Re Defining Learning About Religion and Learning From Religion a Study of Policy Change

8/19/2019 Re Defining Learning About Religion and Learning From Religion a Study of Policy Change

1/17


2/17

Re-dening ‘learning about religion’ and ‘learning from religion’:a study of policy change

Nigel Peter Michell Fancourt *

Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

The study of how policy processes shape religious education as a curric-ulum subject, rather than within faith schooling, is relatively unexplored.This paper applies a policy analysis perspective to an important distinc-tion in non-confessional English religious education, which has also been adopted internationally: ‘learning about religion’ and ‘learningfrom religion’. The changing nature of the distinction in English policydocuments from 1994 is examined in the light of three main voices of inuence on educational policy: neo-conservatives, neo-liberals and pro-gressives. These changes are also analysed through three policy con-texts: inuence, text production and practice. Revisions to policywording are interpreted in the light of this theory, showing the growingsignicance of neo-liberalism, and the nature of compromise, amend-ment and ambiguity. The implications for an understanding of the inter -relationship between policy, pedagogy and practice are then considered.

Keywords: policy; pedagogy; assessment

Introduction

In many countries, government policies explicitly address religious education(Davis and Miroshnikova 2013). This is not new: for example, in England,the 1870 legislation barred overtly denominational proselytising in stateschools, under the Cowper-Temple clause (Section 29, UK Government 1870), while in France the contested status of religious education was centralto the development of the constitutional principle of laïcité in 1905

(Baubérot 2004). In both countries, its status was linked to the related – but not identical – issue of religious organisations’ involvement in education.More recently, these policy debates often centre on whether religious educa-tion should be a form of religious nurture or an impartial study of a range of religions (Loobuyk and Franken 2011), but are still entwined with policy onreligious organisations in education (Kay 2002; Walford 2008).

This intersection of politics and religious education is not onlylong-standing but highly charged; teachers, academics, religious leaders,

*Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Christian Education

British Journal of Religious Education, 2015

Vol. 37, No. 2, 122 – 137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2014.923377

mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2014.923377http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2014.923377mailto:[email protected]


3/17

politicians, secular groups and the general public often have strong views.Some place this debate within wider perspectives on religion and society,notably secularisation (Weisse 2007; Gearon 2012). However, there are alsoan increasing number of studies focusing on the mechanisms of policy pro-

cesses in religious education, as a ‘eld of enquiry’ rather than a ‘eld of debate’ (Skeie 2001, 238), showing how educational policies are created,interpreted and played out. For instance, Parker and Freathy (2011, 2012)conducted an historical analysis of Birmingham’s 1974 Agreed Syllabus,which initiated multi-religious approaches in England. Other examplesinclude Schreiner ’s (2012) study of how European institutions developed policies on religious education. Mayrl (2011) explored how teachers will-ingly adopted secular state policies in church schools in New South Wales.It has also been applied to religious education across Europe (Fancourt 2013).

This paper analyses the changes in religious education policy in Englandfrom 1994 onwards for state-maintained schools without any religious af li-ation. Schools with a religious af liation (‘faith schools’) set their own reli-gious education (Walford 2000; Jackson 2004). England is an important case study because it shifted from a Christian nurture model towards theimpartial study of religions before many other countries (Copley 2005;Gearon 2013), so is illustrative of potential issues. Further, English policyformalised a distinction between ‘learning about religion’ and ‘learning fromreligion’, which has been ‘ borrowed’ (Philips and Ochs 2004) by, for exam-

ple, Finland (Hella and Wright 2009) and Canada (Ouellett 2007), andsupra-national organisations (Keast 2007; Organisation for Security andCo-operation in Europe [OSCE] 2007). It is sometimes contrasted with‘teaching into religion’ (Loobuyk and Franken 2011, 173). The borrowershowever may be unaware of the policy’s development.

Current policy denitions

The current distinction in policy is set out in a non-statutory framework [the

‘Framework ’] (Qualications and Curriculum Authority [‘QCA’] 2004).

Learning about religion’ is dened as:

Enquiry into, and investigation of, the nature of religion, its beliefs, teachingsand ways of life, sources, practices and forms of expression. It includes theskills of interpretation, analysis and explanation. Pupils learn to communicatetheir knowledge and understanding using specialist vocabulary. It alsoincludes identifying and developing an understanding of ultimate questionsand ethical issues. [It] covers pupils’ knowledge and understanding of individual religions and how they relate to each other as well as the study of the nature and characteristics of religion. (11)

Learning from religion is dened as:

British Journal of Religious Education 123


4/17


5/17


6/17

(Hargreaves 1997). Religious education is bound up in these forces, and is

‘caught up in the unnished debate about … national identity’ (Robson1996, 16). Furthermore, debates in religious education are also marked bytheological distinctions which sometimes use similar terms, such as liberal,

progressive or conservative. Here, Ball’s terminology is used throughout. At the risk of over-simplication, theological conservatives are often neo-conservative, while the theologically liberal or progressive are both ofteneducationally progressive. Neo-liberals are less easily classiable theologi-cally, as will be seen.

The compromises of the 1988 Education Reform Act

How did these three voices impinge on the changing formulations of thelearning about and learning from distinction? It rst entered policy in the

government ’s guidance document, the Model Syllabuses (School Curriculumand Assessment Authority [‘SCAA‘] 1994a, 1994b), under the legislativeframe of the Education Reform Act (UK Government 1988). This Act was‘the most important achievement of the third Thatcher government ’ (Coulby1991a, 1). It initiated the rst mandatory national curriculum (excepting reli-gious education), which was essentially neo-conservative in tone, ‘ based onthe old-fashioned grammar school curriculum’ (Coulby 1991b, 25). How-ever, this government also established the neo-liberal principle of marketisa-tion, through competition between schools on the basis of national testing.

This was supplemented by a

xed pedagogical structure across all subjectsin the National Curriculum, with set ‘Attainment Targets’ and ‘Programmesof Study’ (National Curriculum Council 1990). Conservative policy wastherefore in tension between these two voices.

The treatment of religious education under this Act was complex. Neo-conservatives ‘argued for a stronger place for RE in schools’ (Jackson2004, 22), with an explicitly Christian focus, condemning both world reli-gions and moral issues approaches. Baroness Cox lamented that ‘teachingabout Christianity has either been diluted to a multi-faith relativism or has become little more than a secularised discussion of social and political

issues’ (Cox 1988, 4). Debates between progressives and neo-conservativeswere long-standing and sharp, as Bates (1996) showed, but they jointlycountered neo-liberal objections to religious education as irrelevant andnon-vocational (Alves 1991). The ‘essence of the compromise’ (Jackson2004, 24, emphasis added) was formulated in Section 8(3) that local syllabuses must: ‘reect the fact that religious traditions in Great Britain are inthe main Christian whilst taking in account … other principal religions rep-resented in Great Britain’ (UK Government 1996). While this could be seenas accommodating the cross-curricular dimension of ‘ preparation for life in

a multi-cultural society’

(National Curriculum Council 1990, 2), it was alsoseen as asserting neo-conservative principles in prioritising Christianity,

126 N.P.M. Fancourt


7/17

especially when linked to the requirement for collective worship to be ‘of a broadly Christian character ’ (Section 5, 1988 Act). The Act generated muchimmediate comment from academics in religious education (e.g. Cox andCairns 1989; Hull 1989). The compromise was then re-interpreted in a gov-

ernmental circular to mean that content on Christianity should ‘ predominate’(Department for Education 1994, 16), which was questioned legally(Jackson 2004).

Religious education’s position outside the National Curriculum was sig-nicant. The legislation simply set statutory parameters for local authorities.There were a number of reasons for this omission, such as the existence of local structures since 1944 and the legal complexity of providing different arrangements for faith schools (Gilliard 1992; Copley 2005). This meant that while other subjects were homogenised and constrained, religious edu-cation was both more varied and less directed; local authorities took differ-

ent positions, the results of local compromises, but could never produce thesame amount of specication as central government. In particular, therewere neither national Attainment Targets nor an assessment framework (National Curriculum Council 1993a), but this meant that religious educa-tion was isolated in the curriculum (OFSTED 1994).

The model syllabuses: appropriating progressive terminology

This marginal position concerned some (National Curriculum Council

1991), so SCAA (1994a, 1994b) developed non-statutory Model Syllabuses,in two versions: one organised systematically and the other thematically.They both used the distinction between ‘learning about religion’ and‘learning from religion’. This was originally formulated pedagogically byGrimmitt (1981, 1987, 2000, 2010). Grimmitt ’s pedagogy was bothcontested (e.g. Att eld 1996; Wright 1997; Jackson 2004) and supported(e.g. Teece 2010). Its appearance in policy was surprising, since Grimmitt ’sapproach was almost archetypically progressive. He railed against the neo-conservative predominance of Christianity and the performative demands of neo-liberals (Grimmitt 2000, 2010). His original ‘learning from religion’

was very progressive, including ‘what pupils learn about the nature anddemands of ultimate questions … about the normative views of the humancondition, about the discernment and interpretation of Core Values’ (Grimmitt 1987, 225, author ’s emphasis); these core values are ‘universaland implicit ’ within the ‘givens of the human situation and act as kinds of ‘value-imperatives’’ (Grimmitt 1987, 121). Such concepts were far fromThatcherite neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.

Why then were Grimmitt ’s terms adopted? The mixed voices of inu-ences required an assessment-linked pedagogy which was based in knowl-

edge and understanding of the different religions, but also described thedevelopment of related skills. There were two contemporary models of



8/17

assessment in religious education: the FARE project (Copley et al. 1991)and Westhill College’s (1989, 1991) approach. The FARE project ’s modelwas simpler, with two attainment targets: ‘reection on meaning’ and

‘knowledge and understanding of religion’, but it started from the pupils’

inner perspective rather than subject content – a somewhat progressiveapproach. Westhill College’s framework was more complex, originally iden-tifying ten attainment targets (1989), but later reduced to three: ‘understand-ing religious belief and practice’, ‘reecting, responding and expressing’and ‘awareness of life experiences and questions they raise’ (1991).Although rooted in content, it was unwieldy. Grimmitt ’s terminology couldachieve this simplication, especially as GCSE examination boards hadalready adopted them (Att eld 1996).

Nevertheless, the detail needed re-interpreting. One signicant changewas the neo-liberal re-labelling of the rst term as an Attainment Target,

and its neo-conservative pluralisation, to ‘learning about religions’. It wasdescribed as the ‘study of individual religions’, including the ability to:

Identify, name, describe and give accounts in order to build a coherent picture of each religion;

Explain the meaning of religious language, stories and symbols; Explain similarities and differences within, and between, religions

(SCAA 1994a, 5, emphasis added).

This was a compromise between a progressive pedagogy and a neo-conservative agenda. There was no longer Grimmitt ’s global sense of Religion or Core Values, but a series of religions, which would encouragetheir discrete teaching.

However, the second attainment target, ‘learning from religion’,remained singular. This created ambiguity, as the two targets were poten-tially misaligned. The second target ‘includes the ability to’:

Give an informed and considered response to religious and moralissues;

Reect on what might be learnt from religions in the light of one’sown beliefs and experience;

Identify and respond to questions of meaning within religions (SCAA1994a, 5, emphasis added).

Strikingly, two sub-clauses use the plural ‘religions’, so that it is unclear why this target did remain singular. It also merely ‘includes’ elements, andis not comprised of them. For instance, Grimmitt (1987) included ‘discern-ing … signals of transcendence’, ‘recognising the shaping inuences of their

beliefs, and ‘ being able to discern a spiritual dimension’ (225). Further,these wider elements were not ignored, since the detailed descriptors for

128 N.P.M. Fancourt


9/17

each key stage, later in the text, set out two new features, more akin toGrimmitt ’s formulations: pupils should have opportunities for ‘enhancingtheir own spiritual and moral development ’ and ‘developing positiveattitudes towards other people and their right to hold different beliefs’

(SCAA 1994a, 13). Behind them is an assumption about the role of reli-gious education in moral and spiritual development, which had become alegal obligation. They were included here within attainment targets, but par-adoxically in other policy documents were considered ‘unassessable’(National Curriculum Council 1993b, 16). This ambiguity can be accountedfor in the context of text production, as different elements were weldedtogether to try to satisfy the divergent voices of inuence; however, differ-ent draftspersons resolved this differently, with unintended incoherence.

What happened in the context of practice is hard to judge precisely, par-ticularly given the role of local authorities. The case for centralisation con-

tinued (OFSTED 1997), supported by the production of exemplicationmaterial (QCA 1998). Nevertheless, some preferred older models, thusSouth Gloucestershire based its syllabus on the FARE project (SouthGloucestershire County Council 2000). Two surveys of teachers’ aims pro-vide insights (Astley et al. 1997; Francis et al. 1999). These highlighted agenerational difference with younger teachers who were more focused on its place alongside the national curriculum, and older teachers who maintained‘the confessional or neo-confessional aim of promoting a religious way of life’ (183), suggesting that teachers did not automatically accept the thrust

of the new approach. Inconsistencies within the document also meant that it was writerly. The ambiguity between religion and religions meant that ‘reli-gion’ might simply be the sum of the six religions identied, or somethingmore holistic (Hull 1995) Progressives could interpret it in Grimmitt ’s sense,neo-conservatives could point to the focus on differences between religions,and neo-liberals could look to the use of National Curriculum terminology.

New labour neo-liberalism

In 2000, the QCA, SCAA’s replacement, published guidance on assessment

in religious education (QCA 2000) (the ‘Guidance’). This followed the arri-val of Blair ’s New Labour government in 1997, whose educational policieswere not a return to progressivism. They maintained many neo-liberal poli-cies, notably ‘combining a National Curriculum and assessment system withquasi-markets’, and detailed specication in literacy and numeracy (Whitty2002, 128; see Kay 2002). The Guidance was avowedly neo-liberal: ‘tohelp improve consistency and effectiveness of assessment ’ (QCA 2000, 4).The 1994 denitions were unchanged, but an eight-level assessment scalewas set out, matching the revised National Curriculum. The criteria were

tightly speci

ed for the eight levels, plus ‘

exceptional performance’; indeedit sub-divided them into three sub-sections for each attainment target, giving



10/17

54 descriptors in total. This over-specication of assessment criteria can beseen as readerly, as teachers’ interpretations needed to be constrained.

Inevitably, neo-conservative features diminished. The rst sub-elementsof learning about religion in the two documents show this:

SCAA (1994a): Identify, name, describe and give accounts in order to build acoherent picture of each religion. (5, emphasis added)

QCA (2000): Knowledge and understanding of religious beliefs and teachings.(4)

By downplaying the distinctiveness of particular religions, the text could beinterpreted progressively. The Guidance was thus both more neo-liberal and progressive, but less neo-conservative in tone, though traces remained.

There were however problems with the new assessment criteria. Theysuffered from the over-specication that had bedevilled the 1988 NationalCurriculum (Blaylock 2000), and national assessment criteria but a localcurriculum meant curriculum and assessment were unaligned, as it was ‘dif-cult to make a general statement ’ of what could be expected (Kay 2005,44). Local authorities tried to resolve this by drafting their own assessment criteria, thereby creating new levels of interpretation. Finally, in the context of text production, certain command words, e.g. ‘evaluate’, could not beapplied below a certain level across any National Curriculum subject (Keast 2003). This served to skew the subject ’s pedagogical aims: if evaluation

was seen as a higher-order skill, was learning from religion automaticallymore challenging than learning about religion? In which case, was a level 3in one equivalent to the other? Overall, the text was over-specic andaligned to assessment in other subjects, but unaligned to the religious educa-tion curriculum.

The Guidance also provided specic advice on learning from religion.Some suggestions appeared to resemble learning about religion, e.g. ‘under-stand how believers in different religious traditions may interact with eachother ’, and others drew on Grimmitt or Westhill College, e.g. ‘ pupils should be able to make clear links between common human experience and what religious people believe and do’ (QCA 2000, 16). Good practice was saidto include being ‘inextricably linked to … learning from religions’ and‘about concepts in religions’, and moreover ‘about developing skills, e.g.the skill of living in a plural society’, whereas bad practice included being‘free of religious content …about promoting a religious lifestyle (QCA 2000,18). It was also ‘essential for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural devel-opment of pupils’, echoing parts of the Model Syllabuses, and wider viewsof spiritual and moral development (QCA 2000, 18). This attainment target was becoming the dumping site for a variety of conicting educational

goals (Teece 2011).

130 N.P.M. Fancourt


11/17

Re-dening the new labour compromise

Blair ’s second government strengthened its combination of progressive andneo-liberal approaches. The main neo-liberal trend was more centralised cur-riculum advice and assessment criteria. The main progressive trend was the

introduction of the wider educational policy to promote community cohe-sion, particularly post 9/11 (QCA 2004; Gearon 2012; Moulin 2012). Neo-conservative voices were further reduced, as seen in the current ver-sion, set out above. As Felderhof (2004) argues, ‘religion’ tends to replace‘religions’, but not completely, as it requires the study of ‘the nature of reli-gion’ and of ‘individual religions’ without specifying their inter-relationship.It remained unclear if the second attainment target was based on the rst, or independent of it. This was particularly problematic as the Framework allowed, in a progressive move, for secular worldviews to be studied (QCA2004, 25). Religious education now went beyond religions, but the peda-gogical implications of this were unclear (Watson 2010): do pupils learnfrom non-religious beliefs in the same way as they learn from religion(s)?These modications created further ambiguity. This was re-addressed insubsequent Programmes of Study, which kept the singular title, but labelledas a ‘Key processes’, for example, ‘investigat[ing] the impact of religious beliefs and teachings …’ without recourse to the notion of religion as awhole (QCDA 2007, 266). However, even more complicatedly, the current Coalition government removed these Programmes of Study, though somelocal authorities had already adopted them (e.g. City of Bradford 2013).

Research suggests that teachers interpreted the targets variably.Hayward’s (2007) review of the teaching of Christianity asked teachers toidentify what they wanted the pupils to learn about and from Christianity.While the rst was fairly clear, the second included the critical skillsimplied in the denition, or particular values, notably tolerance or respect,or personal development. Further, Jackson et al.’s survey (2010) askedteachers to prioritise various aims, and this showed a difference in priorities between primary and secondary schools; primary teachers saw it as personalor moral education while secondary teachers favoured either philosophical processes, or the development of values. The teaching community had avariety of different pedagogical intentions, and could interpret the blurreddistinction accordingly.

Conclusion: compromise, amendment and ambiguity

What are the implications of this policy analysis of religious education?First, recognising the different voices reveals how wider educational debatessignicantly affect religious education policy. Neo-liberalism has inexorablyimpinged on the classic tension between traditionalist and progressive

views. From the perspective of policy studies, this is almost banal, yet it is



12/17

striking that this has been largely unrecognised in religious educationresearch, which often treats policy no differently from pedagogical writings.By recognising different voices, the accretion of policy compromisesemerges, supporting Parker and Freathy’s (2011) argument that national

religious education cannot be said purely to represent one perspective (seeBarnes and Wright 2006). Further, policy operates across different contexts,with a mix of voices, embedded in texts, played across classrooms (seeMayrl 2011). Even if one voice is in ascendancy, others have inuence andlead to compromise. This illuminates the complexity of what several com-mentators have described, in slightly different ways, as ‘ paradigm shifts’ inreligious education (Loobuyk and Franken 2011; Gearon 2013; Barnes2014), though it also suggests that realising a new ‘ paradigm’ in classrooms(Barnes 2014) might be a challenge because of the ways that pedagogy, policy and practice intermesh.

Secondly, the identication of three contexts is valuable in showing howinuences become formalised in texts, which are then interpreted: educa-tional change is socially, culturally and politically situated. Recognising thisuncovers the policy process from inuence to classroom, and by focusingon the context of text production the amount of amendment is particularlystriking. The distinction has been adopted, adapted, modied and re-modi-ed, but it is unclear if these are re-wordings of the original distinction, or if they are a new distinction each time. Like a palimpsest, the underlying policy traces remain despite the new surface wording (Carter 2012). The

overall effect means that individuals can choose the particular interpretationthat suits them. So should clarity be sought? Some argue that the ‘subject community’ should agree on the subject ’s aims (Teece 2011, 169). But, perhaps this is naïve: this subject community needs to recognise wider inuences at work.

There are also wider theoretical perspectives to consider. It would bewrong to conclude that England is unique in having a policy on religiouseducation, even if its particular patterns are. Clearly, comparable studies inother countries would be insightful, since the policy processes are likely to be similar even if the mix of voices will be different. Moreover, it would be

fruitful to follow this distinction’s international borrowings. The issuescould be contextualised further within other policy debates, particularly onthe place of religious organisations in education, and within wider analysisof both educational policy and the sociology of religion. For instance, howdo these voices affect processes of secularisation and de-secularisationacross the three contexts? This discussion also affects policies on faithschooling: for instance, neo-liberalism could be seen as de-secularising sinceit often encourages faith schools, or as secularising, since it often underpinsa standards-driven approach to religious education in schools. There is

clearly room for more nuanced theoretical perspectives in order to make

132 N.P.M. Fancourt


13/17

sense of this politically, theologically, sociologically and educationallycomplex eld.

Notes on contributor

Nigel Peter Michell Fancourt is a lecturer at the Department of Education, Universityof Oxford, and an honorary fellow at St Stephen’s House. His research interestsinclude policy, pedagogy and practice in religious education, and in wider debatesabout religions in education. He also researches teacher education.

References

Alves, C. 1991. “Just a Matter of Words? The Religious Education Debate in theHouse of Lords.” British Journal of Religious Education 13 (3): 168 – 174.

Astley, J., L. Francis, L. Burton, and C. Wilcox. 1997. “Distinguishing between

Aims and Methods in RE: A Study among Secondary RE Teachers.”

British journal of religious education 19 (3): 171 – 185.Att eld, G. 1996. “Learning from Religion.” British Journal of Religious Education

18 (2): 78 – 84.Ball, S. 1990. Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy

Sociology. London: Routledge.Ball, S. 2006. Education Policy and Social Class. London: Routledge.Ball, S., M. Maguire, and A. Braun. 2012. How Schools do Policy. London:

Routledge.Barnes, L. P. 2014. Education, Religion and Diversity: Developing a New Model of

Religious Education. Abingdon: Routledge.Barnes, L. P., and A. Wright. 2006. “Romanticism, Representations of Religion and

Critical Religious Education.” British Journal of Religious Education 28 (1):65 – 77.

Barthes, R. 1970. S/Z . Paris: Seuil.Bates, D. 1996. “Christianity, Culture and Other Religions (Part 2): F H Hilliard,

Ninian Smart and the 1988 Education Reform Act.” British Journal of Religious Education 18 (2): 85 – 102.

Baubérot, J. 2004. Laïcité 1905 – 2005, entre passion et raison [French secularism1905 – 2005, between passion and reason]. Paris: Seuil.

Blaylock, L. 2000. “Issues in Achievement and Assessment in Religious Educationin England: Which Way Should We Turn?” British Journal of Religious Educa-tion 23 (1): 45 – 58.

Bowe, R., S. Ball, and A. Gold. 1992. Reforming Education and Changing Schools. London: Routledge.

Carter, P. 2012. “Policy as Palimpsest.” Policy and politics 40 (3): 423 – 443.Chater, M., and C. Erricker. 2013. Does Religious Education Have a Future?

Abingdon: Routledge.City of Bradford. 2013. RE Agreed Syllabus. https://bso.bradford.gov.uk/schools/

CMSPage.aspx?mid=2039.Copley, T. 2005. Indoctrination, Education and God: The Struggle for the Mind .

London: SPCK.Copley, T., J. Priestley, D. Wadman, and V. Coddington. 1991. Forms of Assess-

ment in Religious Education: The Main Report of the FARE Project . Exeter:

FARE Project.


http://https//bso.bradford.gov.uk/schools/CMSPage.aspx?mid=2039http://https//bso.bradford.gov.uk/schools/CMSPage.aspx?mid=2039http://https//bso.bradford.gov.uk/schools/CMSPage.aspx?mid=2039http://https//bso.bradford.gov.uk/schools/CMSPage.aspx?mid=2039


14/17

Coulby, D. 1991a. “The National Curriculum.” In Contradiction and Con ict: The1988 Education Act in Action, edited by D. Coulby and L. Bash, 15 – 42.London: Cassell.

Coulby, D. 1991b. “Introduction: The 1988 Education Act and Themes of Govern-ment Policy.” In Contradiction and Con ict: The 1988 Education Act in Action,

edited by D. Coulby and L. Bash, 1 – 14. London: Cassell.Cox, C. 1988. “Foreword.” In The Crisis in Religious Education, edited by J. Burn

and C. Hart, 1 – 4. London: The Educational Research Trust.Cox, E., and J. Cairns. 1989. Reforming Religious Education: The Religious

Clauses of the 1988 Education Reform Act . London: Institute of Education.Davis, D., and E. Miroshnikova, eds. 2013. The Routledge International Handbook

of Religious Education. London: Routledge.Department for Education. 1994. Circular 1/94. Religious Education and Collective

Worship. London: HMSO.Fancourt, N. 2013. “Religious Education across Europe: Contexts in Policy Scholar-

ship.” In Exploring Context in Religious Education Research, edited by J.

Everington, G. Skeie, I. ter Avest, and S. Miedema, 193 – 211. Münster: WaxmannFelderhof, M. 2004. “The New National Framework for RE in England and Wales:A critique.” Journal of Beliefs and Values 25 (2): 241 – 248.

Francis, L., J. Astley, C. Wilcox, and L. Burton. 1999. “The Inuence of in-serviceTraining on Teacher Attitudes Towards Religious Education in Non-denomina-tional Schools in England.” Journal of In-service Education 25 (1): 173 – 185.

Furlong, J., L. Barton, S. Miles, C. Whiting, and G. Whitty. 2000. Teacher Educationin Transition: Re-forming Professionalism? Buckingham: Open University Press.

Gale, T. 2001. “Critical Policy Sociology: Historiography, Archaeology and Geneal-ogy as Methods of Policy Analysis.” Journal of Education Policy 16 (5):379 – 393.

Gearon, L. 2012. “

European Religious Education and European Civil Religion.”

British Journal of Educational Studies 60 (2): 151 – 169.Gearon, L. 2013. Masterclass in Religious Education. London: Bloomsbury.Gillard, D. 1992. Rewriting Oxfordshire’ s Agreed Syllabus Post 1988: The Process

and the Issues. www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/the00.html.Grimaldi, E. 2012. “Analysing Policy in the Context(s) of Practice: A Theoretical

Puzzle.” Journal of Education Policy 27 (4): 445 – 465.Grimmitt, M. 1981. “When is Commitment a Problem in Religious Education?”

British Journal of Educational Research 29 (1): 42 – 53.Grimmitt, M. 1987. Religious Education and Human Development: The Relation-

ship between Studying Religions and Personal, Social and Moral Education.Great Wakering: McCrimmons.

Grimmitt, M. 2000. “The Captivity and Liberation of Religious Education and theMeaning and Signicance of Pedagogy in Pedagogies of Religious Education.”In Pedagogies of Religious Education, edited by M. Grimmitt, 7 – 23. Great Wakering: McCrimmonds.

Grimmitt, M. 2010. “Contributing to Social and Community Cohesion: Just Another Stage in the Metamorphosis?” In Religious Education and Social and Community Cohesion, edited by M. Grimmitt, 260 – 317. Great Wakering:McCrimmons.

Hargreaves, A. 1997. “Restructuring Restructuring: Postmodernity and the Pros- pects for Educational Change.” In Education: Culture, Economy, Society, edited by A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, and A. Stuart Wells, 338 – 353. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

134 N.P.M. Fancourt

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/the00.htmlhttp://www.educationengland.org.uk/articles/the00.html


15/17

Hatcher, R., and B. Troyna. 1994. “The ‘Policy Cycle’: A Ball by Ball Account.” Journal of Education Policy 9 (2): 155 – 170.

Hayward, M. 2007. Christianity in Religious Education at Key Stage 3. Coventry:University of Warwick.

Hella, E., and A. Wright. 2009. “Learning ‘about ’ and ‘from’ Religion: Phenome-

nography, the Variation Theory of Learning and Religious Education in Finlandand the UK.” British Journal of Religious Education 31 (1): 53 – 64.

Hill, D., and R. Kumar. 2009. Global Neoliberalism and Education and its Conse-quences. London: Routledge.

Hull, J. 1989. The Act Unpacked . Isleworth: CEM.Hull, J. 1995. “Religion as a Series of Religions: A Comment on the SCAA Model

Syllabuses.” In From Syllabus to Schemes: Planning and Teaching RE , edited by Shap. London: Shap Working Party.

Jackson, R. 2004. Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diversityand Pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Jackson, R., J. Ipgrave, M. Hayward, P. Hopkins, N. Fancourt, M. Robbins, L.

Francis, and U. McKenna. 2010. Materials Used to Teach About World Reli- gions in Schools in England . London: DCSF.Kay, W. 2002. “Political Perspectives on Church Schools and Religious Education:

A Discussion of the Period from Thatcher to Blair.” Educational Studies 28 (1):61 – 75.

Kay, W. 2005. “A Non-statutory Framework for Religious Education: Issues andOpportunities.” British Journal of Religious Education 27 (1): 41 – 52.

Keast, J. 2003. Keynote Speech at HMI RE Conference. Southwark Cathedral,London, March 2003.

Keast, J. 2007. Religious Diversity and Intercultural Education: A Reference Book for Schools. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Loobuyk, P., and L. Franken. 2011. “

The Challenges of the Paradigm Shift in Reli-gious Education.” In Religious Education in a Plural, Secularized Society: A Paradigm Shift , edited by L. Franken and P. Loobuyk, 169 – 176. Münster:Waxmann.

Mayrl, D. 2011. “Administering Secularization: Religious Education in New SouthWales since 1960.” European Journal of Sociology 52: 111 – 142.

Moulin, D. 2012. “Religious Education in England after 9/11.” Religious Education107 (2): 158 – 173.

National Curriculum Council. 1990. Curriculum Advice 3: The Whole Curriculum.York: NCC.

National Curriculum Council. 1991. Religious Education: A Local Curriculum Framework . York: NCC.

National Curriculum Council. 1993a. Analysis of Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education. York: NCC.

National Curriculum Council. 1993b. Spiritual and Moral Development: A Discus- sion Paper . York: NCC.

OFSTED. 1994. Religious Education and Collective Worship. 1992 – 1993. London:Ofsted.

OFSTED. 1997. The Impact of the New Agreed Syllabuses on the Teaching and Learning of Religious Education. London: HMSO.

OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe). 2007. ToledoGuiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools.Warsaw: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.



16/17

Ouellett, F., ed. 2007. Quelle formation pour l ’ éducation á la religion? [What tea-cher training for education on religion?] Quebec: Les Presses de l’UniversitéLaval.

Ozga, J. 1987. “Studying Educational Policy through the Lives of Policy Makers:An Attempt to Close the Macromicrogap.” In Changing Policies, Changing

Teachers, edited by S. Walker and L. Barton, 138 – 150. Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity Press.

Parker, S., and R. Freathy. 2011. “Context, Complexity and Contestation: Birming-ham’s Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education since the 1970s.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 32 (2): 247 – 263.

Parker, S., and R. Freathy. 2012. “Ethnic Diversity, Christian Hegemony and theEmergence of Multi-faith Religious Education in the 1970s.” History of Educa-tion 41 (3): 381 – 404.

Philips, D., and K. Ochs. 2004. Educational Policy Borrowing: Historical Perspec-tives. Oxford: Symposium.

QCA (Qualications and Curriculum Authority). 1998. Exempli cation of Stan-

dards in Religious Education. London: QCA.QCA (Qualications and Curriculum Authority). 2000. Religious Education: NonStatutory Guidance on RE . London: QCA.

QCA (Qualications and Curriculum Authority). 2003. A Non-statutory Framework for Religious Education: Report of a Feasibility Study. London: QCA.

QCA (Qualications and Curriculum Authority). 2004. Religious Education: The Non-statutory National Framework . London: QCA.

QCDA (Qualications and Curriculum Development Authority). 2007. Religious Education: Programme of Study (Non-statutory) for Key Stage 3 and Attain-ment Targets. London: QCA.

Robson, G. 1996. “Religious Education, Government Policy and Professional Prac-

tice, 1985 –

1995.”

British Journal of Religious Education 19 (1): 13 –

23.Rose, D. 2006. “Recent Trends in Religious Education in England: A Survey of the Reactions of Standing Advisory Committees for Religious EducationTowards Increasing Centralising Inuences Since 1988.” British Journal of Religious Education 28 (2): 185 – 199.

SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority). 1994a. Model Syllabuses for Religious Education: Model 1: Living Faiths Today. London: School Curric-ulum and Assessment Authority.

SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority). 1994b. Model Syllabuses for Religious Education: Model 2: Questions and Teaching . London: SchoolCurriculum and Assessment Authority.

Schreiner, P. 2012. Religion im Kontext einer Europäisierung von Bildung [Religion

in the context of a Europeanisation of education]. Münster: Waxmann.Skeie, G. 2001. “Citizenship, Identity Politics and Religious Education.” In

Towards Religious Competence: Diversity as a Challenge for Education in Eur-ope, edited by H.-G. Heimbrock, C. Scheilke and P. Schreiner, 237 – 252.Münster: Lit Verlag.

South Gloucestershire County Council. 2000. Mystery and Meaning . Gloucester:SGCC.

Teece, G. 2010. “Is It Learning about and from Religions, Religion or ReligiousEducation? And Is It Any Wonder Some Teachers Don’t Get It?” British Jour-nal of Religious Education 32 (2): 89 – 103.

136 N.P.M. Fancourt


17/17

Teece, G. 2011. “Too Many Competing Imperatives? Does RE Need to Rediscover its Identity?” Journal of Beliefs and Values: Studies in Religion and Education32 (2): 161 – 172.

UK Government. 1870. Education Act . London: HMSO.UK Government. 1988. Education Reform Act . London: HMSO.

UK Government. 1996. Education Act . London: HMSO.Walford, G. 2000. Policy and Politics in Education: Sponsored Grant-maintained

Schools and Religious Diversity. Aldershot: Ashgate.Walford, G. 2008. “Faith-based Schools in England after Ten Years of Tony Blair.”

Oxford Review of Education 34: 689 – 699.Watson, J. 2010. “Including Secular Philosophies such as Humanism in Locally

Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education.” British Journal of Religious Education 32 (1): 5 – 18.

Weisse, W. 2007. “The European Research Project on Religion and Education‘REDCo’. An Introduction.” In Religion and Education in Europe: Develop-ments, Contexts and Debates, edited by R. Jackson, S. Miedema, W. Weisse,

and J.-P. Willaime, 9 – 25. Münster: Waxmann.Westhill College. 1989. Attainment in RE: A Handbook for Teachers. Birmingham:Westhill College.

Westhill College. 1991. Assessing, Recording and Reporting RE. A Handbook for Teachers. Birmingham: Westhill College.

Whitty, G. 2002. Making Sense of Education Policy. London: Sage.Williams, G. 1961. The Long Revolution. Harmonsworth: Penguin.Wright, A. 1997. “Mishmash, Religionism and Theological Literacy: An Appreciation

and Critique of Trevor Cooling’s Hermeneutical Programme.” British Journal of Religious Education 19 (3): 143 – 156.


Documents

Re Defining Learning About Religion and Learning From Religion a Study of Policy Change