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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SACRE: Time to move on to drive improvement?

Image courtesy of Carfelo

NATRE have reported upon a letter sent by Lord Nash to all SACREs. He is Minister responsible for faith schools and has sent a letter to all SACRE Chairs, Clerks and Directors of Children’s Services which has been published <here>. In it, he emphasises the importance of good teaching of religious education and the central role of SACREs and the duty of local authorities.

This raised discussion on social networks about the role of SACREs in general. RE is so oddly positioned within the 1944 Education Act, it is compulsory but it's content decided locally. Teachers from other disciplines can't begin to understand this; would you have a Geography syllabus that focused on the South Downs when studied in Sussex and lakes when studied in Cumbria? (A perhaps, factious example I admit!).

There is an increased call for greater consistency to help drive improvement in RE and one way would surely be to establish a core curriculum that is used nationally? As part of the #REconsult process it has been clear that ministers, the DfE, Ofqual etc are all keen to be more explicit in what needs to be taught at GCSE  (to ensure comparability), why not Key Stages 1 to 3? 

The trouble with not having a 'National Curriculum' is there is no attempt to tackle regional inequality or local bias. The world is a far smaller place than it once was with many people moving around the country for education, employment or relationships. For example, the Nottinghamshire Agreed Syllabus may well be excellent for students living in Nottinghamshire, but will it be good enough to equip the student who then goes to Southampton Uni, meets their partner from Newcastle and eventually ends up living in Bristol? If it is good enough to do this, why is the whole country not following that Agreed Syllabus?

There are a lot of really good people involved in SACREs who often give a lot of their time voluntarily. In some areas there are great things going on and advisers employed by SACREs do amazing things to support schools to improve RE. I don't see this as the problem though. We all want to make RE better and any way that can happen and be supported is only obviously a good thing, I would hope the role of advisers can continue especially with less and less LEA assistance. 

I teach in a Catholic school and we have a core curriculum document called: The Religious Education Curriculum Directory (3-19) for Catholic Schools and Colleges in England and Wales [2012] published by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales Department of Catholic Education and Formation. This is from the documents introduction:

The purpose of this new edition of the Religious Education Curriculum Directory (3-19) is to provide guidance for the Religious Education classroom curriculum in Catholic schools. Following the publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the Bishops of England and Wales published the Religious Education Curriculum Directory for Catholic Schools (1996) to ensure that teaching and learning in our schools truly reflected the vision and breadth of the teaching of the Church outlined in the Catechism. This revised Directory is published so that religious educators can continue to meet the needs of the pupils of our time. (<link>)

There is freedom to teach this in a variety of ways and different Dioceses normally recommend a syllabus that covers the Curriculum Directory. I have used ICONS (now quite dated but still recommended by my Diocese) and have now moved to The Way, The Truth and The Life for Key Stage 3; there are others too, a new one is apparently in the pipeline from a group called The Catholic Project of England and Wales. In Primary, many schools have moved from Here I Am to Come and See. 

I'm not suggesting the Curriculum Directory is perfect (I don't think anyone covers all the content... it's too vast!), but it is a good starting point to ensuring some consistency and accountability. When inspected under the Section 48 framework, a key concern of the inspectors is the delivery of the Curriculum Directory. It provides Levels for assessment and a very detailed core curriculum and knowledge set. 

I think part of the problem comes from our sometimes confused purpose in RE. There are too many differing views on what and how things should be taught and SACREs give opportunity for that diversity; I personally don't think that in this case, that it is a great advantage for our students. Given the number of non-specialists teaching RE, plus the isolated one person departments, and the 'Bad RE' out there, diversity will often mean more bad than good.

In the GCSE proposals, there was a core knowledge set out for new syllabi to cover. There were some problems with this in some areas, but once it has been finalised, would it not make sense for this core knowledge to be adapted for Key Stages 1 to 3? Not only will this provide some consistency, but will enable greater religious literacy as students progress through the education system. 

Unlike some colleagues, I do think it is important that people of faith backgrounds are involved in RE curriculum. I think it is good that the DfE extensively consulted with faith groups, if only to verify the knowledge is accurate... if I am learning about Islam, I want to know what I am teaching has been agreed by both academics and believers. It is why we are working with people of faith for The London RE Hub conference; faith is something genuine and lived out, and it is important to use this expertise. 

The ultimate problem is who takes on this task of setting out the core knowledge? The REC produced a National Framework in 2013, <here>, but unlike the GCSE consultation documents produced by the DfE excluded appendices containing a knowledge set. Ultimately while RE stays outside of the National Curriculum, it will always stay out of the same controls that other subjects have, ie the DfE. Some would say that this is a great benefit, but when promoting and raising the profile of our subject, it is not always helpful.

I agree with Lord Nash that we need to develop the academic rigour of our subject, bringing RE in-line with the rest of the National Curriculum may just help this. I think it could follow a similar structure to GCSEs where school pick the papers / strands / options that best fit their cohort. This would allow a Catholic school such as mine to still participate instead of simply opting out and teaching our own syllabus.

I do not feel there needs to be a review into SACREs, just perhaps have their terms redefined; they can remain to support RE in their local area, but it is wrong that they spend time, effort, energy and crucially money in devising Agreed Syllabuses individually when a national curriculum would be better. Academies and Free Schools can also opt out of Agreed Syllabuses (although they need to be following a syllabus). This naturally effects the reach of SACREs and must be a consideration for future funding. I work in Havering and it is seen as relatively 'revolutionary' that the SACRE is working Barking and Dagenham to produce a joint Agreed Syllabus; will it be that radically different from the one produced in Waltham Forest? This genuinely seems like madness to me. 

Perhaps it is just the old problem in RE, perhaps more so than in other subjects, that person X thinks they teach RE better than person Y and if given the opportunity they will naturally reinvent the wheel to make it fit their own agenda. I personally don't think makes RE better.

Further Reading

Mark Shepstone's response to Lord Nash <here>
Neil McKain's response <here>

The Purpose of RE: #REconsult

If nothing else the #REconsult process has made us confront some fundamental questions about RE. It has an individual place in our schools being compulsory, but not in the National Curriculum, with syllabuses agreed locally or taken from faith traditions. Perhaps more so than with any subject it’s quality and purpose varies greatly.

Charlotte Vardy has been very actively involved on Twitter and in Blogging about her thoughts on the #REconsult process. I do genuinely share her belief that if something is worth doing, it should be done well. However it is also important to remember that we are at the absolute mercy of the DfE and ministers appointed to Education. Michael Gove has gone, but Nicky Morgan has not made any radical changes to the whole reform process, and who knows what happens if Tristram Hunt takes over in May. Education is not apolitical.

Charlotte has put together an interesting list of 10 purpose of RE. These form the basis for complex discussion about what we are aiming to do:

1. Religious Studies is where we teach young people about their own religion, which includes reference to other religions and non-religious world views. 
2. Religious Studies supports young people in their quest for personal meaning. 
3. Religious Studies supports the school ethos, provides a “hub” for SMSC learning and a good opportunity to tackle many current issues of personal or social concern – from cyber-bullying to charity campaigning. 
4. Religious Studies is just another academic humanities subject, like History or Geography 
5. Religious Studies is what we call History of Ideas and/or Theory of Knowledge in the English education system, which otherwise lacks a philosophical core 
6. Religious Studies provides the best opportunity to teach higher level skills such as critical analysis, evaluation and argument, which all students need for university and which other subjects often fail to deliver 
7. Religious Studies courses prepare young people to take degrees in Theology and Religious Studies 
8. Religious Studies is just what we call certificated courses in statutory Religious Education; these courses measure how much young people know and understand about the 6 major world religions and aim to promote religious tolerance and community cohesion. 
9. Religious Studies is a sociological exploration of the phenomenon of Religion, comparing different traditions and showing them to be essentially similar responses to the human condition. 
10. Religious Studies is the main opportunity for young people to address ultimate questions and moral issues which affect people of all faiths and none. (C Vardy)

These have been a great source of reflection for me today. 

I think there could be more aims added to this list, and I would have perhaps written a different list (and maybe Charlotte would have on a different day, in different circumstances).  It is certainly a reflection of how Charlotte, and many others, perceive the #REconsult process to have unfolded. I do get their concerns, I really do, yet try to remain positive and optimistic - as those who have seen Charlotte and I exchanging debate on Twitter will testify! 

As pointed out by Charlotte, the new reforms will never be able to reflect all of these 10 aims. She believes that the new GCSEs and A-Levels will focus primarily on Aims 1, 7, 8 and 9. 

I teach confessional RE in a Catholic school; Aim 1 is therefore vital to me. There is part of my job which is that of primary educator of the faith; however despite different content, and with more time, I believe that I deliver good, analytical and critical RE. To claim that Aim 1 is all that goes on in Catholic schools is naive and totally incorrect. I've learnt a lot from RE teachers who work in non-faith schools, and I bring this into my classroom. I'd like to hope the opposite has also happened, and I welcome those teachers into my classroom, any time.

Any decent RE teacher will obviously address Aim 2 in their lessons; the young people we teach wouldn't have it any other way, it's why they often love the subject. I worry about Aim 3... some schools do see RE as their vehicle for box ticking, particularly given the current OFSTED climate. This is where RE teachers need to be strong; there may be some connections, but don't allow your subject to be watered down into a PHSE/Citizenship lesson. Fight the good RE fight, there is help and support out there.

I also don't believe that RE has quite hit such an identify crisis that it is simply a HoI or ToK just yet; nor is it just another humanity subject (Aim 4 and 5). I think this is due to Aim 2 and Aim 10, which is why they are so important. In all those other subject areas, there is not the personal investment and connection; religious or not, everyone faces the 'big questions' and that self examination and reflection. 

I love the fact that we address Aim 6 in our subject, I really do. It is also vital for the world of employment and dealing with everyday ethical and moral dilemmas. Philosophical enquiry (including P4C etc) are powerful tools that should be embedded in good teaching rather than an add on. Ask good questions and you're students will be 'lead out'; Socrates knew what he was doing even 2500 years ago.

I have also confessed to being a TRS boy (Aim 7). Having studied at the Divinity Faculty at Cambridge, I love my biblical studies (as well as my world religions studies!). However I am unsure as to why A-Levels need to be this direct step to degrees? Yet I do want my students to be able to do a TRS degree if they wish, or Biblical Studies, or Philosophy! I coped well as I did John at A-Level and loved it. My current Y9s are working on a Gospel unit that they don't want to finish. I do want any of my students to have as many doors open as possible and I do wonder if my current Philosophy and Ethics (EdExcel) ALevel does this? Although I am not convinced, without some creative work by the exam boards, that the new ALevel will either. I makes me wonder if we are asking the right questions about the purpose of ALevels, and I don't just mean in this subject.

The RE and RS debate is, I guess, one I am less involved in (Aim 8). I've not taught in a school where they are separate. I often talk about RE when I mean RS and it infuriates some! GCSE is compulsory for all, so there is no distinction for me. We do have General RE in 6th form for all students (1 hour per fortnight), but my ALevel classes call my lessons RE too. This distinct position of RE makes things tough for colleagues in other schools... do we abandon compulsory RE for all (and risk the potential implications of ignorance and prejudice in society)? Do we put all our efforts into an attractive academic GCSE that more people want to take? Do we continue to try and balance the two? There is a whole other discussion to have here.

Phenomenology is a word that divides the RE world (Aim 9). Some claim it leads to simple sociological or anthropological study of RE where we do a lot of compare and contrasting. This isn't enough for me and leads to 'Bad RE', often in thematic style. Phenomenology can be good, but it's hard to get right, and I'm not sure many teachers have the skill set to get it right. The need for better RE training and support is well documented.

I presume Charlotte left Aim 10 until last as she, like me, loves this aspect of RE. It's what makes it special, it's why I love my job and it's why I have got myself so involved in the whole #REconsult process. 

Charlotte has raised some excellent questions in this post, and finishes with this final remark: "It is not just a matter of deciding which visions of Religious Studies to go with, but also of ensuring that those chosen cohere and do not leave the subject as confused, or more confused than it ever was!". This is why I urge as many people (and I mean good RE teachers!), to offer their services to the exam boards to help get it right. You know what works, what engages and what interests.

I do not think RE will find a consensus.; it will never have fully shared aims. This presents many, many challenges, not least for the army of committed, dedicated, excellent RE teachers out there. If nothing else, these people have begun to emerge; Save RE, #REchatUK, #REconsult have started to bring us together. The revolution may not be won or lost in this consultation process, but perhaps we can still build a better world of RE together regardless. Our exam specs will guide us, but not define us, nor limit our lessons.

There may come a time where we may have to accept what the DfE and ministers put in front of us. We may not be happy, but at least I can say I put my suggestions forward, I shared my ideas and worked, and thought, very hard about my responses. I have tried to be constructive throughout, and remain hopeful and optimistic. I still beleive that the exam boards, for monetary reasons, or for love of RE, will produce engaging and interesting routes of study. We won't loose student numbers, because we are good teachers and we can engage our students regardless.

 

Read Charlotte's post in full, plus loads of other stuff about RE <here>