Bob Bowie writes...
Lets be absolutely clear. I think the GCSE RS changes are admirable. I have nothing more to say about that.
I note that there are valiant efforts to engage with the teaching profession from both the DfE, organisations like Candle conferences and the social networks found on Save RE and the Consult blog, for example. This is all admirable.
The key is to devise an intelligently structured way of engaging philosophy, theology and religious studies. That should include some ethics, be it moral theology, philosophical ethics or religious ethics. I think the revised proposal from the teachers who met together recently at the event organised by Candle conferences is an excellent proposal. I urge you to look at it and then let the DfE know what you think, through the consultation mechanism.
Sunday, 14 December 2014
'Teaching humanism in religious studies will fail pupils'
Making RE lessons relevant to students suggests that identifying with, rather than studying a belief system, should be the aim of religious education, writes David Ashton
In response to the Department for Education’s recently proposed GCSE religious education criteria, Maxine Beech, an RE teacher, claimed thatmany students find it hard to engage with religious studies, because they are unable to relate to the content.
Ms Beech argues that humanism is an answer to this, saying: "[pupils] have the right to study a way of life that reflects their own."
This is the view of the British Humanist Association (BHA) who argue that rather than having to teach about two religions at GCSE, schools should have the option of teaching one religion and humanism. They claim, “it is vital that religious education remains relevant to young people … this means including non-religious world views. RE struggles to engage these young people when their beliefs are excluded.”
In response to the Department for Education’s recently proposed GCSE religious education criteria, Maxine Beech, an RE teacher, claimed thatmany students find it hard to engage with religious studies, because they are unable to relate to the content.
Ms Beech argues that humanism is an answer to this, saying: "[pupils] have the right to study a way of life that reflects their own."
This is the view of the British Humanist Association (BHA) who argue that rather than having to teach about two religions at GCSE, schools should have the option of teaching one religion and humanism. They claim, “it is vital that religious education remains relevant to young people … this means including non-religious world views. RE struggles to engage these young people when their beliefs are excluded.”
Read more <here>
Inconsistent approach from Catholic Education Service
Charlotte Vardy writes...
Those of you teaching in Catholic Schools will be aware that the CES officially welcomed the DfE proposals for GCSE and A Level Religious Studies back on the 7th November.
Although TRS departments from Catholic Universities WERE involved in the drafting of DfE proposals, we believe that unqualified support from the CES, Bishops and Schools is misplaced and inconsistent with the Religious Education Curriculum Directory, in terms of its stated the aims for Religious Education (p6):
Read all <here>
Those of you teaching in Catholic Schools will be aware that the CES officially welcomed the DfE proposals for GCSE and A Level Religious Studies back on the 7th November.
Although TRS departments from Catholic Universities WERE involved in the drafting of DfE proposals, we believe that unqualified support from the CES, Bishops and Schools is misplaced and inconsistent with the Religious Education Curriculum Directory, in terms of its stated the aims for Religious Education (p6):
Read all <here>
Thursday, 11 December 2014
Alternative GCSE idea…
Charlotte Vardy has also been working on this...
Given the extreme shortage of time, it has been impossible to arrange a meeting for teachers of GCSE Religious Studies or to work extensively with colleagues on an alternative proposal as we have with the A Level proposal. Nevertheless, colleagues have serious concerns about the GCSE proposal, which they have voiced to us, and we would like to do something to help shape thinking as we all respond to the DfE proposal.
The following is my attempt to address the DfE priorities which are, again, to increase rigour and relevance to the study of religion, to enhance progression from KS3 and to A Level and university, to reduce options and routes through the subject, cutting costs and making the qualifications easier to standardize.
Clearly, this will not meet with everyone’s approval – but ask yourself, is this more integrated, balanced approach better than what the DfE is currently proposing? Would it support you in recruiting and retaining students and offering the opportunity of meaningful RE to a decent proportion post-14?
You might guess that I have been influenced by the old OCR paper “Christian Perspectives on World Issues” – which similarly specified some texts to study to inform discussion of the issues, and similarly covered some aspects of religious belief and practices. I have amplified this and applied to other religions – hence Jewish perspectives, Islamic perspectives etc. would be integrated with a study of those religions. Non-religious world views are specified in every topic which allows for that. I am not a fan of pushing humanism into the mold of a religion and trying to consider humanist practices, texts, sources of authority etc – but it is VITAL that an atheistic framework is considered thoroughly, including how its perspectives are similar and different from religious perspectives in relation to, for example, ultimate reality, world and human origins, nature and purpose of human life, sanctity of life etc.
For what it is worth, I would really like to teach this alternative! I think it would be engaging, challenging and would excite a good number of students, although it is definitely not traditional “philosophy and ethics” I admit, the proportion of marks, numbers of topics etc. probably need more thought.
Given the extreme shortage of time, it has been impossible to arrange a meeting for teachers of GCSE Religious Studies or to work extensively with colleagues on an alternative proposal as we have with the A Level proposal. Nevertheless, colleagues have serious concerns about the GCSE proposal, which they have voiced to us, and we would like to do something to help shape thinking as we all respond to the DfE proposal.
The following is my attempt to address the DfE priorities which are, again, to increase rigour and relevance to the study of religion, to enhance progression from KS3 and to A Level and university, to reduce options and routes through the subject, cutting costs and making the qualifications easier to standardize.
Clearly, this will not meet with everyone’s approval – but ask yourself, is this more integrated, balanced approach better than what the DfE is currently proposing? Would it support you in recruiting and retaining students and offering the opportunity of meaningful RE to a decent proportion post-14?
You might guess that I have been influenced by the old OCR paper “Christian Perspectives on World Issues” – which similarly specified some texts to study to inform discussion of the issues, and similarly covered some aspects of religious belief and practices. I have amplified this and applied to other religions – hence Jewish perspectives, Islamic perspectives etc. would be integrated with a study of those religions. Non-religious world views are specified in every topic which allows for that. I am not a fan of pushing humanism into the mold of a religion and trying to consider humanist practices, texts, sources of authority etc – but it is VITAL that an atheistic framework is considered thoroughly, including how its perspectives are similar and different from religious perspectives in relation to, for example, ultimate reality, world and human origins, nature and purpose of human life, sanctity of life etc.
For what it is worth, I would really like to teach this alternative! I think it would be engaging, challenging and would excite a good number of students, although it is definitely not traditional “philosophy and ethics” I admit, the proportion of marks, numbers of topics etc. probably need more thought.
Read the full document <here>
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
Charlotte Vardy: Student Surveys
Charlotte Vardy is conducted some research into GCSE and A-Level Students:
GCSE Religious Studies [Y9-11]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NDZH5XT
A-Level Religious Studies [Y12-13 and Leavers]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N93RQTL
Please remember this info is going to Charlotte and is not part of the official consultation. This must be done via:
GCSE Religious Studies [Y9-11]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NDZH5XT
A-Level Religious Studies [Y12-13 and Leavers]: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N93RQTL
Please remember this info is going to Charlotte and is not part of the official consultation. This must be done via:
- https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/gcse-and-a-level-reform-religious-studies - Deadline 29th December 2014
- https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/religious-studies-gcses-as-and-a-levels-new-qualifications-for-2016 - Deadline 5th January 2015
*NEW* Alternative A Level Proposal - posted by Charlotte Vardy
Charlotte has posted this update via the Candle Conference blog:
Following on from discussions with colleagues up and down the country, particularly with the many who gave up their Christmas shopping time to come to Croydon on Saturday, we have produced this alternative proposal for AS and A Level Religious Studies.
The alternative proposal addresses many of the concerns which have been voiced about the existing proposals...
Read it all in full <here>
Tuesday, 9 December 2014
#REconsult Events
Friday 12th December
- DfE Open Consultation - 11.00am to 3.30pm [London]
- DfE Open Consultation - 5.00pm to 7.00pm [London]
- The deadline for applying to these two events has now passed however there may still be spaces to attend available if you RSGCSEandAlevel.CONSULTATION@education.gsi.gov.uk
Wednesday 17th December
- Ofqual Webinar - 4.00 to 5.00pm [Online]
A number of teachers have coordinated themselves to organise their own events up and down the country. There is still time to meet and discuss this with other teachers. You are encouraged to do this to help you fill in consultation feedback documents, particularly if you are not sure what is being asked of you. Email your local schools, ask your local NATRE group, discuss via online networks (Facebook / Twitter)...
A former RS A-Level student and current Philosophy undergrad writes...
Response from Tom Hewlett, a former RS student at John Hampden Grammar School who is currently studying Philosophy at the University of Bristol. [Edited from email response]
Firstly, it seems like it is now much more explicitly an RS GCE, which is fine as it goes. But, I think it would be great if someone could stress to the exam boards just how much demand there is for an actual Philosophy GCE. There simply isn't any provision, and hence the A-level does not prepare students for undergraduate level study of Philosophy, which is what a lot of students take this subject for. In all fairness though, it looks like a better RS A-level than we did. (Although it is worse for Philosophy)
Secondly, I have a concern left over from the old syllabus. It seems like students can still take 2 out of 3 of the GCE units while never actually reading an original text. In fact, even in Textual Studies, there will be a large amount of learning where students are expected to simply absorb what their teacher tells them someone else thought. Say they are going to study Guthrie on Christology. Will they read Guthrie, or their teacher's summary of what Vardy said he was saying?
If they are not expected understand the words of Guthrie, who is not a very technical writer, then my inclination is to say that they are inevitably expected not to understand the original ideas in their full complexity. Instead, what is learnt (as when we were supposed to be able to mention the key tenets of the flipping Tractatus) is a simplification thereof.
Simply, my concern is that there is no expectation students will read original texts, eg short papers or chapters from fairly accessible writers like Mill, maybe Hume or Ayer. This is really, really bad preparation for undergraduate study. A remedy would be to look at simpler ideas which are clearly expressed such that sixth formers can understand them in the original. But this would require studying fewer ideas, so I expect the consequent lack of breadth would be rejected.
Basically the whole thing needs to be rethought from the start if it wishes to address the concerns people have about the purpose of RS, but as there is simply not enough time for that, these are the two things I think are vaguely useful feedback. STUDENTS SHOULD BE READING PRIMARY SOURCES!
Sunday, 7 December 2014
Thoughts on the proposed changes to RE
Karin Oster writes...
Tired after a long but productive day yesterday, when I met up with other RS practitioners at Trinity School in Croydon discussing the DfE reconsult, so many thoughts are running through my head. This is intended to be a clarification of some of those thoughts. Others have written at length about the problems regarding the content of the proposal, questioning the agenda behind these changes and the rushed timescale of the whole consultation process. Yesterday Charlotte and Peter Vardy’s alternative Alevel proposal was debated, criticised and improved on: I would encourage all to read this carefully. My department and I will be writing our own response to the DfE consultation and send it to our MP and head teacher as well.
This morning I keep thinking about a question that was put forward yesterday, which suggested RS as a subject and we as practitioners are in a state of identity crisis. I think this is the heart of the matter. As I see it is an identity crisis on three levels:
1. The content of what we teach: World religions or Philosophy and Ethics?
2. The place of the subject in the secondary curriculum: Compulsory RE or academic RS?
3. The purpose of our teaching: Teaching about religion, from religion or promoting a political agenda?
The first aspect of the identity crisis has become very obvious in the debates surrounding the DfE consultation. It seems that RS teachers are either of the “we should teach world religions in a phenomenological way” or “we should teach Philosophy and Ethics” camp. This divide has been further exasperated by the first group being supported by organisations / interest groups and others, while the second one has no similar organisation. Without organisation, the views of P&E teachers seem to have been overlooked by the DfE, as is evident in the content proposed for GCSE and A-level. I am not sure there needs to be such a divide. I think we are all passionate about teaching good RS and let us be honest, there is some bad RE teaching out there.
Where the disagreement lies is more about what constitutes good RS. If we for a moment put aside our own personal preferences and take a holistic approach to good RS across the whole school curriculum, it seems that both world religions and P&E needs to be taught, and to be taught well. By using Bloom’s taxonomy as a model, it is obvious that when RS is taught using higher order skills such as evaluation, analysis and synthesis it is good RS. When reduced to the lower order skills of knowledge and comprehension, it becomes bad RS, regardless of what the content is. Using philosophical enquiry as a method for exploring different world religions at KS3, as my school currently does, enables to students to learn about and from different world religions in a manner that makes it interesting, relevant and challenging for them. Similarly, examining different ethical issues at KS4 allows students to understand as well as question their own views alongside a range of religious and non-religious views, thereby appreciating the complexities of current debates about ethics. If learning is seen as a spiral rather than linear process, A-levels can offer students an opportunity to either revisit RS content studied at a lower level or delve into new content in an academically rigorous manner, thus preparing them for further study at university in general or RS/Theology specifically. While it seems clear that the DfE wants to narrow down the choices of content at A-level, schools must have enough of a choice to select courses that are relevant and appealing for their students. I’m afraid I find it naïve that if we teachers were only passionate about our subjects, students would study anything at A-level, as someone suggested yesterday. The state sector in which I teach is very much driven by economics: if we don’t get enough numbers, we don’t run A-level courses. The numbers are dependent on more than teachers’ passion: it is dependent on what students (and parents) see as interesting and relevant. This will obviously differ from school to school and too narrow an A-level will not enable schools to make choices that are right for them.
It seems as if part of the problem we are facing is also to do with the contention between fulfilling the legal requirement of compulsory RE and finding a place for RS as a serious, academic subject alongside History for example. Due to the time restraints of the DfE consultation, the immediate focus must be on the content of the subject but in the long term the community of RS teachers do need to address this. How do we do justice to both? Is it even possible? If RS has to be compulsory would not an examined National Curriculum ensure both quality and status of the subject? I understand the historical reasoning behind allowing LEAs to develop their own syllabi but surely in today’s society, a consistency of content and quality will only enhance the importance and relevance of RS? While we can try to argue the case for said importance and relevance, what I really fear is that as long as we cannot come together as a community to agree on what we should teach and why we should teach, then RS will continue to be hijacked by political agenda’s to promote certain values, whether the benefits of multiculturalism, producing co-existence or enforcing so called “British values”. Our students deserve better than that.
Tired after a long but productive day yesterday, when I met up with other RS practitioners at Trinity School in Croydon discussing the DfE reconsult, so many thoughts are running through my head. This is intended to be a clarification of some of those thoughts. Others have written at length about the problems regarding the content of the proposal, questioning the agenda behind these changes and the rushed timescale of the whole consultation process. Yesterday Charlotte and Peter Vardy’s alternative Alevel proposal was debated, criticised and improved on: I would encourage all to read this carefully. My department and I will be writing our own response to the DfE consultation and send it to our MP and head teacher as well.
This morning I keep thinking about a question that was put forward yesterday, which suggested RS as a subject and we as practitioners are in a state of identity crisis. I think this is the heart of the matter. As I see it is an identity crisis on three levels:
1. The content of what we teach: World religions or Philosophy and Ethics?
2. The place of the subject in the secondary curriculum: Compulsory RE or academic RS?
3. The purpose of our teaching: Teaching about religion, from religion or promoting a political agenda?
The first aspect of the identity crisis has become very obvious in the debates surrounding the DfE consultation. It seems that RS teachers are either of the “we should teach world religions in a phenomenological way” or “we should teach Philosophy and Ethics” camp. This divide has been further exasperated by the first group being supported by organisations / interest groups and others, while the second one has no similar organisation. Without organisation, the views of P&E teachers seem to have been overlooked by the DfE, as is evident in the content proposed for GCSE and A-level. I am not sure there needs to be such a divide. I think we are all passionate about teaching good RS and let us be honest, there is some bad RE teaching out there.
Where the disagreement lies is more about what constitutes good RS. If we for a moment put aside our own personal preferences and take a holistic approach to good RS across the whole school curriculum, it seems that both world religions and P&E needs to be taught, and to be taught well. By using Bloom’s taxonomy as a model, it is obvious that when RS is taught using higher order skills such as evaluation, analysis and synthesis it is good RS. When reduced to the lower order skills of knowledge and comprehension, it becomes bad RS, regardless of what the content is. Using philosophical enquiry as a method for exploring different world religions at KS3, as my school currently does, enables to students to learn about and from different world religions in a manner that makes it interesting, relevant and challenging for them. Similarly, examining different ethical issues at KS4 allows students to understand as well as question their own views alongside a range of religious and non-religious views, thereby appreciating the complexities of current debates about ethics. If learning is seen as a spiral rather than linear process, A-levels can offer students an opportunity to either revisit RS content studied at a lower level or delve into new content in an academically rigorous manner, thus preparing them for further study at university in general or RS/Theology specifically. While it seems clear that the DfE wants to narrow down the choices of content at A-level, schools must have enough of a choice to select courses that are relevant and appealing for their students. I’m afraid I find it naïve that if we teachers were only passionate about our subjects, students would study anything at A-level, as someone suggested yesterday. The state sector in which I teach is very much driven by economics: if we don’t get enough numbers, we don’t run A-level courses. The numbers are dependent on more than teachers’ passion: it is dependent on what students (and parents) see as interesting and relevant. This will obviously differ from school to school and too narrow an A-level will not enable schools to make choices that are right for them.
It seems as if part of the problem we are facing is also to do with the contention between fulfilling the legal requirement of compulsory RE and finding a place for RS as a serious, academic subject alongside History for example. Due to the time restraints of the DfE consultation, the immediate focus must be on the content of the subject but in the long term the community of RS teachers do need to address this. How do we do justice to both? Is it even possible? If RS has to be compulsory would not an examined National Curriculum ensure both quality and status of the subject? I understand the historical reasoning behind allowing LEAs to develop their own syllabi but surely in today’s society, a consistency of content and quality will only enhance the importance and relevance of RS? While we can try to argue the case for said importance and relevance, what I really fear is that as long as we cannot come together as a community to agree on what we should teach and why we should teach, then RS will continue to be hijacked by political agenda’s to promote certain values, whether the benefits of multiculturalism, producing co-existence or enforcing so called “British values”. Our students deserve better than that.
Thursday, 4 December 2014
From bad to worse…
Charlotte Vardy continues her contributions to the #reconsult...
The more often I read the DfE’s proposed content for GCSE and A Level Religious Studies, the more I find that causes me real concern.
Tonight I copied the content of the three different elements of the proposed GCSE into the left hand column of a table and then pasted in the content of the three elements of the proposed AS/A Level. There is an amazing amount of overlap between the GCSE and the AS content.
I thought that a central aim of this process was to move on from the narrow focus of existing Philosophy of Religion and Ethics courses, forcing students to get a broader understanding of the subject. Why, then, has the subject matter of two of the three elements of the GCSE been almost entirely duplicated in the AS Level… and some of the content of the third option to boot? Sure, the level expected will be higher at AS or A, but that does nothing to broaden students’ appreciation of the subject.
The more often I read the DfE’s proposed content for GCSE and A Level Religious Studies, the more I find that causes me real concern.
Tonight I copied the content of the three different elements of the proposed GCSE into the left hand column of a table and then pasted in the content of the three elements of the proposed AS/A Level. There is an amazing amount of overlap between the GCSE and the AS content.
I thought that a central aim of this process was to move on from the narrow focus of existing Philosophy of Religion and Ethics courses, forcing students to get a broader understanding of the subject. Why, then, has the subject matter of two of the three elements of the GCSE been almost entirely duplicated in the AS Level… and some of the content of the third option to boot? Sure, the level expected will be higher at AS or A, but that does nothing to broaden students’ appreciation of the subject.
Read the rest <here>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)