100 Ideas: RE

Buy Now (Amazon)

Buy Now (Bloomsbury)

Back in March 2019, I met with Chloe from Bloomsbury to start work on a plan for this book... just over a year later the book has been published (May 2020) and I have been overwhelmed with the response. Thank you to every single person who has purchased a copy - I hope you enjoy it, and find it useful.

I had worked out a clear idea in my own head about what I did, and did not want to do with this book. I wanted it be filled with the things that would genuinely improve classroom practice in RE. I wanted to avoid fads, gimmicks, things that generated the wrong kind of "engagement". I wanted to look at the best ways to teach certain things.  I also wanted to share some of the things that I have found really effective in my 15 years in the RE classroom.  

However, I was also aware that the way I teach RE will not work for everyone. I reflected carefully upon the fact that most of my lessons would fit the Tom Sherrington / Barak Rosenshine model of review and recap, questioning and modelling, followed by practice. However I am also certain that all of these things can be done in different ways. Just because we do something, doesn't mean we do it well, or in the most effective way - and I've always included myself in that.

As such, I reached out to the RE community and listened carefully to what people thought should be in the book, what should be avoided, and what would give the book a universal appeal. Therefore I do hope this book genuinely has something for everyone, both those new to teaching RE - and those who have been doing it for a while. It was brilliant to see the first Amazon review that said, "[it] reminded of some past gems that I have not done for a while and [I was] inspired by some new ideas to use.".

A few weeks before actual publication date, I tried to generate a bit of discussion about the best bits of RE with a couple of competitions - both on Twitter and Save RE (Facebook group). As with a competition I had co-run previously for copies of my GCSE quiz book (<here>), I didn't really want to a "Likes & RTs" kind of thing, so I asked a simple question - about teacher's favourite things to teach in RE and I loved reading all the responses - check them out <here>. RE is a great subject - we get to teach some amazing things to young people in our classrooms:

On a personal level, I am genuinely humbled to have been asked to write this book. The RE community is genuinely like a family - there are frequent squabbles, a few vested interests, some little cliques, but equally a lot of people who care deeply and genuinely want to make RE better. When Mary Myatt described the book as a "gift to the RE community", I was quite overwhelmed. It was exactly what I set out to do - to give something back - and for that to be recognised made the many (many) hours writing worthwhile. It was great to hear Tom Bennett liked it and felt it deserved a big audience. 

The week of the book's release, I decided to do a short "virtual book launch". If you want to me talk about the book for 30 minutes, you can do so here:

Finally, one of the most amazing things was the number of people who took a picture of the book and tagged me on Twitter... I've saved them all! For me, it was reassurance that this book was getting out into the world, particularly during this strange time of lock-down. Thank you to every single one of you who bought this book, and keep the photos coming!

Edexcel GCSE Spec A - Catholic Christianity (Summer 2019)

Paper 1A caused upset and concern to many RE teachers. They felt that the questions were unfair. As someone who has lived and breathed the spec for the last 3 years, I felt it was important to go through it very carefully to see if there were any issues. I found two things that I wasn't quite sure about, and so contacted the board, who provided a response. I think it is very useful for teachers of this paper, and indeed perhaps all Edexcel RS papers, to read. 

An error?

"Explain two ways the design of the Catholic Church reflects belief."

There is a significant difference between the Catholic Church and a Catholic church. The specification says:

4.1 - The common and divergent forms of architecture, design and decoration of Catholic churches [small 'c']: how they reflect belief, are used in, and contribute to, worship, including reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1179–1181.

This question, especially for more able students could be confusing as they could be trying to consider the 'design' of institution of the Catholic Church (arguably something that has evolved rather than been designed).

The exam board response is this:

We take great care to ensure that our examination papers are error free and accessible to a wide range of learners across the ability range. I can confirm that your concerns have been reviewed and discussed by our senior examining committee who have provided feedback and reassurance. 

In regard to the concern escalated about Q4(c), the question reads "Explain two ways the design of the Catholic Church reflects belief.".  

The senior examining committee responsible for producing the 1RA0 1A question paper have confirmed that ‘Church’ in this question can be referred to in either way you have described. The mark scheme rewards responses approached explaining the ‘design’ of the building and will also reward student responses approached answering ‘design' of the institution of the Catholic Church.

To provide further reassurance as part of our internal processes and procedures, mark schemes are scrutinised against actual student responses and updated prior to marking to ensure that the full range of actual acceptable student responses have been covered. The mark scheme for this paper will be published online on results day 22nd August 2019.

I am pleased that both responses will be accepted, and the process that goes on as part of the marking, but this is clearly a mistake in my mind. I am unaware or anywhere on the exam specification where it could possible ask about the design of the institution of the Church. The closest would be perhaps the magisterium spec point, but the question does not fit - and as I previously mentioned, has the Church been 'designed'?

A clarification?

3 of the 4 Part D questions have just two bullet points - 'refer to Catholic teachings' and 'reach a justified conclusion'. This is what was expected, and due to them being AO2 question a necessity to look at divergent approaches is implied - and has been taught to students. If a third bullet point was included, it would be expected to be to look at different Christian points of view.

Question 2d ("Local churches should be responsible for evangelism.") contained an additional bullet point: 'refer to different Catholic points of view'. This was a surprise, given the above assumptions about divergence, and previous papers.

Does this suggest something fundamentally different about this question? Is it suggesting there is an 'official' divergence in teachings of the Church? (Something that has been problematic since the start of spec writing! Is there real divergence within the Catholic Church?)

I asked for clarity about why some questions included this bullet point, and others do not, when obviously it is implied that ALL questions need different Catholic points of view?

With regards to your concerns relating to Q02d, “Evaluate” type questions, please note that these questions will always include at least two bullet point instructions to aid responses. Depending on the question asked, bullet points are changed accordingly and the mark scheme will only allow credit for responses which are in line with specification content. The specification contains topic areas where there are points that are “divergent” views specifically mentioned for some topic areas. Questions asked on these topic areas where there are “divergent” views include an additional bullet point providing students with support to help them structure their response so that they can access the full range of marks available. The specification indicates, “divergent ways in which this is put into practice by the Church and individual Catholics, locally, national, and globally” (2.8). As such the divergence is whether it’s done on a local or global scale; Church or individual. The bullet point reminds students to ensure that their response includes this specific information. 

 Please note that the additional sample assessment material published online along with the 1RA0 1A paper set in 2018 list three bullet points similar to this series paper.

However on inspection of the SAMs, 1d, 3d and 4d - they do all indeed contain 3 bullet points. The fundamental difference being, they are all:

• refer to Catholic teachings
• refer to different Christian points of view
• reach a justified conclusion.

This is the same as the specimen papers, and last years papers. Paper 1A has had 3 bullet points before, but NEVER a second bullet point saying "refer to different Catholic points of view", always just Christian. This is the first time it has appeared, and it remains confusing in my mind as to why it was included on this question, but never before.

Conclusions

Students will be fine. As we know, the brightest and most hardworking students will get the grades they deserve.

We know that the new GCSEs are tough, especially for our less able, or EAL. However, overall, I do think the new exams are better. Examination is always going to be difficult, and we feel a huge emotional attachment to the performance of our students. No one ever really LOVES the questions that come up! There will always be more tricky ones, and these are necessary to sort out the 9s. Yet last year the pass mark for a 1 was suitable so that the majority of hardworking students could achieve a GCSE - for some a 1 is a real achievement.

It is interesting that the Part As, which some spoke of being "qualifying" questions, are clearly not. In some cases the Part B and C questions were more straightforward. I don't have an issue with this as such, as long as my least able students to manage to get the grade they deserve. Interesting when working on my books, it was Part A questions that I found hardest to write - the others were far more simple.

Another issues that has come up in post-exam teacher discussions, is the extent to which teachers, and indeed students, followed the specification. Any textbook is one approach, not the only approach! The wording of many questions matched the spec very closely. It is for this reason, we included the wording of the spec in our student book. Read every word of  it! Get your students to as well...

There has been much talk of swapping exam boards. I have spoken to around 20 teachers in the last week or so - and there has been suggestions of movement in all directions - from and TO Edexcel. I think my best advice would be to wait until you get your results - the exact wording of the exam questions is quickly forgotten if you get the grade that you deserve or need to! It is also worth considering the financial cost (replacement textbooks) and teacher time (re-planning, re-learning exam style) - is it worth it?

Finally, I am going to use this as a plug... our new workbooks are ready! Book 1 is already available, and Book 2 will arrive in September. I believe these could be real game changers, and despite being openly biased, I think for Catholic students, the Edexcel option could be the best due to the resources OUP have commissioned - especially for those students that find the GCSE tough. Check out this review of Book 1:

Teach Secondary

If you like what you read, order via your OUP rep (best for bulk) or see info here on my site:

Work Books

I hope this has been helpful, informative and reassuring.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

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

Books Not Blogs [Edexcel RS Update]

There has been very few blogs from me this academic year. I have been busy at work covering a second role within our Teaching School Alliance, our family grew to four last April, we've had building work going on, plus I have been busy writing books. 2019 is looking like an exciting year... please find a brief update to the OUP Edexcel GCSE series for Catholic Christianity papers on Spec A.

UPDATE: Download OUP's Updated Revision Guide pages here - focused on Part D/12 marker questions - we are now confident they are all Level 4 responses in accordance with last summers marking.

UPDATE 2: Download a DRAFT / INSPECTION copy of Workbook 1 (Catholic Christianity) - Get your orders in now for delivery very soon!

Work Books

One of the main concerns that many teachers have had about the new GCSEs is that they are not accessible for all students. Alongside the revision guide, which many teachers and students have found helpful, we wanted to work on something more.

As such, I have been working with the brilliant Ann Clucas (author of How To Teach Everybody: Strategies for Effective Differentiation) to find ways to break down and build up the content so that all students will be able to access and succeed with the new GCSE. We are hoping to publish ASAP, with Book 1 hopefully coming in March / April - just before the 2019 exams!

To reserve a copy, email your local OUP education consultant. Find yours  <here> 

 

From the January 2019 OUP update flyer

Revision Guide

When students required just 67% to get a Grade 9 on last summers paper, it was clear teachers hadn't been fully prepared for how the exam board were going to mark the RS exam. Many of the (d) evaluation questions got 25-40% nationally. Teachers were advised by the exam board that strengths/weaknesses/conclusion approach "should be sufficient." - yet this was sufficient for just L2 and 6/12 marks.

The OUP team looked carefully at our books, and while confident that our guidance was helpful to students, we felt a few tweaks would be beneficial to help further emphasise the need for careful analysis and evaluation and reflect the latest exam board guidance.

The updated pages of sample responses for the (d) question will also be available for free on the OUP website from 6th February - so if you have already purchased this book, or purchase before February you can still access the most up-to-date advice.

This new updated book will be available from 6th February 2019 and can be ordered here:  https://goo.gl/forms/UtJ2H0sGPxsVwrL12

Huge thanks to all that helped with this, including various examiners from the 2018 summer series.

<Download updated pages here>

More Books

There are few more exciting projects in the pipeline which may mean the blog remains quiet... watch this space!

Core Knowledge: The Catholic 100

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

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

100 Key Words for RE

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

For each word, students had to self evaluate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image courtesy of Spokane Favs

Being Catholic

Back in July, I had two articles published:

• Schools Week: Let’s not turn RE into a weapon in the war against Catholic schools
• The Catholic Herald: Will Catholic Religious Education survive?

These were in part, a response to the Clarke/Woodhead pamphlet entitled A New Settlement Revised, but also in preparation for the final report of the Comission on RE report due later in the year. They also reflected thinking about the direction of some voices in RE, and organisations involved in the campaign for change in RE.

It is always hard to share ideas within a short word limit, and I was grateful last year to get the chance to write more extensively on this topic in a collection of essays, entitled We Need To Talk About RE where I discussed the future of Catholic RE. At this stage, I think it is useful to copy an extract, from the middle of the chapter:

If the Commission [- or anyone!] 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 and 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.

When I wrote the two articles, I knew that I would receive criticism - and personal attack. I did have some hesitation as some of my good friends within the wider RE world, who I have tremendous respect for, have been involved in the Clarke/Woodhead project, and the Comission on RE. However, I felt an important comment needed to be made about keeping Catholic RE, and Catholic schools distinct. Despite some of the comments I received, it is not because I want Bishop Alan of Brentwood to dictate every detail that I teach! 

I did find it frustrating when people were tweeting about my articles, accusing me of all kinds of things (creating "fake news" was my favourite) and knowingly not including my Twitter handle, so I couldn't respond. Also the use of subtweeting, so discussions could not be followed, stopped some of the genuine debate about this. It was also odd how some people said I was speaking on behalf of the Bishops of England and Wales - I am just an RE teacher, but committed Catholic, speaking on these matters. The CES had already made their statement via Bishop Stock. However, perhaps the thing that made me most upset was how some claimed that the Catholic Church was trying to derail the whole process of RE reform for all. I admit my articles were made quickly after the publication of the Clarke/Woodhead pamphlet was published, but that is how the press and news works. Personal blogs, can obviously benefit from longer periods of reflection. However, the only thing I'd perhaps change is headlines, which I didn't write... (despite them being quoted back at me!)

I do think that RE needs reform. I have passionately argued this for many years. As much as I work in a Catholic school, I have worked in many non-Catholic schools helping to improve RE. I have also written not only textbooks for Catholic schools, but also as part of the Knowing Religion team. As someone who engages in social media, I am also fully aware of the issues in RE. I also think it needs a collective strength, but with solutions that work for all. 

We currently have a dual system of schools in the country, whereby schools can have a religious character. As long as this remains, there needs to be a solution to RE that is not a "one size fits all". As I mentioned in my Herald article, I have seen the proposals put forward by the CES to the Comission on RE that suggests what I personally feel to be a workable and sensible solution to this 'problem'. I do believe that if we (society) want to abolish the right of the Bishops to determine RE in Catholic schools, one of the few legal things that makes the schools distinctive, then we need to end faith schools. This is exactly what some people want, and being clear in this argument would be more helpful, rather than dress it up as an RE debate. 

I'd suggest you read my chapter in We Need To Talk About RE to get a full understanding of the current and future position of Catholic RE. Let's make it clear, the Catholic community have widely engaged over the last few years, providing solutions and suggestions of ways to make legal reform work. They are absolutely not trying to stop the process. They are just trying to keep Catholic schools distinct, reflecting their long protected legal position, history and contribution to education in this country. Conflict within the RE world, which is small, is not helpful. Let's focus on the common ground, accept what is workable, and what is not, and work together for better RE for all - one of the few aims (I think) we can all agree on.

I look forward to further discussion of these articles, with friends, colleagues and Twitter critics over the next few months. We may have to agree to disagree, mind!

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

If you want to find out more about me as a passionate supporter of Catholic education, you can listen to an interview that I did with the brilliant Jonathan Doyle below: 

<Listen here>

0:00 Intro

6:32 Why did you study theology at University?

10:27 How were you drawn towards Catholic Ministry?

17:08 What makes a good Catholic Teacher?

25:41 Why catechesis and curriculum matter

30:57 How should Catholic Teachers deal with difficult questions?

33:14 Why do you care so much about what you do?

36:46 What works for young people in moving from academics to the experiential

41:46 How do you sustain what you do?

45:17 What is Andy’s Vocation?

48:12 What is the essence of Catholic Education?

How to be a success at A Level

Courtesy of Swilla Schools

As we embarked on the second cycle of teaching the A Level in Religious Studies, it became apparent that I needed to do more work with my students on the skills that they need to note take, write, learn, review and test. We simply don't do enough of this lower down, and then just expect sixth formers to have some kind of magical transformation over the summer, whereby they somehow can. I feel it has been time well spent, and transferable across other subject areas... 

How to note take

I have introduced, and insisted upon, the Cornell Note Taking system:

See below for how it is used in the reviewing of work. Download Slides <here>. On average it takes 66 days to form a habit... <source> - someone asked what the disadvantage is, I can't work out one. 

How to write

The literacy demands of the new A Level (and GCSE) are far tougher than previously. For Edexcel RS, there are now a variety of different questions types rather than just a 'standard essay' form to learn. As such, I spent a lot of time 'magpie-ing' the best of what I could find to produce a literacy booklet. I get students to read the relevant section before writing an essay - it seems to have helped: 

Download <here>

Charlotte Vardy has also put together a video for RS essays, which can be watched <here>. It is really important to help students know the academic writing forms you want them to produce. Last year I left this too much to chance, or had to try and modify students writing style after they had already formed habits. 

How to learn

We watched this together in class, made notes on each one. We then looked on the Learning Scientists website - <here>. We've also added various resources to our department website <here>. We also have shared resources with parents to make it clear what their son / daughter should be doing - I gave each parent a copy of 10 Rules of Good and Bad studying by Barbara Oakley (adapted by M Smyth) - see <here>.

How to review

The ideal would be to get students to review at least 24-48 hours after a lesson, within a week and again with a month. These are the ideas that I suggested:

• 24-48 hours: 
• Add summaries and cue column to Cornell formatted notes - this note taking system forces you to review
• Re-read lesson Slides on GoogleClasroom and add any further notes, or read from links provided in Slides
• Watch a summary video to supplement the lesson [Philosophy and Ethics is particularly lucky in this respect - see <here>]

• A week:
• Allocate a review period on timetable - ie P3 on a Friday is RS review time
• Work on a Knowledge Organiser for the topic - use GoogleDocs so it remains a live document that can be added to / ammended
• Test by covering up main notes and just use summaries and cue column [Cornell], or parts of the Knowledge Organiser.
• Attempt exam question
• Use videos or podcasts on website - see see <here> and <here> including a 'method' - not just watching or listening

• A month
• Same things as within a week
• Timetable - calendar it on your phone! 
• Retrieval practice - start with a blank sheet...

How to test

I frequently talk about their 'unknown unknowns' - what is it they don't know, and how do they know?

We have planned our "Revision Power Hours" - see <here> - as well "The Pomodoro Technique" (25 mins focused, distraction free study, followed by 5 minute break), and the Leitner method for using flashcards.

----------
Hopefully this will help our A Level students, it may also help yours... everyone wants that 'leap in the air' A Level photo in the local press - it could be you!

Thanks to all those who have helped along the way with changing my thinking on this. 

TES Article: Long read: The battle for the soul of RE

“Is it a mythical story?” says Andy Lewis, director of RE at St Bonaventure’s Catholic School, in East London. “A literal story? A symbolic story? If students understand the concept of the story, they can get into that debate.

“You’re asking questions about the nature of God. Year 7s really enjoy discussions about: who is God? They get to grapple with some quite difficult questions there.”

Read the full article <here>

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

A few thoughts from me on the article:

a) I do think the theological concepts are vital in RE. This is definitely our preferred approach within Catholic education, however we are not alone in this. Jonathan Porter at Michaela School has blogged about the important of scripture in RE (<here> and <here>), Robert Orme ensured that the Bible was covered in the new Collins Knowing Religion series with a 'double length book' on Biblical Literacy (<here>) and Michael Merrick (another Catholic teacher) recently wrote about religious literacy needing scripture and a focus on the spiritual (<here>).

b) I do think a really clear curriculum is needed, and should be followed. If the system is broken, we need to look at ways to fix it - something the Comission on RE are actively doing. What worries me is the 'teach what you like (or think appropriate)' remains a feature in RE. Things become sensationalised, and we simply debate unsubstantiated opinions. This also links to the colonisation of RE, and the resulting impact, squeezing all the other parts of the curriculum (Citizenship, RE, FBV etc) into an hour a week.

c) Topics such as abortion and euthanasia are not on all the new GCSE curricula, as they are not in the Annex document, however they still feature in my lessons for Edexcel. This is because we focus on key theological concepts such as imago Dei and how this leads to Catholic beliefs and teachings on start and end of life issues. You can meaningfully look at the application of the concept, once you know the concept. Too often I have been told Catholics are against these things because they "simply don't move with the times", rather than have a clear and coherent theological issue with them.

d) I enjoy the sociology of religion, it was a highlight from my A Level study when I took A Level Sociology. This complemented my A Level in Religious Studies. I remember sharing this revision PPT (<here>) and some RE teachers getting very excited saying this is exactly what should be taught in RE, forgetting that it was already on the Sociology curriculum.

e) I will be writing more soon about what I feel are some of the recent confusions surround theology in RE. For a start, it seems to now be defined by some as "faith seeking understanding" (St Anselm) and synonymous with a confessional approach, something I do not agree with.

And a clarification from Dr Anthony Towey:

a) I think that anyone can do Theology - Pope Francis, Richard Dawkins etc - insofar as they engage thoughtfully with the "God question/ hypothesis". In the RE classroom therefore, far from being an exercise in indoctrination, theology can and should be an adventure of the mind which critically considers the proposals of religious belief.

b) I myself use "the sociological method" at times in an RE context, my main contention, however, is that any claim that it be regarded as uniquely "objective, critical and pluralistic" is hopelessly flawed and philosophically untenable.

c) Re Jeremy Kyle - I regard lively but respectful debate as an essential ingredient of good RE. However, the Government's "knowledge agenda" has been a game changer for many subjects, particularly at GCSE. Rigour has improved with the need to reference sources rather than just take the temperature of opinions as often happens on daytime TV. One of the less positive consequences is that as teachers grapple with the new curricula, there is a feeling that there is so much to cover, there is almost no time for classroom discussion at all.

d) The RE Commission has a wide ranging brief that extends far beyond preferred methodologies which can, in any case, be regarded as complementary. Happily this is a view which the article demonstrates is not unique to me - I am confident that the eventual report of the Commission will reflect the vitality, variety, colour and cohesion of RE as a core component of our common educational endeavour.

e) As for my views on Genesis 1-3  - check out the video on the London RE Hub website - it presents "the drama of the gifted individual being challenged to choose the good" - and everyone of us is caught up in that - it's called life!

Anthony Towey
St Mary's University

A to Z of RE

A brief introduction to the world of RE.

A is for Associations and Professional Bodies
There are quite a lot... here are some: NATRE (National Association of Teachers of RE), TRS-UK (Theology and RS UK, formerly “The Association of University Departments of Theology and Religious Studies” or AUDTR), AREIAC (Association of RE Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants), NASACRE (National Association of Standing Advisory Councils of Religious Education), AUL:RE (The Association of University Lecturers in Religion and Education), Shap Working Party [Amazingly, not an acronym!] - there are LOTS of members of the REC (Religious Education Council), find there <here>. Which ones to join?

B is for British Values
These are things the government believe we should be teaching. Many RE teachers felt they wanted to be the ones taking the lead; RE Today even published a book about RE and BV. Some RE teachers feel it should be a whole school priority and not left to RE.

C is for Collective Worship
The RE department might get asked to take charge of this… but it is a whole school responsibility. Collective Worship and RE often get muddled together. Many schools disregard the law on Collective Worship, they just have assemblies that cover PHSE, Citizenship, the news, or they just give notices. Many people feel Collective Worship has no place in schools.

D is for department
For some, you could be a department of one. This is great as you are your own boss, but you are likely to have a number of non-specialists who teach RE. Some will be great, others less so… the internet is a great way to form a virtual department - ask for advice and share resources, plus argue.

E is for EBacc
RE is not part of this. It probably never will be. The official reason is that RE is still compulsory anyway. Unofficial reasons may or may not include faith schools entering their whole cohort, the DfE wanting students to do History or Geography as a priority over RE, or the old GCSE being far easier than any other GCSE course.

F is for faith school
Or schools with a religious character. Most are Catholic or Church of England, there are also other Christian schools, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh schools. They can determine their own RE curriculum. Some feel this divide makes RE irreconcilable, others feel lots can be learnt from one another.

G is for guided hours
For GCSE this is 120 hours. Make sure your school know this if they are trying to get you to teach the new GCSE in an hour a week. This is NOT the old GCSE.

H is for Humanism
This is just one type of non religious worldview (NRWV), but Humanists UK manage to dominate much discussion in this area. They do provide resources and speakers to schools, which can be helpful.

I is for the Internet
This is where you can join Facebook groups such as Save RE and take part in #REChatUK on Twitter. Some of it is brilliant. But there are arguments, and rows. Social media doesn't always have tone, or a sense of humour.

J is for Jehovah Witnesses
Like Mormons and other minority groups that may or may not be considered Christian. Navigating away from mainstream religion is exciting and but sometimes problematic.

K is for kirpan
And other religious artefacts. These are great in the classroom and cheap from eBay, or free from local places of worship. Bargain hunt.

L is for Locally Agreed Syllabus
RE subject content is determined locally. This means in London, each borough teaches something different. Be careful when you cross that border from Suffolk into Norfolk, RE isn't the same. Some people feel it is hard to justify 140+ LASs being rewritten every 5 years. Other people think it's important that RE reflects the local area, even though students may move away for university or employment.

M is for moral
Part of SMSC (Social, Moral, Spiritual and Cultural development). Another thing RE naturally does well, but may be lumbered upon the Head of RE - it's a whole school responsibility. 

N is for Networking
This is great for RE teachers. Culham St Gabriel's help RE out in lots of ways, one such is providing grants to arrange networking hubs. There are also NATRE Local Groups, and some SACRE's run network meetings.

O is for Ofsted
The last major report into the subject was written by Alan Brine in 2013 “Realising the Potential”. More recently some school reports have flagged up where the law is not being followed - see here.

P is for Prevent
This is recent extension of safeguarding. However some initially believed the RE department would need to become ‘terrorist spotters’ in a RE-themed CTU in the new season of 24.

Q is for Quran
Or Qur’an or Koran. Some words in RE are spelt in different ways. Check out key words in the fantastic app, RE Definitions.

R is for Religion
Some people think we need less of this in RE, which seems odd.

S is for SACRE
This stands for the Standing Advisory Council for RE. These exist in each Local Area Authority (LEA) and form a committee to write the Locally Agreed Syllabus as well as advise and support schools in the area. Some are really good and effective, some others apparently less so.

T is for Target
As in Attainment Target, AT1 (Learning About) and AT2 (Learning From). AT2 has resulted in some interesting RE tasks at times.

U is for (mis)understanding
Parents often don’t have a clue what modern RE is like. If they don’t, it is unlikely the media, politicians, “Dave down the pub”, your hairdresser have a clue either.

V is for visibility
This is the best way to improve subject perception - lead on T&L, run great trips, get students interested with challenging and interesting lessons. Forget making a department name change - teach well and students will do your PR.

W is for withdrawal
Some parents will try to withdraw their son/daughter from all or part of the RE curriculum. Often this will be Islam. This may be a reason we need to change the law on RE.

X is for a lack of agreement about our name
Lots of RE teachers will try to change the name of their subject. The best ones are Citizenship, Religion and Philosophy (or CRaP) or Religion, Values and Ethics (RAVE - "let's have a..."). It's a bit of a red herring debate.

Y is for the ‘why’?
Some people would like to see RE off the school timetables as they see it as irrelevant. Richard Dawkins lists 129 biblical phrases in the God Delusion that form part of wider literacy or culture. Even if people in the UK in 2018 are less likely to subscribe to organised religion, good RE has value. Don't exclude students from appreciating Victorian literature or Renaissance art.

Z is for zombies
Due to the confusion, deliberate or accidental misunderstanding of curriculum content, some RE teachers teach what they personally think is interesting or that students should learn. This may include the Illuminati, Ouija boards or Scientology - or probably zombies. This may mean they miss out on "the best that has been thought and said" about religion and belief. Our time with our students is precious, don't waste it.

Revision Guide Update: “Good things come to those who wait...”

<Order Here>

I am currently working on the final edits, corrections and amendments to my GCSE revision guide. The whole team are really excited about the book as we feel it will give both teachers and students the best possible preparation for the upcoming GCSE exams.

If you haven't got the latest OUP mailing, read it <here>

A few things about the OUP book, that I feel makes it superior to any other books out there:

1. The visual approach we take - tables, diagrams, illustrations - which will be appealing to all students. Not just bullet points.
2. The structure – the Recap-Apply-Review method makes for effective revision - we have 3 key points for each spec point, plus further key information (not just everything abridged) with exam questions for reviewing knowledge and understanding.
3. The high volume of exam practice questions – 330! Exam boards won’t endorse exam questions or answers, but we have worked as hard as possible with expert advice to ensure we have covered every aspect of the spec (inc B Describe Questions) without going beyond the spec.
4. The detailed, skills-building techniques that allow students to practice stages of the larger tariff questions.
5. Answers readily available in the book - many of which are written as model answers, as well as bullet pointed. Students can check themselves easily!
6. All material specially written for this spec, not reused from other books.
7. Sample answers with commentary
8. 40% off if you order this term! 

The OUP revision guide is 6-8 weeks (approx) later than other books, but this time has been spent doing extra checks for accuracy and matching to the spec and ensuring everything is as useful, informative and useful to teachers and students.

Remember chapter 1 is already available <here> (which can obviously be shared with anxious students)

Any questions or concerns - or bulk order - feel free to drop Gina an email on: Georgina.white@oup.com

I think it’s safe to say we all fully understand teachers concerns and frustrations about not having the book any earlier. However, I am still teaching the spec and revision has been going on since the start of Year 10 (see an overview of revision, written by me and published by OUP <here>) so the book will be the final resource they use. Many other RE teachers provide a revision guide as something for students to use independently. I am confident my revision guide will enable them to do just that:

From Save RE

“Good things come to those who wait...”