocation, to be a Christian. My job is a part of that, in as much as all things I do in life are. I try to evangelise through my word and deed, not just in the classroom, but always. I do not proselytise; I do not preach.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia