Perhaps I may be permitted to offer a different view of religious education in England and Wales from that given by John Hull under the heading Religious Education and the Globalised Economy. He gives a rather dogmatic picture that, I beg to suggest, is not the last word or even the only word that may be said on the matter. I wish to begin, very presumptuously, by giving a view of the man and his vision of RE.
John Hull is a passionate character and a man of great vision. He is also very kind and I have personally experienced his kindness on more than one occasion. He can write of ‘Utopian Whispers’ and argue forcefully against the money god. He is a committed Christian and gives moving sermons; I heard a brilliant one on music and the Trinity on the radio only a few months ago. He has had an important role in steering the ship of RE in this country for the last thirty years or so since 1971 when he became editor of what was later to become the British Journal of Religious Education. He is one of only three professors of Religious Education in the country.
His view of religion is close to that of John Hick. He believes that all religions are in some sense approximations to the ‘Real’. All have ‘genuine spiritual features’ which need to be mined and grasped for what they offer. No one religion may lay claim to be truer than another; to the extent that a religion does so claim it is not being spiritual and needs to be ‘deconstructed’. Combined with this view is a strong liberal tendency which encourages individual exploration and meaning- making and resists authoritarian tendencies in religion or religious education. This tendency may stem from his Christian Protestant heritage and is certainly not in tune with certain prescriptive views of religion that are commonly taught in the classroom.
Naturally enough he believes that religious educators and their charges should share his vision. One can see something of this in the paper RE and the Globalised Economy. Pupils are to be taught to ‘develop their own sense of values in living’ and they are to ‘encounter the spiritual and religious values of several traditions’. Indoctrination is ‘strictly forbidden’.
What is rather odd about his vision, given his commitment to religion and religions, is the insistence that it be secular. Hence when it comes to stating the aim of RE what matters is not to pass on religious faith and values, nor even to increase religious faith in pupils but rather to ‘understand something of religion and religions, and to develop their own sense of values in living through an encounter with the values and the spirituality of the religions of the world’. This really privileges secularism, the view that life may and should be lived outside a particular religion (effectively this means Christianity since secularism has arisen from a Christian background). Pupils are to encounter several religions and then develop a religion (sense of values) for themselves; one which is self-taught. So in an extraordinary way, the religions have succumbed to teaching their own demise. This is clear in the latest QCA schemes of work where ‘learning from religion’ effectively insulates children from the teaching of the religions. I have written a paper explaining this which I can supply on request or you can find it on my website (www.angelfire.com/pe/pennyt/)
It makes a certain sort of sense if you believe that religions are themselves the product of human experience and meaning-making and that in every age individuals must start again and make meaning for themselves. This idea too comes out clearly in the QCA schemes of work and their latest (costly to produce) review document.
An interesting issue is how far Hull’s own view of religion is ‘indoctrinated’. I personally have nothing against indoctrination; if understood properly. I take indoctrination to mean that one has a vision and a view of reality that one seeks to impart and by which to inform the young. This vision or view of reality structures the learning and should be itself open to debate and questioning. It all then depends on what your vision is and what your view of reality is. I personally find John Hull’s vision ultimately self-defeating and detrimental to all religions. I also wonder how open to view and therefore to criticism it is. For me the best way to proceed in RE is to choose one religion, generally this will be the Christian religion, and teach that, as indeed the law requires. I have a paper on the topic of the law on my website or I can supply a booklet on it (details on my website). I would argue that my approach is no more indoctrinatory than that presented by John Hull; it is just a different view of reality.
A final thought. It is quite wrong to say that indoctrination is strictly forbidden, except in so far as the professional RE world has so declared. There is nothing in educational law which forbids indoctrination as such. What is forbidden in law is teaching by means of any denominational formulary or catechism. This has been forbidden ever since 1870 when, as the Cowper Temple clause, it was inserted in order to overcome the problem of denominational poaching in the classroom. It is still there in modified form today. It means that a teacher must distinguish between what is held in common across Christian denominations and which may be taught with authority and controversial matters which may not be so taught. There has been some discussion over this lately and Baroness Blackstone (under Secretary for Education) has finally conceded that the law does not prohibit indoctrination (defined as the urging of a particular religion or religious belief upon pupils). She says that it reflects the view of the Department for Education and Employment as to the nature of RE. She admits that it is a view quite unsupported by the law. I would argue that it is at variance with the law. This can be argued on several counts. One is the simple fact that all education must teach something. To teach something is to pass something on as true. In RE as in other subjects something must be passed on as true. Are we going to say that Religious Education, which must be about religion/religions, may pass on nothing at all as true about religion? Has it to be the only subject in the curriculum which may not convey some truth about the matters on which it claims its place in the curriculum? The second count is that the wording of current law assumes two types of teaching. One is ‘study of’ (controversial denominational matters) and the other is teaching ‘by means of’. ‘Study of’ only makes sense if the latter is in contrast with it. This would imply that whereas some material is merely studied, other material is given with authority.
Penny Thompson
December 30th 2000.
