Changing Aims in Religious Education

Edwin Cox

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429628160
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First published in 1966. The author examines the problems which face the teacher of Religious Education at the time of widespread doubt. He reviews studies of the formation of religious beliefs and attitudes in the young, and suggest a new strategy for the subject, whereby at each stage of education the teacher has a definite but limited aim, appropriate to the children with whom they have to teach.

1

The legal position and its assumptions

No subject is easy to teach, but some are harder than others. Perhaps the most difficult of all at the present time is that which is known as Religious Education or Religious Instruction. Those who try to teach it find their task complicated, partly by the nature of the subject itself, and partly by the confusion as to the nature and value of theological ideas which is a characteristic of contemporary thought.

The teacher of mathematics can be confident of the facts he transmits. Provided he keeps within the bounds of conventional arithmetic, three times three will always make nine, and if any member of the class calls this in question a simple practical demonstration will quickly produce assent. Outside the classroom the community as a whole recognises the universally accepted truth of 3 x 3=9. Further it is admitted that to teach such truths to children is of value, since the knowledge will help them to deal with practical problems involving calculations and measurements.

The teacher of religion, however, has none of these advantages. Religion, being the individual’s reaction to the mystery of life and creation and his attempts to solve its most inscrutable problems by answers which must be largely symbolical and metaphorical, appears, by its verynature, to have no demonstrable facts. It belongs to the realm of feelings, values, judgments and opinions. The respect for toleration and freedom of conscience which has emerged in the last few centuries demands that all religious ideas, no matter how irresponsible or ill-informed, shall be regarded as equally valid. Unless the teacher is prepared to be more authoritative and dogmatic than is generally acceptable it may seem that he has no agreed corpus of fact to teach. Since most teachers of the subject are themselves religious to a degree, a great number of them feel justified in invoking some measure of authority. The past experience of the human race has, they argue, produced certain religious ideas which are universally valid. The more deeply committed of them would maintain moreover that certain truths have been disclosed by God through revelation, and that the Bible contains the more important of those truths. Consequently they feel justified in teaching facts about the origin and content of the Bible, and the history of religious ideas and religious behaviour. These are the facts of the subject, not totally dissimilar from the facts of arithmetic or geography. Since this view depends on the personal religious conviction of the person who holds it, not everyone in the community will agree with it, but will regard the ideas that form the material of religious education not as facts but as opinions which are demonstrably unprovable. What is more, some parents question the value of teaching them. Religion has so little practical influence on present day life, that they think the time might be better used in teaching a more utilitarian subject, while a small minority, who call themselves humanists or agnostics or atheists, think that religious ideas are definitely harmful and impede the development of the self-reliance proper to humankind.

The effect of this may be to make the teacher of religion feel he is alienated somewhat from parents, colleagues and pupils. Children absorb unconsciously the values of society and their attitude to the subject reflects the doubt in which it is generally held. Those who come from religious families and attend public worship may be keenly interested but the remainder have neither the interest nor the motivation to study the subject with enthusiasm. Teachers of other subjects can be either politely tolerant or openly hostile, though often they are genuinely sympathetic without feeling competent to express more than a vague benevolence. In such a situation those who undertake religious education may feel that they have a difficult and lonely furrow to plough, and it is necessary for them to think carefully of the rationale of the subject, of the nature of its material and its aims, and of how closely its methods can approximate to those of subjects about which there is more widespread agreement.

Despite doubts of its validity and value, R.E. is the only subject that must by law be included in the curriculum of all schools within the state education system, and this provision would seem to claim the support of the majority of parents. In an investigation conducted by the writer in 1963, 2,278 parents of sixth form Grammar School pupils were asked whether they supported regular religious instruction in schools. Of the 74.5% who answered, only 89 were opposed leaving 69.5% in favour. Wider evidence comes from a survey in New Society, 27th May, 1965, which found 90% of the adult population of Great Britain in favour of the existing arrangements. It may be that those who oppose R.E. are a smallish intellectual group, the sort who are capable of writing letters to the more responsible papers and whose vocal influence is disproportionate to their size. It may be that most parents wish to see the subject retained, partly because its removal would imply a repudiation of the religious view of life which, for all their doubts and indifference, they are not prepared to make, and partly because they feel that it has some useful influence on moral training. Certainly any attempt to modify the religious provisions of the 1944 Education Act would provoke considerable opposition, and not only from churchgoers.

THE 1944 (BUTLER) EDUCATION ACT

The 1944 Education Act made religious instruction and religious observance a legally required ingredient of school life:

The school day in every county school and in every voluntary school shall begin with collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the school, and arrangements made therefor shall provide for a single act of worship attended by all such pupils, unless … the school premises are such as to make it impracticable to assemble them for that purpose. (section 25.1)

Religious instruction shall be given in every county school and in every voluntary school, (section 25.2)

In the detailed provisions of how these instructions are to be carried out, and in allowing abstentions therefrom, the Act takes into account the different types of school, the wishes and beliefs of the parents, and the conscience of the teachers. Strangely no reference is made to the wishes of the pupils in this matter, although one must remember that in 1944 the school leaving age was 14, and elder pupils did not claim the freedom to choose their beliefs and actions as extensively as they do today. It will perhaps be convenient if we examine these provisions under the headings of schools, parents and teachers.

(a) The schools. These are divided into three types, according to their origin and religious tradition, with different provisions for each. There are firstly the county schools, i.e. those provided and entirely maintained by the local authority. These have no religious tradition or affiliation, and in them both the instruction and the opening act of worship is independent of any denominational influence. The instruction is based on an agreed syllabus which the local authority has either drawn up for itself or adopted from another authority. Secondly, there are the controlled voluntary schools. These originally belonged to some other body, usually one of the churches, but have now become financially the complete responsibility of the local education authority. Consequently these retain a little of their original religious colouring. The former owners can be represented on the managing body, and two periods a week of the appropriate denominational instruction may be given to those children whose parents wish it. If the school is large enough, the teaching staff may include persons especially competent to give that instruction, who are known as ‘reserved teachers’. Though appointments are made by the local authority, the managers have the right to assure themselves that ‘reserved teachers’ are suitable for the task, and, if any prove to be otherwise, may ask the authority to dismiss him. Apart from these two periods a week, all religious instruction has to be undenominational and within the scope of an agreed syllabus. Thirdly, there are the ‘aided’ voluntary schools. The management retains control of religious education in these and of the appointment of the teachers, in return for which the Act stipulated that they pay 50% (reduced to 25% in 1959) of the cost of keeping up the exterior fabric of the building and of any alterations. The local authority pays the whole of the running costs. For practical purposes these remain denominational schools under church control, though parents of pupils may request that their children be taught according to an agreed syllabus—a request that in fact is rarely made.

(b) The parents. It is a principle of the religious provisions of the Act that parents have the right to decide what sort of religious instruction their children shall receive. Since it is not always possible for children to attend a school giving the desired type of instruction, provision is made for withdrawal and for alternative teaching. Parents who have no belief may therefore ask that their children be exempted from all religious instruction and from the daily act of worship. As mentioned above, those whose children attend voluntary-aided schools where denominational teaching is general, may request undenominational agreed syllabus instruction. Those whose children attend a county or controlled school, but none the less wish them to be taught according to a denominational formula, may withdraw them at either the beginning or end of school to receive such teaching, provided it can adequately be given elsewhere. This means the alternative teaching must be provided by a church at its own cost and in its own building.

Apart from the Roman Catholics, parents in general are strongly disinclined to make use of these facilities. Either they are unaware of them, or indifferent to the type of religious instruction their children are given, or, more probably, content to leave this, as they leave other educational decisions, to the schools on the grounds that they know best what is good for children’.

(c) The teachers. It is expected, of course, that teachers in aided schools and reserved teachers in controlled schools will be religious people, acceptable to the managers who watch over the religious life of the school. But with these exceptions the Act states in section 30 that no teacher shall be required to give religious instruction, and that none shall ‘receive any less emolument or be deprived of, or disqualified for, any promotion’ for feeling unable to do so. Nor shall his private opinion or his abstention from the daily act of worship penalise him in any way. Yet teachers frequently accept an assignment to give religious teaching who would prefer not to do so. They do this partly because they recognise the problems of constructing and manning a timetable, and do not wish to cause difficulties for their school, and partly because they feel the legal provisions are a little disingenuous, and that the giving of religious instruction can be regarded as a qualification for promotion. After all, the head of a school has to be responsible for arranging religious instruction and for providing the daily act of worship, and not unnaturally, some appointing committees prefer candidates who can do this with enthusiasm and skill. There is a feeling among teachers that heads tend to be chosen from those with religious conviction, although the writer would not care to say whether this impression is true or false.

THE AGREED SYLLABUSES AND THEIR PRESUPPOSITIONS

The production and use of an agreed syllabus in each area was fundamental to the success of the religious provisions of the 1944 Education Act. The introduction of legally required religious instruction in all state schools would have been impossible in the early part of the twentieth century because of the bitter denominational rivalries and suspicion that then existed. But by the time the Act was drafted the churches had grown sufficiently close together for them to be able to co-operate in the drafting of such syllabuses, and to welcome their use in schools as imparting a useful background of common knowledge without doing damage to any denominational interest. It is to the agreed syllabuses that one must look to discover the principles on which religious instruction under the Act has been conducted and the assumptions on which it is based.

Certain agreed syllabuses already existed when the Act became law. For instance the Cambridgeshire syllabus had been published in 1924 and adopted by more than three hundred authorities. But after 1944 many authorities drew up their own syllabuses while some were content to adopt those of other authorities, the ones of Cambridgeshire, Surrey and Sunderland being widely used. The authorities that made their own syllabuses appointed drafting committees which included theologians, representatives of the different churches, and members of teacher’s associations and the local authority. In retrospect it may appear that the theological and ecclesiastical influence predominated, and that too little account was taken of the teaching situation in which the syllabus was to be used, and too little known of the manner in which children’s attitudes and religious ideas develop. This is not a reflection on the sincerity or integrity of the drafting committees. They had to work within the knowledge then available. None the less, the opinion now exists that their syllabuses, though excellent schemes of theological and biblical study for those already interested in such things, are in need of revision to relate them more closely to children’s needs, and the present time is seeing a number of revisions.

The criticism now directed at agreed syllabuses may be in part due to a misunderstanding of their nature by teachers and their consequent misuse. They were intended to be syllabuses, not lesson schemes. This is made clear in the preamble to many of them. The London Agreed Syllabus of Religious Instruction (1947) states that It cannot be overstressed that the syllabus is intended to be suggestive rather than compulsory’ (p. 29). The introductions to the Surrey County Council Syllabus of Religious Instruction (1947) contain this advice: It remains for the teacher to select and arrange such courses as will be suitable for the organisation and other conditions in the individual school…. It is for the individual teachers, working within the comprehensive school plan, to interpret and shape the content of the courses’ (pp 7, 31). This means that the agreed syllabus defines the material that may be taught. How it is taught, when it is taught, and in what order it is taught, is for the teacher to decide. The syllabus describes the area in which the teacher may manoeuvre in the manner which seems to him most profitable. Provided the material he is using can be found somewhere in the syllabus, he is within his rights. This has perhaps been obscured by the arrangement of the syllabuses into infant, junior and senior sections, and further subdivisions into years. Such arrangement gives the impression that the syllabus is a scheme of lessons and some teachers, either through lack of imagination or initiative or from fear of going beyond their brief, have used it as such, instead of drawing up their own lesson plan based on the material that the syllabus defines. It can, therefore, be argued that the agreed syllabuses, so misunderstood, have had a restrictive effect on the teaching of the subject far greater than was envisaged by those who compiled them.

To understand fully the influence that the agreed syllabuses have had on religious instruction one must realise their presuppositions—the things which they take for granted. The following assumptions seem to have been made by their compilers:

1. That when the Act refers to religious instruction it means instruction in the Christian religion. The word Christian does not appear in the text of the Act, yet all the syllabuses are based on a study of the Christian scriptures and the history of the Christian Church, and this is beyond doubt what the legislators intended.

2. That every child is a Christian and comes from a Christian home. This further implies that all children are anxious to learn the details of Christian faith and practice, and will readily accept these when they are expounded. There is no suggestion tha...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Contents
• General editor’s introduction
• Preface
• 1 The legal position and its assumptions
• 2 The theological and social background
• 3 How children think about religion
• 4 Aims in religious education
• 5 The Bible in religious education
• 6 The strategy of religious education
• Suggestions for further reading