A New Settlement: Religion and Belief in Schools

I should start by saying that, although this is my first blog in my current role, I have a long history of blogging as a teacher and researcher - I've always found it a really helpful way to engage with the wider community of educators, as well as a great way of plugging my students into a new world of research, debate and discussion. 

I have always loved studying and teaching RE - it was the only subject that ever made my brain hurt, thus reminding me I had one! I did degrees in Theology and Religious Studies, nearly completed a PhD in Theology and Literature (one day I'll finish it...) and trained to teach RE in secondary schools. In the event, I ended up teaching both RE and Philosophy and the relationship between the two both in terms of curriculum and perception could warrant another blog post, I think. 

Since 2014, I've worked as the RE Adviser for the Diocese of Lincoln. This was not only my first foray into church school education, but also my first experience of RE in primary education since I left primary school many, many, many years ago. In the Diocese, we look after 138 primary schools and just 4 secondary schools, so I've inevitably had to upskill in understanding the place of RE at primary level. The multitude of recent reports on RE have really helped (see here, here, here, here and here), and Charles Clarke and Linda Woodhead's recent report, A New Settlement: Religion and Belief in Schools, has helped me develop my knowledge of and interest in the relationship between RE and educational policy-making. 

I've reread this report several times over the past two weeks, read many of the blogs on #BlogSyncRE and spoken with colleagues around the country. Although very little of what it contains is new - certainly to those of us working in RE, - there is something about this report that has stimulated a more optimistic discussion than many I've had after previous reports have been published. 

I want to look at three areas in particular:

1. Definitions of and recommendations about RE
2. 'Faith schools' and my experience of supporting church schools
3. Issues that I think need further clarification or discussion (including the title of the report!)

1. Definitions of and recommendations about RE

This report, like so many recent reports on RE, accurately outlines the opportunities offered and challenges faced by RE in schools. Unlike some other reports, it focuses on trying to provide an accurate definition of what RE is, picking apart some of the most frequent confusion and misconceptions. This began with a discussion of the purpose of RE:

The first, and most important, is a recurrent theme relating to confusion about the whole purpose of the subject... Confusion over the proper relationship between religious education, ethics, moral guidance and community cohesion… (30)

Now, I know Kathryn Wright (@kathyrnfenlodge) is writing her PhD on this topic, so look to her for more detail about this, but I wasn't convinced that renaming the subject as 'Religious and Moral Education' (RME) will significantly address this problem. I noted the influence of the the Scottish government's Principles and Practices of RME and so read it in detail. There were some interesting points. For example, the first outcome of RME in Scotland is to, "recognise religion as an important expression of human experience." It also talks about RME in relation to "meaning, value and purpose in life", "reflecting on values and capacity for moral judgement" and the "intrinsic value in learning about religion as well as learning from religion, as children and young people develop their understanding of diversity in our society and their own roles in it." The repetition of 'values' and focus on social diversity offers a particular interpretation of the purpose of RE and made me reflect on the extent to which this has influenced Clarke and Woodhead's thinking. As a theologian by training, I also found it noteworthy that there was very little emphasis on the notion of the divine in either document; they focused instead on religion as a human experience of living. In other words, we are being offered religion, philosophy, morality, ethics, but no theology.


A New Settlement goes on to distinguish between Religious Education, Religious Instruction and Religious Formation. In and of itself, I think this is a helpful thing to do, but I'm not sure I was completely convinced by the explanations of Religious Instruction and Religious Formation. I'll be honest, I'm no expert on the history of the ways in which our subject has been defined, but there seemed to me to be some assumptions being made here that were unhelpful. It worries me that Clarke and Woodhead could be read to be suggesting that Religious Instruction cannot be done in an outward-looking, self-critical way. This is very close to suggesting that confirmation classes and the like are a form of brainwashing. The recommendation that Religious Instruction should not be permitted to take place during the school day is a very definite statement about the authors' views on the relationship between religion and the state (in this sense, as represented by our education system). I'm not sure that a total divorce between faith (as opposed to religion) and public sphere (here, the education system) is going to help the trend identified by Clarke and Woodhead: 

The influence of more conservative and 'fundamentalist' elements of religion relative to less activist liberal or 'moderate' majorities is also like to increase. (16)

This does not mean that I think pupils should be compelled to participate in Religious Instruction; but, in the appropriate setting, I think it is important to provide opportunities for those who wish to access it to do so. 

Again, it worried me that there were some underlying assumptions about Religious Formation on p. 34 of the report. Whilst the authors accepted that there is a place for Religious Formation in both the formal and informal curriculum, they cautioned against lack of opportunities for "agency, questioning and criticism" and ignoring, distorting or caricaturing other religions or beliefs. To a non-specialist, this may well be read as suggesting that Religious Formation as it currently exists in the education system does just these things. Placing Religious Education, as defined on p. 34, in the context of Religious Formation is something that currently happens very successfully in many of the schools I encounter on a day-to-day basis, and I hope this is something that could be acknowledged by any national curriculum that may result from future discussions. I think it could also have implications for withdrawal from RE. 

Personally, I feel that withdrawal from RE is a historical overhang from the time when RE was, in fact, Religious Instruction - in that context, withdrawal is understandable, but in today's education system, it is not desirable at all. Having said that, if RE were to placed in a broader context of Religious Formation, it would be necessary that 'faith school' admissions criteria require parents' willingness to accept in-school formation (p. 57) in order to ensure that no students would be withdrawn from RE. I also noted with interest the recommendation on p. 62 that 'faith schools' ought to retain their own inspection processes for "the content of collective worship and religious formation" (my italics). This would be a significant change for the Section 48 inspection of schools with a religious character, which currently inspects RE in Voluntary Aided schools and considers RE in the context of the religious character of the school for Voluntary Controlled schools. 

I strongly agree with the report's comments on the need for stronger religious literacy: 

... 'religious literacy' is or should be a requirement for a very wide range of jobs in both the public and the private sectors. (44)

This is why it came as such a surprise that the report recommended that RE should only be taught up to KS4 and, even then, be re-framed as "religious, spiritual, moral, ethical, social, and cultural values". If such a re-framed version of RE would "be different from and complementary to the GCSE in RE" (43), would it actually be RE of the sort that is needed to provide adequate religious literacy (if this is our aim)?

2. 'Faith Schools'

Many elements of this report are fantastic and I know have been warmly welcomed by RE teachers and advisers. I work for the Board of Education of a Church of England Diocese, so I have a vested interest in what the report has to say about 'faith schools'. No doubt, you will have noticed that I keep writing 'faith schools' rather than faith schools, church schools or schools with a religious character. On p. 17, the authors state that they are aware of the misleading nature of this nomenclature, but choose to use it anyway "because of its simplicity and currency". Just because something has currency, it doesn't follow that it is accurate! Nigel Genders' description of Church of England schools is helpful here (and quoted in the same report!):

Our schools are not faith schools for Christians, but Church schools for all. (55)

There is a real difference between a school intended for those of a faith and a school operating through a particular religious ethos for the benefit of the whole community. In either case, RE, formation and instruction can be outward-looking, critical, dialogical, and so on, but I'm not sure you get a sense of that from reading the report. There are implications here for schools who do self-identify as faith schools, who currently offer Religious Instruction/Formation and see this as a central element of their identity. Having taught mostly teenagers, I would also be interested to see how Religious Instruction/Formation competes in the myriad of draws on young people's time outside of school - the very small amount left after homework, revision, etc.! 

But I think what frustrated me the most was the almost dismissive paragraph on p. 58:

As far as independent faith schools are concerned, the issues are entirely different, as pupils have to pay for their places and there is no state funding. This situation does not seem to require reform by any change in law.

It seems to me that many of the strengths of the report lie in their relevance across the whole education sector. To strongly urge 'faith schools' in the state sector to address their admissions policies, inspection processes and employment procedures, but to go on to say that independent schools do not need the same self-scrutiny seems confusing. Is it as simple as suggesting that if you can pay, you can be educated according to structures deemed inappropriate for state schools? How fair is this to those pupils who wish to receive a faith-based education, but cannot afford to pay for the privilege? How fair is it - if we accept that these 'faith-based' structures are indeed inappropriate - to those students who do attend fee-paying schools? 

3. Other issues needing clarification or discussion

I realise that I have been going on for a bit now! There are just a few other bits and bobs that I thought were worthy of mention and discussion:

1. A new role for SACREs in relation to Religious Instruction (45)
Again emphasising the separation of faith from education, but perhaps also suggesting some means of formalising Religious Instruction?

2. The continual emphasis on preparing students for "life now and in the future" (15)
Raises the bigger question about the nature and purpose of education per se - fostering curiosity and love of learning? training up model citizens? (Bearing in mind, of course, the fact that this report's target audience is not only the RE and faith communities, but those in Government who may be in a position to affect change...)

3. The potential to continue freighting RE with "too little significance or too much" (7)
In removing the obligation to deliver RE at KS4 and KS5, we bring it in line with other curriculum subjects but the fact that it is not part of the EBacc suggests that, in real terms, it will continue to be afforded too little significance. If we maintain the obligation to deliver it at KS4/5, we presumably continue to give it too much significance. Similarly, if we pitch it as a key element of evidencing 'British Values' or safeguarding against certain forms of religious extremism, we give it too much significance. Rock and a hard place...

4. The capacity of OFSTED to monitor and inspect any statutory curriculum across all schools, including independent schools (64)
It's struggling to maintain capacity as it is...

5. The title of the report
In all the discussions online and in the media, much has been said about Collective Worship, RE and 'faith schools'. However, the title of the report states quite clearly that it is considering the place of religion and belief in schools, that is, in one of the major public arenas in this country. This feels like a much broader - and more political - thing than merely discussing SMSC, RE and admissions policies. Just a thought...

Anyway, those are my thoughts - let me know what you think!