Religious education in schools

Emeritus Professor Trevor Kerry, University of Lincoln:

The latest pronouncement by Ofsted on Religious Education in primary and secondary schools (Transforming Religious Education), while not research in any formal sense of the word, is worthy of note because a sizable sample of schools was visited (albeit over a three-year period). Among other things the Report concludes that, while about four in ten schools provides effectively in this subject area, many are falling short. It is concerned to improve the situation, but some of the underlying thinking lacks clarity.

One problem is that the Report is motivated by government dogma rather than clear insight. The theme of ‘community cohesion’ is recurrent. Clearly, an intended aim of the government for this subject is to provide a tool for more peaceable co-existence between communities based on improved understandings. This is laudable: but unreasonable. ‘Education’ as a phenomenon might hope to go some way to achieving this:  a single subject cannot.

Furthermore, this aspiration becomes even more unreasonable when one looks at the role religion actually plays in the world. While the nanny state might espouse a Victorian ideal of stained glass purity and infectious ‘goodness’, the reality of religion does not support this concept. Look no further than – and here there is a danger of producing a catalogue without even delving into history – Iraq, Afghanistan, fundamentalist America, the Gaza strip, Northern Ireland…

The other major assumption that is made by the documents (though not explicitly stated) is that RE should be taught from a faith perspective. This is perfectly logical and reasonable – within faith schools. But in the larger society of secular schools, it is highly questionable whether RE should be taught from the perspective of faith.

It is fair to argue that Christianity might take a central place in teaching about religion in a country whose establishment espouses this faith; but that does not mean that what is taught is ‘faith’. Nor does it mean that RE teaching should be de-contextualised from other faiths in society. Proponents of the ‘faith’ view would complain that my point is unfair: but in practice this assumption, that the study of religion brings with it a need for the teacher or the taught to have a faith-orientated response, exists and is – arguably – not helpful.

It would be altogether preferable to see religion as a phenomenon rather than as a faith, and to teach it from that perspective in secular schools. That, in the end, is entirely justifiable, since religion is clearly such an important and widespread phenomenon in the world and throughout history. Thus what would be taught would then become the social phenomenon of religion, the literature of religion, the art and architecture of religion, the history of religion and its influence e.g. on politics, nationhood and so on. The values of religions would be spelled out and evaluated; but RE itself would be faith and value-free.

In the present climate, with these unwritten assumptions about faith guiding the development of the subject, such an objective approach would be hard to achieve. For example, putting local control of the curriculum in the hands of faith groups militates against such an approach – fine for faith schools, not so fine for the secular majority.

University and teacher training establishments have also to take some blame for the present situation. Why? Because, over the years they have tended to water down the study of ‘theology’ into a study of ‘religious studies’ or ‘ministry’ or ‘biblical studies’. The old disciplines have disappeared, except for the very few: and with them the critical faculties that they engendered. The quality of teachers and teaching probably is less good for exactly this reason.

By tying RE too closely to established faiths, opportunities are often missed for the most productive and interesting of analyses. For example, in a Christian milieu, modern scholarship – through critical analysis of hitherto largely inaccessible texts – is re-defining such fundamentals as the historical Jesus and his significance in the context of his time, and the role of women in the early church. By confining perceptions to the biblical narrative one is simply being trapped into a third century interpretation.

So is there a place for RE in our secular schools? Re-defined as suggested, there is. It won’t always be a comfortable one for those whose prime concern is with faith. It will have to deal with religion’s role in partisanship, conflict, war and strife, for example. It also needs to develop RE in two important ways.

The Report is right to say that RE often shies way from higher order thinking: my own researches in the 1980s demonstrated that – so this is hardly a new insight!  Religion asks ultimate questions and, as such, should promote analysis, application, empathy, criticality, deduction, speculation and a whole raft of barely-touched-upon higher order skills. Its assessment should be on exactly those criteria, too, for those who seek examination in the subject.

Secondly, as we have seen, what characterises religion is the integrative role it plays across other disciplines: art, literature, history, even science. RE curriculum needs to be constructed in such a way that its integrative properties, rather than its propensity for achieving faith,  become its defining characteristics.