Every state-funded school must offer a curriculum which is balanced and broadly based, and which:
-
promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils, and
-
prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life
and
All state schools... must teach religious education...*
it also stated quite clearly that, for a variety of reasons, RE in schools has declined - both in terms of timetable provision and specialist staffing, and in student uptake - over the last decade. This follows a period of growth in the subject area in line with an emphasis on social tolerance and community coherence. So what has changed? Well, in the last three years, huge changes have been made in the Government's approach to education more generally. A raft of new policies have led to many alterations to GCSEs and A Levels in particular and, most recently, the Department for Education carried out a review of the National Curriculum. Tellingly, RE was not part of the review. In a speech given at Lambeth Palace (the official residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury) on 3rd July 2013, the Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, conceded that he had assumed that the legal requirement to deliver RE in all state-funded schools would protect it from any responses to the curriculum changes brought about by the Department for Education. In particular, he acknowledged that leaving RE off the list of Humanities in the English Baccalaureate had made it an "unintended casualty" of the changes. This was a direct result of the evidence of many RE teachers stating that schools had been left with little option but to invest their time and money into the EBacc subjects, to the detriment of those subjects left off the list.
However, the situation of RE in schools is not entirely bound to the Coalition Government's education policies. At Fortismere, you are exceptionally lucky to be taught by a Department made up of three subject specialists (all to at least Masters Degree, thank you very much!). This is by no means the norm. Think also about how many of the sixth form colleges you looked at when applying for A Level study offered RE as an A Level option. RE can often considered to be a 'soft option' by teachers, students and parents - an opinion quickly rescinded by those who start the A Level course. It is often forgotten that the top universities in the country - including Oxford and Cambridge - consider the subject to be a rigorous preparation for undergraduate study. Indeed, many of our top universities were founded for the purpose of studying Theology. So, why the shift in how RE is seen in the UK today?
It's difficult to pin it down to one particular answer. It could have to do with the fact that the only thing a tolerant culture cannot tolerate is intolerance, and religion, by its very nature, is often intolerant insofar as it makes specific truth claims that are non-negotiable. It could have to do with the rise of secularism and what I would call fundamentalist atheism (the two are very different things). It could have to do with social changes. If one were not particularly religious in the past, one might still have chosen to get married in a church, for example, or have one's child baptised - more as a socially-recognised rite of passage, rather than as a result of a deep-seated religious conviction. Today, however, alternatives, such as Humanist Welcoming Ceremonies, are far more accessible and attractive to those without specific faith.
Given that this is so, the big question is, is my job secure?! Will religion - and consequently, RE, - decline inexorably until events such as Interfaith Week are distant memories?
As a teacher of RS, I work on the basis that a) it is possible to communicate meaningfully about religion, God and belief, and b) different faith groups - and in this I include those who believe in the non-existence of a divine being - can and want to communicate with each other. It seems to me that communication is at the heart of community and if faith groups cannot communicate to each other or, indeed, at all, then they cannot successfully contribute to the community in which they are placed. Being human is more than simply engaging with the world in an epistemological way. The very existence of art and music indicates that humans not only feel the world in ways that cannot be reduced to objective observation, but that they have a driving need to share this. If the way one experiences the world convinces one of the existence of God in ways that can be felt but not verified empirically, then that is one's authentic experience of life, and not an indicator of ignorance or wilful stupidity.
The title of this post is 'Religion, Belief and Education'. More than anything, I believe in education - that it offers opportunities, not to pass exams or gain desirable qualifications, but to explore life and exercise curiosity. I am a linguist, as you all know ("Come on everyone, let's word detective!" *groan*), but I chose to pursue RE at school and Theology at university for two reasons: firstly, it was the only subject that made my brain hurt and thereby actively reminded me that I have one, and secondly, it was the subject that excited my curiosity about humanity and the world. As long as this remains true for others than myself alone, then this is a subject that will continue to have value in schools.
Well, that's what I think, anyway. What about you?
