The Place of Religious Education (RE) in the Curriculum

The Place of Religious Education (RE) in the Curriculum
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Due Date
Abbreviations
ASC

Agreed Syllabus Conference

CoRE

Commission on Religious Education

DCSF

Department for Children, Schools and Families

DfE

Department for Education

EBacc

English Baccalaureate

GCSE

General Certificate for Secondary Education

LAS

Locally Agreed Syllabus

NC

National Curriculum

Ofsted

Office for Standards in Education

QCA

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

RE

Religious Education

RI

Religious Instructions

SACRE

Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education

The Place of Religious Education (RE) in the Curriculum
The inclusion of religious education in the curriculum remains among the most debatable prospects in the UK education system. As a faction of stakeholders believe that RE adds no value to the curriculum, another faction believes in the benefits that RE instills in the education system. That raises questions on the position that RE occupies in the curriculum presently. In this paper, I explore the position of RE in the curriculum. The analysis stems from the evident negligence from policymakers who seem to be taking longer than necessary to isolate the value of RE in the curriculum. Besides the cited negligence, policymakers are guilty of marginalizing and undermining RE, possibly with the motive to delay cementing its value. The paper develops from a demonstration of the historical events that have since defined the treatment of RE in the education system. The paper further delves into some of the key policies and debates that have, historically, shaped the scope of inputs of RE in the curriculum. Among the emphasized policy changes that the paper assesses include the Education Reform Act of 1988, the Non-Statutory National Framework 2004, and the Educational Reform of 2010. The discussion will show just how influential the government has grown in determining the position of RE in the curriculum.
Defining Religious Education (RE)
A better understanding of the position of RE in the curriculum must be based on a proper understanding of the concept. Multiple inputs have attracted the explanation of the ontology and pedagogy of RE. The primary insight was instilled by Smart (1973), who argued that religion is a phenomenon that stands as a distinct entity. People can anchor the objectivity of religion by referring to the facts surrounding religion’s value in any society. Smart (1973) continued to isolate the value of religion through assessing the knowledge and experience in taxonomies that include festivals, beliefs, and rituals (Conroy et al., 2013). From Smart’s (1973) assertions, religion stands out as an independent discipline that can be pursued without the infiltration of sociological or anthropological approaches. Smart’s (1973) assertions on the autonomy of religion attracted debates, with a section arguing that the definition oversimplified the true nature of religion. From Smart’s (1973) definition, it would be argued that the non-religious position was different from the religious faction, which is largely false. Religious and non-religious phenomena can be viewed as prospects intent at answering similar fundamental questions (Humanism UK, 2019). A better understanding of religious education should not dissociate it from other worldviews and theories that attempt to answer the same questions, including answering the question on the origin of life (Easton et al., 2019). The arguments against Smart’s (1973) definitions have triggered the humanist debates of more inclusivity if religious education is to be considered as a faction of the curriculum. At this stage, I believe that the different demands for religious education have challenged its inclusion in the curriculum.
The human development model is the other theoretical framework that is consistently used to explain religious education. Developed by Grimmitt in 1987, the human development model outlines the ontological goal of religion as the key to its value in society. The model emphasizes the objective of religion as that which is poised to contribute to the personal growth of learners by making them more self-aware. The model insists that there are beliefs that shape personality whose tenets stem from religious education. To grow critically self-aware, Grimmitt’s model insists that learners must be exposed to both learning from religion and learning about religion. The human development theory further implied that the concepts in religious education could be translated into understanding oneself. Learners can use the prospects to learn more about their abilities, beliefs, and personalities. The model extends to include activities that can allow learners to gain more from religious education. Importantly, Grimmit (1987) insists that learners should be encouraged to explore the discipline. That is, learners must be allowed to ask questions about the different aspects that indulging RE could trigger in their lives. From the inputs of the human development model, RE is anchored on making evaluations about self where learners pursue the ethical and philosophical questions by which religion is concerned. In Grimmitt’s (1987) model, RE is embedded on personal reflection and evaluation, prospects that should deconstruct arguments against Smart’s model that majorly question the philosophy and inclusivity of non-religious views in RE.
The debates on understanding prospects on religious education extended beyond the boundaries of the human development model. From Grimmitt’s model (1987), there was an increased debate to indicate that the definition of RE still failed to cover the required threshold to mark the necessary impacts in the curriculum. One of the notable arguments against Grimmitt (1987) was that RE largely emphasized ethics and philosophy, thereby leading to the rebranding of the discipline. In 2018, the debates led to the formation of the Commission on Religious Education (CoRE) with the primary objective of renaming RE and steering it away from the philosophy and ethics debates. CoRE is an independent commission that draws its membership from a wide range of stakeholders, including teachers and other professionals within education and religion. CoRE proposed through a 2018 report that RE should be renamed as “Religion Worldviews” to eliminate the philosophy and ethics tags that the discipline was fast attracting following the inputs of the human development model. The proposal by CoRE was accepted by the Welsh government in 2018 because the new name accorded RE an extended scope and a better understanding of its value as opposed to the traditional name. The progress, however, has not been included in the curriculum of England, thereby opening grounds for more debates. From the analysis of the definition of RE, the inputs by Smart and Gimmitt created a better understanding of the content and possible value of RE. However, I understand that they also triggered debates that have possibly drawn RE back to the periphery of curriculum development.
Developments in the Policy
The efforts of different government stakeholders make me believe that policymakers have also played a role in pushing religious education to the position that it occupies presently. Several legal attempts have been made to reinstate RE as a valuable component of curriculum development. The inclusion of RE in the curriculum was first steered by the Education Act of 1944. Under the act, RE was referred to as ‘Religious Instructions” (RI). The act further directed the local authorities to oversee the provision of RI in every voluntary school and every county school. From the inputs of the Education Act, the changes implied that RE would become mandatory in all the maintained schools. Local authorities would formulate the locally agreed syllabus to guide the implementation of RI in those schools. The Education Act was, however, liberal in its undertakings. It allowed parents to withdraw their children from RI if the teachings contradicted the religious views of the child or the parents.
There were weaknesses in the establishment of RI that steered more debates on the inclusion of RE in the curriculum. Primarily, the local authorities were not grounded on the scope of coverage for RI. That is, the act failed to define the shape of the subject. It was clear that the act eliminated the role and purpose of RE in the curriculum. With such an exclusion, it was inevitable that more debates would ensue to counter the proposals. Cox (1989) noted that England and Wales were largely dominated by Christianity, aspects that may have influenced the government into making RI a unidirectional aspect in the development of the curriculum. According to Cox (1989), the only religion in which children needed to be educated was Christianity because that is what they were more likely to encounter in their daily interactions as per the perception of the government in the Education Act of 1944. Personally, the implementation of the 1944 act was inadequate because it primarily emphasized educating learners on the tenets of the state religion, which was Anglican teachings. However, since parents and guardians were justified to withdraw their children whenever they felt that the teachings contravened their beliefs or those of their children, the act did not a...