This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/19/the-guardian-view-on-religious-education-bring-it-up-to-date

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on religious education: bring it up to date The Guardian view on religious education: bring it up to date
(6 months later)
In modern secular societies such as Britain, there is a tendency to think “religion” is something that other people do. When we do not understand what it means in the lives of believers, we are unable to understand either them or ourselves properly; and in a world where globalisation has shoved communities with wildly different values into close proximity, this is dangerous.In modern secular societies such as Britain, there is a tendency to think “religion” is something that other people do. When we do not understand what it means in the lives of believers, we are unable to understand either them or ourselves properly; and in a world where globalisation has shoved communities with wildly different values into close proximity, this is dangerous.
The obvious answer is to teach religion properly in schools – rather than haphazardly, as in England at present. The legal framework was set out 75 years ago, when this was a very different and uncontroversially Christian country. The assumption was that Christianity should be taught and practised in all state schools. The main means of practice would be a daily assembly that would include an explicitly Christian act of worship, something which has since been modified to suggest that it be of a mainly Christian character.The obvious answer is to teach religion properly in schools – rather than haphazardly, as in England at present. The legal framework was set out 75 years ago, when this was a very different and uncontroversially Christian country. The assumption was that Christianity should be taught and practised in all state schools. The main means of practice would be a daily assembly that would include an explicitly Christian act of worship, something which has since been modified to suggest that it be of a mainly Christian character.
This law is largely ignored in practice. Outside of a few faith schools, there is no enthusiasm for using the school’s assembly to proselytise for a faith that neither the teachers nor the children are likely to share. Meanwhile, there is no national curriculum for religious teaching rather than practice. While most children learn about synagogues and the Guru Granth Sahib, the syllabus is highly variable (as is its quality) and very seldom includes material on the kind of “no religion” humanism that is the faith system of most young people in the UK today.This law is largely ignored in practice. Outside of a few faith schools, there is no enthusiasm for using the school’s assembly to proselytise for a faith that neither the teachers nor the children are likely to share. Meanwhile, there is no national curriculum for religious teaching rather than practice. While most children learn about synagogues and the Guru Granth Sahib, the syllabus is highly variable (as is its quality) and very seldom includes material on the kind of “no religion” humanism that is the faith system of most young people in the UK today.
In a new pamphlet, Charles Clarke, a former education secretary and home secretary, and Linda Woodhead, a sociologist of religion, suggest a long-overdue cleanup of this mess. “Religious education” would be replaced by “religion, beliefs and values”, compulsory in all schools up to the sixth form. It would include humanism as a belief system. Faith schools would add to the subject according to their own beliefs, but the core of the curriculum would be compulsory in all state-funded schools. Its content would be set by a panel of experts representing humanism as well as recognised faiths, but chosen for educational expertise rather than as champions of their own viewpoints.In a new pamphlet, Charles Clarke, a former education secretary and home secretary, and Linda Woodhead, a sociologist of religion, suggest a long-overdue cleanup of this mess. “Religious education” would be replaced by “religion, beliefs and values”, compulsory in all schools up to the sixth form. It would include humanism as a belief system. Faith schools would add to the subject according to their own beliefs, but the core of the curriculum would be compulsory in all state-funded schools. Its content would be set by a panel of experts representing humanism as well as recognised faiths, but chosen for educational expertise rather than as champions of their own viewpoints.
The ultimate aim would be to help pupils recognise and reflect on their own values so that they can see what they have in common with others. Values are difficult to examine because they are expressed implicitly in what we do, and then justified explicitly by the stories we tell and the rhetoric we use. One of the purposes of education in religions, beliefs, and values, is to recognise the different forms of understanding represented by other religions and belief systems in order better to understand our own. Another is to understand strangers for their own sake. It is not enough to teach religion as a kind of anthropology. The ultimate purpose must be a much deeper sympathy within and between communities.The ultimate aim would be to help pupils recognise and reflect on their own values so that they can see what they have in common with others. Values are difficult to examine because they are expressed implicitly in what we do, and then justified explicitly by the stories we tell and the rhetoric we use. One of the purposes of education in religions, beliefs, and values, is to recognise the different forms of understanding represented by other religions and belief systems in order better to understand our own. Another is to understand strangers for their own sake. It is not enough to teach religion as a kind of anthropology. The ultimate purpose must be a much deeper sympathy within and between communities.
Genuine and irreconcilable differences will sometimes emerge. On some matters, such as equality and diversity, there is only limited compromise possible with certain religious interpretations. But such disagreements are less damaging when they are out in the open. The essential thing is to grasp that beliefs and values hold together every community and every human life. They have to be lived before they can be discussed. In a diverse and multi-faith country, schools need to become places where values are both lived and examined. A reformed education in belief is an essential part of that process.Genuine and irreconcilable differences will sometimes emerge. On some matters, such as equality and diversity, there is only limited compromise possible with certain religious interpretations. But such disagreements are less damaging when they are out in the open. The essential thing is to grasp that beliefs and values hold together every community and every human life. They have to be lived before they can be discussed. In a diverse and multi-faith country, schools need to become places where values are both lived and examined. A reformed education in belief is an essential part of that process.
Religious studies and theologyReligious studies and theology
OpinionOpinion
ReligionReligion
SchoolsSchools
Primary schoolsPrimary schools
Secondary schoolsSecondary schools
AtheismAtheism
editorialseditorials
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content