Freedom in RE

Image courtesy of 2 Oceans Vibs

Last night on the Facebook group of RE teachers called 'Save RE' a row escalated after a NQTs request (on behalf of her head of department) for teaching resources on the Illuminati. People were accused of being mean and that members of the group had been 'attacked'. There were polarised views as to whether this was brilliant engagement and relevance to kids who are "always talking about it", or something that had no place whatsoever in RE.

It made me think. Do History and Geography have such dilemmas? 

Is there a place on the internet where Historians argue about what is history? Do they debate what they should be covering in their lessons? Or how to cover more unconventional topics? Do Geographers row about the content of their KS3 lessons? Do they fall out over what to types of geographical features should or could be included? 

Now RE is distinct and different to other humanities; although let's not try to define it's purpose or we'll have another quickly escalating argument. However I increasingly wonder to what extent. I believe that such rows erupt in RE for a number of reasons:

• Many schools follow their Locally Agreed Syllabus (LAS) which is a curriculum determined locally. However many do not follow it that closely and there is little monitoring in many places. Some teachers who should follow it do not, and 'do their own thing' to a large extent.
• Due to local determination when national (international even?) RE forums for discussion raise such issues, people do not know local context. Maybe the Illuminati is on the teacher's LAS? (I'm not sure it is?).
• RE suffers from its legal status... what is compulsory for all? What is an academic option? What are the schools responsibilities? RE's status can sometimes be it's downfall, especially when people do not know exactly what it is.
• The perception of the subject can still be poor for a multitude of reasons: time allocation, resources, lack of specialists, SLT view etc. This results in a drive to be relevant and engaging; too often I feel it is misleading. I again reference this:
  

Image courtesy of The Brilliant Club

• Teachers can often be in one person departments with little support, or challenge. It often vital you have a friendly colleague to raise his or her eyebrow as you make a suggestion of what or how to teach.
• Subject knowledge and specialism in RE can too often fall short. Understanding the complexities of "What is religion?" may be beyond some, especially those drafted in willingly or not from other subject areas.
• Time challenges. Often RE teachers suffer more than most from this. Some teacher 75% of the school (or more), they have fewer people to share planning with, or may not have the resources. Hence many a request on Save RE... Do they have time to create bespoke, individual schemes of work?
• RE teachers care. A lot. Since being excluded from the EBacc (hence the 'Save RE' name of the Facebook group), RE teachers want to passionately fight the good fight for RE. Sometimes this passion spills out into what some have called 'attacks' on Save RE.
• There is some bad and ugly RE out there (see <here> and <here> for previous blog posts). Many RE teachers feel that should be challenged, as for some of the above reasons, it may not be challenged within schools.

This returns us to some of the contemporary issues of RE:

• Specialist shortages
• Lack of training
• LASs or a national / core curriculum?

Would having a national or core curriculum for RE address #IlluminatiGate? Perhaps it would have eased it as people would have known the teachers reference point and understood better about how/why it would be included? Perhaps people could have simply pointed out that we have enough to et through with this curriculum that this kind of topic needs to be left to extra curricular forms (RE clubs etc)? 

Or would we just have a different set of dilemmas?

Also on the other hand, some people use the complete freedom to put together what certainly look like great RE syllabi... (see <here>)

And it's worth noting I work in a Catholic School so we have a comprehensive 'core curriculum' found in the Curriculum Directory (see <here>)

For the record, I am happy to admit I challenged the idea of teaching this topic, but I do not feel I was rude, personal or my posts can be construed as an 'attack'. I make no apologies for challenging things I do not think are right. I cannot in good conscience say 'great idea' when I do not think it is. Our time is precious as RE teachers, we also have the most fascinating subject in the world to teach. Sometimes we can do a little better, and I very much include myself in this.   

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>