Issues in Religious Education

Lynne Broadbent, Alan Brown

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781134504596
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book is designed to give students and newly qualified teachers a contextual and theoretical background to this subject, by exploring and challenging assumptions about the place of religion in education.
The book is divided into the following sections:

• section one sets out the context for religious education in the curriculum. It looks at political, social and religious influences on legislation, particularly in faith schools, and raises questions about assessment
• section two focuses on Religious Education in the classroom, exploring our understanding of religion and the concept of development in Religious Education
• section three examines Religious Education as a whole-school issue, considering its relationship to literacy, citizenship, collective worship and spiritual, ethical and moral development.

Part I The nature of Religious Education within the school curriculum

1 The statutory requirements for Religious Education 1988–2001 Religious, political and social influences

Alan Brown

DOI: 10.4324/9780203018651-1

The curriculum for a maintained school satisfies the requirements of this section if it is a balanced and broadly based curriculum which—

1. promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and
2. prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.

(Education Reform Act 1988 Chapter 40 part 1 Section 1:2)

Any Agreed Syllabus… Shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.

(Education Reform Act 1988 Chapter 40 Section 8:3)

These two extracts from ERA, now incorporated into the Education Act (1996), represent the axiom upon which the balance of RE has rested for the last two decades. Prior to 1988 there was no clear guidance in law as to the content of Religious Education (or as it was then called, ‘Religious Instruction’); the words ‘Religious Education’ being reserved in the defining Education Act of 1944 for the twin foci of ‘Religious Instruction’ and ‘Collective Worship’.

RI, RE or RS

What is generally not well known was that in 1987 there was a brief discussion between the then Secretary of State for Education and representatives from the Church of England whether RI could be changed, not to RE, but to Religious Studies. The reason was that many teachers of RE in secondary schools were already adopting an approach which allowed them to stand back from the truth claims of the various religions in order to study them more ‘objectively’. The emphasis was very much on the study of religion and educating pupils through that strategic approach rather than educating them ‘into’ religion. There was already a ‘Religious Studies’ style of teaching very much in line with the influential views of Professor Ninian Smart and his phenomenological approach outlined in the Schools’ Council Working Paper 36 and promoted through the activities of the Shap Working Party on World Religions in Education (1999/2000). It was felt that ‘RE’ was as much as Members of Parliament could cope with at the time; to make a more significant change would be likely to affect any other changes already in the pipeline—so RE it remained. The political advice was well judged as the debates on RE in the House of Lords demonstrated. In retrospect, of course, the subject is now called RS at Key Stage 4 and at post-16 education, so the suggested change has happened almost by default.

The Education Reform Act 1988

There have, of course, been interpretations of the wording of the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA) since its enactment, notably by the then DES in its Circular 3/89 on Religious Education and School Collective Worship and, more controversially some years later, in its subsequent Circular 1/94. The controversy that raged in the world of RE and amongst some religious groups was primarily concerned with those paragraphs in the Circular 1/94 that related to Collective Worship. Circular 3/89 had been regarded as generally helpful and supportive to those teaching RE and to the organisers of Collective Worship. The 1988 ERA had, for the first time, defined the basic content of RE (see ERA Ch. 40:8:3). It was really quite remarkable, given the tetchy quality of the debates in the House of Lords, that the teaching of the principal faiths in Great Britain should have been included in primary legislation and not just the teaching of Christianity (though the legislation did in fact reflect common practice, particularly in secondary schools). This situation may seem dated, almost neolithic in the early twenty-first century, but a cursory glance through the debates in Hansard catches the flavour of the deep feelings expressed. The openness and enabling character of the legislation owed much to Kenneth Baker, then Secretary of State, and the Bishop of London, Dr Graham Leonard. As the bill proceeded through the Lords it became clear that the members did not distinguish between RE and Collective Worship; in fact, many did not distinguish between school education and church Sunday School education. As a consequence there began to emerge an agreement that as long as Christianity was mentioned in such a way that it was given pre-eminence there would be an acceptance of the proposed wording for RE. There would, however, need to be a ‘fudge’ regarding Collective Worship. The wording on Collective Worship was obscure and complex and is not the main concern of this chapter: what is important to note is that many teachers and others continue not to make a clear distinction between what the law required for RE and what it required for Collective Worship: that confusion still surfaces today.

The ERA did, however, focus people’s minds on what Religious Education should be about. The writer remembers having lunch in the 1980s with the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Keith Joseph, then the Secretary of State for Education. She observed that RE was an unimportant subject in the curriculum and the influence of the religious lobby on education was minimal. Within a very few years the initial two lines on RE and Collective Worship in the Education Reform Bill had burgeoned to several pages and in Hansard there are more pages devoted to RE and school Collective Worship than to any other single topic in that major Bill.

New syllabuses emerged, as did the legal requirement for every LEA to convene a Standing Advisory Council on RE (SACRE). This body, convened under different regulations from the Syllabus Conference, was intended to support and provide guidance for the teaching of RE in each LEA. It would report annually to the central government curriculum agency, now called QCA. Today, with the greater financial pressure on LEAs, SACREs function variously; some are clearly excellent and provide very good guidance for teachers of RE and a supportive advisory system; others take their responsibilities more lightly. This has led some to call for a national syllabus for RE but there is little support for it in the LEAs. It would be a further centralisation of the curriculum, taking away more autonomy from the local authorities. The Model Syllabuses have, to some extent, provided a basic formula for new RE syllabuses, particularly as they are now a requirement in initial teacher training. Unfortunately they are now dated and in urgent need of revision.

Circular 3/89 and after

The Circular 3/89 was generally believed to support RE teaching and teachers. It was an ‘enabling’ Circular, supportive of the contemporary situation, intended to bring order and calm after the tensions of the 1988 legislation. A small though influential group, however, worked hard to influence the Secretary of State in order to ‘protect’ Christianity in the classroom; a view seen as quite unnecessary by the vast majority of those teaching RE and by those involved in the 1988 ERA. Christianity was the central theme of every syllabus, especially every new syllabus, so did this group have another more subversive agenda? In general, the argument concerned what should be taught, to whom and how much time should be given to the teaching of Christianity. In the main, the vociferous, traditionalist Christian group were quite content for Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other faith groups to be given a religious education in their respective faiths, but everyone else, Christian and others (those who were not positively of another faith), had to receive the appropriate dosage of Christianity and a Christianity that was taught as true. It was, in effect, a reaction against the phenomenological approach that had been so influential—no matter that its originator and promoter was a Scottish Episcopalian! This, crudely, meant, ‘we teach the Christian religion to everyone who isn’t anything else; the other faiths can teach their own pupils but they too will need to know something of Christianity because of its influence on culture, literature, politics et cetera’. The study of religion, therefore, as an academic subject with its own intellectual integrity came under considerable threat. Was this the real agenda: Christianity, when taught, had to be taught as true, not as a religion that claimed to be true and have a truth to share?

It may be noted in passing that the current government policy on religious schools could be seen as a derivation of this view. The teaching of Religious Education will be important in these schools but will it always be taught as if the religion on which the school is founded is true and will the Religious Education taught encourage pupils to look at the beliefs and practices of other faiths? Will teachers be able, and will they want, to teach in the classroom the truths of those faiths not recognised in the foundation of the school? Will the result be that RE will be taught in the religious schools but slip quietly into the background in the community schools? It would be, unfortunately, a failure to recognise the integrity of Religious Education as an academic study worthy of study for its own sake and that is the criterion for its inclusion in the school curriculum. It is not clear at the time of writing whether the churches and other religious groups are prepared to intercede on behalf of the study of religion in all schools as opposed to the promotion of their own distinctive understanding of what RE should contain in their own schools. It may be that the Christian traditionalists have lost a battle or two but will win the war!

Circular 1/94 and all that

In a letter to Chief Education Officers on 18 March 1991 the then Secretary of State, Kenneth Clarke, offered guidance regarding the format and content of RE Agreed Syllabuses. Whatever advice emerges, from the DES, DofE, DfEE or DfES, it is based on legal advice on how the law may be interpreted and, therefore, can only be advisory. This letter appeared to be much more prescriptive than the law required. The letter marked the beginning of the end of what might be called ‘aims and objectives’ syllabuses. The trend had developed for RE syllabuses to contain little detailed content (this would be incorporated into an accompanying Handbook) and would contain a list of aims and objectives for each age range and programme of study. The Syllabus itself would only be a few pages long; the advisory Handbook would be much more substantial. This approach was never popular among the more conservative Christian lobby because it allowed LEAs and schools far too much freedom to teach aspects of religion other than Christianity. Clarke’s ill-timed and ill-considered intervention meant that syllabuses would have to be much more content-laden so that parents and gimlet-eyed Christians would know what was being taught and when to pupils and for how long: they would be able to measure how much time was being devoted to each religion. The dis-ease caused by the letter and the discontent felt by some evangelical Christian groups led five years later to the production of another Circular superseding Circular 3/89 though still based on the ERA.

The controversial aspect of the Circular on RE and School Collective Worship (1/94) arose directly out of dissatisfaction with Kenneth Clarke’s letter, and essentially concerned Collective Worship (which is addressed below). For some reason the RE profession, ill-advisedly, allowed itself to be drawn into the debate even though the responsibility for the organisation of Collective Worship lies not with the RE teacher, it lies with the head teacher. What Circular 1/94 did not do was decide the detailed content of RE, that was now relatively uncontroversial, leaving the RE profession with some integrity, so why did they feel the need to become embroiled in the debate on Collective Worship?

There was a concerted lobbying of the Secretary of State for Education by some Christian groups to require him to offer an interpretation of the Law which would allow less flexibility for the LEAs who were writing their new RE syllabuses. This was resisted and the section of the 1988 Education Reform Act relating specifically to Religious Education has largely been unchallenged except by one or two Christian evangelical groups who appear to regard the wording as a sell-out to the multifaith, multicultural lobby, inhibiting their approach.

RE and Collective Worship

It is worth noting that while RE specialists, particularly those teaching at Key Stages 3, 4 and 5, generally wish to make a sharp distinction between RE and school collective worship, that distinction is by no means so clear to the general public, nor to many pupils, nor to teachers in primary schools. If one wished to be controversial, one could make a case for the RE profession never really defining their subject sufficiently in subject-oriented, educational terms. There still exists a large group teaching RE for whom RE remains a confessional subject, having strong links with Collective Worship, and an endemic Christian morality as opposed to any other moral view, religious or humanist. The linking of RE and Collective Worship has historic overtones and has, in many ways, become a burden around the neck of those who wish to promote RE as a systemic, distinctive subject. Their argument is strengthened by the fact that in most schools, particularly the non-religious schools, school worship bears no relation whatsoever to worship as carried out by followers of any particular faith. School worship, therefore, does not illuminate the teaching about worship in the faith communities that takes place in curriculum RE.

Pre-1988: an overview

Religious Education has always been attached to controversy. The inter-denominational wrangling between the various Christian groups prior to the 1944 Education Act resulted in central government distancing itself from the content of RE. The legal requirement to establish Syllabus Conferences to determine the content of RE in each LEA gave a special place among the religious groups, in England, to the established church, the Church of England. The assumption was that RE was essentially to do with biblical knowledge (because all Christians agreed the Bible was important) and moral teaching and the Church would be the guardian of such basic truths. Such assumptions die hard outside the parameters of those concerned professionally with the teaching of RE. Politicians and others tend to perceive RE as having the major aim of inculcating faith and providing moral fibre. A swift survey of the development of RE since the 1940s illustrates the point.

In the 1940s until the early 1960s most agreed syllabuses were little more than lists of content relating to the Old Testament, New Testament and some periods of church history. The assumption was that ‘Biblical teaching based on a Christian interpretation was Religious Instruction’. Pupils at school during this period would have received an unvarying diet of Bible stories largely unrelated to Christian beliefs, rites and practices. Indeed, in many schools it was called ‘Divinity’ or ‘Scripture’—a custom that has not entirely disappeared.

In the 1960s there was a move, encouraged by the work of Ronald Goldman (1964) and also Harold Loukes (1961), to interpret Religious Instruction in a more relevant manner which would relate in some existential way to the lives of the pupils. Such initiative received a patchy response and it was really the West Riding Syllabus for RE of the late 1960s which tried to put this into effect The move was perhaps a belated reflection on the changing society of the 1960s but reflected the way in which educational philosophy was changing. ‘Relevance’ appeared to be of central concern to curriculum planners and RE sought to respond. The period remains important because, perhaps for the first time, Religious Education as a curriculum subject was prepared to be closely associated with moral education and personal and social education. This developing relationship continues to be attractive to some, mainly on the Christian right, who appear to see a direct link between RE, moral behaviour and violence at football matches. One MP and ex-teacher...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Contributors
• Abbreviation
• Preface
• Part I The nature of Religious Education within the school curriculum
• Part II Religious Education in the classroom
• Part III Religious Education and the wider curriculum
• Bibliography
• Index