 |  |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 1282 readers since 1 Nov 2001 |
| |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 1282 readers since 1 Nov 2001 |
Rewriting Oxfordshire's agreed syllabus post 1988 Introduction
|
Rewriting Oxfordshire's agreed syllabus post 1988
Derek Gillard June1992 © copyright Derek Gillard 2001
Citations
Chapter 3 Towards a first draft Key Stages 1 - 4 Working Groups: Spring 1991 The working groups met twice in the spring of 1991, on 24 April and 17 May. They were to discuss the second Westhill document 'Assessment, Recording and reporting RE' but unfortunately, there had been a series of delays in publishing this and it was not available at the time. They were also to study the interim report from Suffolk: 'RE in the Basic Curriculum', based on Westhill's 'Attainment in RE' but including a structure based on levels similar to those used in National Curriculum documents; and the interim report from Hampshire's Working Party on Assessment in Religious Education which had been published in October 1990. However, the main discussion on 24 April focused on a letter which had been sent by the Department of Education and Science to Chief Education Officers on 18 March. This letter followed the outcome of the Secretary of State's consideration of complaints about Ealing's new syllabus. The question was whether the syllabus reflected (in the words of the 1988 Act) "the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain." The advice of the DES was that "it seems likely that the Court ... would find that a syllabus which is to meet the statutory requirements must give sufficient particulars for it to be clear that the teaching carried out in pursuance of that syllabus would be consistent with the requirements of the provision." (DES 18 March 1991) The letter went on to suggest that a properly constructed syllabus would achieve this by "devoting most attention to Christian traditions" whilst at the same time not excluding from its teaching "any of the principal religions represented in Great Britain." It added that "the precise balance of the content would need to be determined locally in the light of local factors, such as the composition of the local community." The working groups expressed concerns that this advice could damage the promotion of equal opportunities and the development of a world view by implying that, for example, in an all-white area it was not so important to teach about faiths other than Christianity. Some would argue that the reverse would be true. Equally importantly, the letter suggested that the syllabus should indicate "which of such matters (religious traditions, practices and teaching) should appropriately be taught at various ages and times." The working groups interpreted this as indicating that programmes of study arranged in key stages would need statutory backing. Furthermore, the syllabus should "not be confined to information about religions and religious traditions, practices and teaching, but extend to wider areas of morality including the difference between right and wrong, and the effect that religious beliefs and practices have on people's daily lives." Was this the key to the government's attitude to religious education - that, just as in the 1944 White Paper 'Educational Reconstruction' - religious education was to be the panacea for the nation's ills? The letter concluded that "in the light of the above, the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an agreed syllabus could fully meet the requirements of Section 8(3) unless it gives sufficient guidance to the reader, and thus the teacher, as to what Christian traditions, learning, teaching and festivals are going to be taught and what elements are going to be taught in respect of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain." There was little doubt, then, of the central importance of specificity and it was largely this advice from the DES which convinced the working groups that the attainment targets and programmes of study should be made statutory. Arguments were made against this: it was noted that other local authorities had decided not to do so. There was a fair amount of good will among teachers, especially at the primary level, and it was feared that many teachers might opt out of teaching religious education if attainment targets and programmes of study were given statutory force. Previous handbooks for religious education had been collections of suggestions: the new handbook would be more specific and non-specialists might find it too much. On the other hand, the status of the subject would seem to demand statutory backing if it were to be seen as equal in status and importance. Much money was being devoted to other subjects, like the humanities, which were statutory. Would more money be available for religious education if it had the same status? The members of the working groups were not sure! Equally, a handbook which was more specific might actually be more helpful to the non-specialist than a book of mere ideas and suggestions. The working groups studied both the Suffolk document 'RE in the Basic Curriculum' and the Hampshire document on 'Assessment in Religious Education': both these were interim reports. Suffolk: RE in the Basic Curriculum 'RE in the Basic Curriculum' began with an introduction which made clear that the existing Suffolk agreed syllabus was still regarded as "highly appropriate" in as far as it described "a coherent programme which is relevant to all pupils, regardless of their faith background. The general objectives for each phase broadly indicate how RE should relate to the levels of maturity, experience and social background of the pupils." (Suffolk 1990) [1] So much so that the final document would be seen as "part two of the agreed syllabus." It pointed out that "in Circular 3/89 the Secretary of State advised that an LEA, in conjunction with a SACRE or Standing Conference, could develop attainment targets and programmes of study to realise more effectively the intentions of the agreed syllabus. This report is in response to that advice." (Suffolk 1990) [2] What, then, was the structure offered in this document? First, there were to be two profile components:
The characteristics of religious education at each key stage were described as:
The main criticism of this document by the working groups was in relation to its complexity. In addition to profile components, attainment targets, statements of attainment and programmes of study, the scheme also identified 'recurring strands'. For example, the strands in Attainment Target 1 (Experience and belief) were identified as: "self; others; humanity; environment, belief." (Suffolk 1990) [5] The question of levels was discussed at some length. The Westhill document had not used levels in its structure: the Suffolk document did. There is not space here to reproduce all the statements of attainment at all ten levels for one attainment target - let alone all the statements of attainment at all ten levels for all four attainment targets! Perhaps that sentence gives some idea of the complexity involved - and the 'recurring strands' have not even been mentioned yet! The general consensus of the working group was that teachers simply wouldn't have the time to cope with this level of complexity, bearing in mind that pupils in their classes could well be working at several different levels at once. The Suffolk model, then, though useful and interesting, was not felt to offer the working groups the way forward. Hampshire: Assessment in Religious Education The working groups then looked at the interim report of the Hampshire Working Party on "Assessment in Religious Education", which had been published in October 1990. In its introduction, this document suggested four reasons why the Hampshire SACRE had proposed the development of a new agreed syllabus:
The working groups approved of these aims. But how and to what extent did the document achieve them? The Hampshire proposals were based on a National Curriculumstyle structure including profile components, attainment targets, statements of attainment, programmes of study and arrangements for assessment and recording. The report suggested two profile components "to define the curriculum area in broad terms to reflect the range of knowledge, skills, understandings and attitudes which are to be developed." (Hampshire 1990) [7] These two profile components were:
The two attainment targets in Profile Component A were:
Statements of attainment were intended to provide "an indication of what pupils might be expected to know, understand and be able to to do in each attainment target and at each key stage." (Hampshire 1990) [11] However - and importantly, the report made clear that "we must be very circumspect about any requirement to measure or test precisely the point at which pupils have arrived in religious education. The view is that in religious education the term 'assessment' must be understood in a very broad way and should not be confused with measurement and testing. It is extremely difficult to give a detailed assessment in an area of the curriculum like religious education, as indeed it is in many other areas which are involved with those dimensions of human life which are concerned with feelings and inner experience. The emphasis on assessment in religious education should be formative and related primarily to the furthering of the learning experience." (Hampshire 1990) [12] This paragraph was printed in bold type in the report and was felt by the working groups to be very important. The report made much of continuity and progression and identified a number of characteristics of pupils at each key stages. So, for example, pupils aged 5 - 7 (Key Stage 1) "will begin religious education by exploring and reflecting on their own experiences and feelings." (Hampshire 1990) [13] At Key Stage 2 (ages 7 - 11) pupils "are no longer dependent on their sense-perceptions and are able to view other people in a more objective and detailed way ... they will need little encouragement to widen their own horizons, observing the way people behave, and exploring their reasons for doing so." (Hampshire 1990) [14] The report also stressed the importance of skills in religious education, offering a list based on the 1982 Durham syllabus. This included, for example:
Some skills "may be developed particularly through religious education ... others ... are developed across the whole curriculum." (Hampshire 1990) [15] Finally, the report considered assessing and recording religious education. Following up its earlier statement about assessment, it concluded that "there is little value in checking whether pupils know particular facts on particular occasions ... the best evidence about progress and attainment is provided by classroom observation over a period of time in the context of formative assessment ... the statements of attainment give a broad indication of progress against which pupils can demonstrate their attainment through a variety of examples of evidence about their knowledge, understanding, awareness and response." (Hampshire 1990) [16] The most successful model of recording was likely to be one that involved:
The working group liked the Hampshire document and in particular its attitude to assessment: there was much to commend here. The group was, however, still anxious to know what Westhill would have to say about assessment. Conclusions from the documentation Having reviewed the documentation available at the time, the working groups discussed what the structure of the new curriculum should be. Firstly, did they want levels in religious education as Suffolk was proposing? There was some discussion as to whether levels should be content or skills based. The whole concept of levels was felt to be fraught with problems and the practical difficulties of constructing them almost insurmountable: on this point (as on others), the Hampshire report was felt to be more appropriate. Secondly, would there be profile components and attainment targets as in National Curriculum subjects and the Westhill document? The groups decided to have profile components and attainment targets, but there was less agreement on what they should be. The group working on Key Stages 1 and 2 suggested: Profile Component A: Exploring and RespondingThe group working on Key Stages 3 and 4 suggested: Profile Component A: Knowledge and Understanding of Religious Belief and PracticeWhen the two groups came together, they decided to abandon the term 'profile components' and call them 'aims' instead. There would be two aims:
The working groups wrestled with the problem of evaluation in religious education. They felt that personal involvement was an essential ingredient, and that the evaluative/affective areas of various other subjects had been ignored or reduced because they were more difficult to measure. It was felt that the two aims did not sufficiently encompass the idea of personal involvement, so after further discussion, it was agreed to have three "aims":
Key Stage 5 Working Group: June 1991 The Key Stage 5 working group met on 4 June to prepare guidelines for sixth form religious education. The members were addressed by Jo Fageant, Berkshire's advisory teacher for religious education. Various matters were first discussed: the recent White Paper on sixth form education had raised questions about the role of school sixth forms. Religious education would be compulsory for sixth formers in schools, but not in colleges. Head teachers were anxious that this might mean that students would rather leave school and attend a college, but they had no choice but to provide religious education for all students: it was now a legal requirement. Jo Fageant described how Berkshire had established a working group in 1989 to provide advice for the county's schools on religious education in the sixth form. The immediate difficulties were the wide variation in the level of provision and the attitudes and abilities of the staff involved. Some schools had tried one-day conferences, modular approaches and a regular weekly lesson. In some schools it was taught by a specialist, in others by a form tutor. The group had produced a booklet for use in sixth forms. This contained an introduction which set out the rationale for sixth form religious education including links with the agreed syllabus, aims, attitudes and skills. But each sixth form was encouraged to construct its own programme reflecting the needs and interests of its students. The booklet also included a list of suggested topics (shown below), useful resources and examples of lesson plans. The Berkshire SACRE had been kept informed of this work. Topics for sixth form religious education
Was greater depth enough at sixth form level? Should it have a uniqueness? GCSE and A level supplied this significant difference, but not all sixth form courses provided greater depth: some offered a broad overview. Some topics could be made different by the method used - for example, lecture and debate. One Berkshire school advertised sixth form religious education modules at the start of the year and students could choose from these. It was agreed that the idea of choice was important - for teachers as well as for students. It was felt that it was the method rather than the content that provided uniqueness: there was often very little written work, rather the courses consisted mainly of debates, discussion, research and presentations. There was no reason why there shouldn't be any written work: religious education could be creditable in terms of AS level and this made it more attractive to some students. Questions were asked as to the likely future of AS levels: students, parents and universities still preferred the traditional three A levels, but it was felt that AS levels would stay as long as A levels did. Should students who were already taking A or AS level religious education also take the core course or should these be alternatives? Isobel Vale suggested that radical changes were on the horizon in relation to alternative, probably vocational, qualifications. We had to be realistic about the nature of sixth form religious education but it must be identifiable, even though it might be delivered as part of a general studies or personal and social education course. It would inevitably vary from school to school so it would be no good specifying a particular method. It was suggested that the sixth form was the time when many young people were beginning to think seriously and personally. Some questioned this, feeling that the process started much earlier than the sixth form. The importance of continuity was stressed and it was agreed that there should be particular emphasis on the intellectual and personal development of students - the third aim of the syllabus was particularly appropriate for sixth form work. Some members of the group felt that attainment targets would be too restricting, that not having them would add to the distinctiveness of sixth form work, and that they would impose too great a burden on heads and teachers. Some even felt that if we introduced attainment targets at sixth form level, many schools would simply refuse to teach religious education. Others felt that without them the subject would be devalued in relation to others. A compromise could be a statement such as 'sixth form courses should build on the attainment statements at Key Stage 4.' It was agreed that religious education in the sixth form should include discussion of meaning, purpose, values, religious standpoints on world issues, and the skills of insight, reflection, spirituality. It was felt that developing moral values was a task for the whole school rather than just religious education, though religious education certainly had an important part to play. Methodology and approach would vary from school to school but there were felt to be certain key features: openness of debate, choice (there was much argument as to the extent to which this would be desirable and/or possible); the use of specialist speakers, of lecture and debate, seminars, conferences, group discussions and presentations. All core religious education courses must comply with the agreed syllabus and must be clearly identifiable as so doing: general discussion lessons, though valuable in themselves, might not meet this requirement. Recording achievement at sixth form level was no less a problem than at earlier key stages. Methods of recording must be appropriate and the national scheme for Records of Achievement might be involved at a later stage. The members of the group were anxious to see what Westhill had to say about this matter. It was suggested that an agreed syllabus should not be written to allow for the fact that religious education was often taught by non-specialists: its integrity should be maintained. Finally, the question as to whether sixth form courses must obey the 1988 Act's injunction concerning Christianity and other faiths was discussed. It was eventually agreed that the sixth form (Key Stage 5) section of the agreed syllabus should contain:
The last meeting of the working groups before the Statutory Conference was a two-day session on 17 and 18 June 1991. The purpose was to complete the first draft of Part One of the new Agreed Syllabus - dealing with the educational value of religious education, the legal framework, aims, attainment targets, key stages etc. Members of the working groups were told that advice from the Religious Education Council and the National Curriculum Council on drafting syllabuses would be published in the autumn: it would be useful to test our first attempts against the advice from these bodies. The budget would allow for six further working days. There would then be consultation evenings in each of the county's divisions and the draft syllabus would be presented to the Statutory Conference in January 1992. A statement on Records of Achievement was agreed which suggested that: "Schools are encouraged to develop systems of recording pupil achievement in religious education based on the attainment targets for each key stage and the polices of the local education authority and the practice of the school on profiling and records of achievement." Statutory Conference: July 1991 The Statutory Conference met again on 9 July 1991 and considered the first draft of part one of the Agreed Syllabus. Its contents were: Foreword - Chief Education OfficerThe draft syllabus was introduced by Isobel Vale. Discussion then focussed on a miscellany of issues: Should the whole syllabus be statutory? Who would check whether schools were complying with it? What about schools that couldn't cope? Isobel's view was that the local education authority must cover itself by making the whole syllabus statutory - other subjects were, so why not religious education? There was much discussion about the statement that "Religious education is no longer equated with religious instruction or with the indoctrination of pupils into any particular religious tradition." It was suggested that this might offend faith communities. What was the difference between indoctrination and nurture or induction? The decision was that the whole sentence should be removed. A technical error relating to the position of controlled schools was corrected. Whilst it was noted that there was mention of special schools in the draft, it was also pointed out that there was no mention of the position of special needs pupils in mainstream classes: this was seen as important in the light of the county's policy of integration. There was much discussion as to what 'principal religions' meant. Did it refer to numbers in a particular area - Hindus in Banbury, for example? In the end it was agreed that the draft did reflect the 1988 Act. Isobel said she had concerns about implicit religious education at Key Stages 3 and 4 - would some secondary schools 'opt out' of religious education under the cover of personal and social education? Some members felt that the Conference should be more specific about the level of teacher provision needed for religious education and wanted the SACRE to make stronger recommendations about this and resources. Concerns were also expressed about:
References 1 Suffolk (1990) RE in the Basic Curriculum p3
|
