Context, complexity and contestation: Birmingham’s Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education since the 1970s

Abstract

The present article offers an historical perspective on the 1975, 1995 and 2007 Birmingham Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education. It draws upon historical evidence uncovered as part of 'The hidden history of curriculum change in religious education in English schools, 1969English schools, -1979, and curriculum history theories, especially David Labaree's observations about the distance between the 'rhetorical' and 'received' curricula. We argue that, contrary to the existing historiography, curriculum change in religious education (RE) has been evolutionary not revolutionary. Multiple reasons are posited to explain this, not least among which is the capacity and agency of teachers. Furthermore, we argue that ongoing debates about the nature and purpose of RE, as exemplified in the Birmingham context, reflect the multiple expectations that religious educators and other stakeholders had, and continue to have, of the curriculum subject. These debates contribute to the inertia evident in the implementation of RE curriculum reforms. A consciousness of the history of RE enables curriculum contestations to be contextualised and understood, and, thereby, provides important insights which can be applied to ongoing and future debates and developments.

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

“…From the perspective of policy studies, this is almost banal, yet it is striking that this has been largely unrecognised in religious education research, which often treats policy no differently from pedagogical writings. By recognising different voices, the accretion of policy compromises emerges, supporting Parker and Freathy's (2011) argument that national religious education cannot be said purely to represent one perspective (see Barnes and Wright 2006). Further, policy operates across different contexts, with a mix of voices, embedded in texts, played across classrooms (see Mayrl 2011).…”

“…Central government policy documents therefore only impact indirectly on teachers, though currently very few local authorities do not follow national policy. Local committees are themselves a microcosm of the process, with their own influences, text production and practice (Rose 2006;Parker and Freathy 2011), and react differently to central policy in creating local policy documents. Locally agreed syllabuses themselves may be readerly or writerly, but teachers can also use the national policies to interpret them.…”

5 Raiders of the Lost Archives: Searching for the Hidden History of Religious Education in England

“…Doney, Parker & Freathy, in preparation;Freathy & Parker, 2012Parker & Freathy, 2011a, 2011bParker, Freathy, & Doney, in preparation), but in summary we have (Rose, 2003, 309). However, the nature, purpose and influence of earlier lobbying groups that promoted a similar agenda, such as the National Association for Teachers of Religious Knowledge and the Save Religious Education in State Schools campaign (the second of which received much popular support in the mid-1970s), had not previously been subjected to in-depth, primary-source-based, historical investigation.…”

“…These prior campaigns evidence the existence of lobbying, and a coalescence of political support and public debate about the reassertion of the Christian identity of Britain through a return to 'confessional' Religious Education, at least a decade earlier than has previously been proposed (Parsons, 1994, 183). Thereby, they suggest that the relative beginnings of the 'discourses of derision' (Ball, 1990) about the integration of (non-Christian) immigrants into society and the promotion of racial harmony (Parker & Freathy, 2011a, 2011b. At the same time, it has shown that an alternative to multi-faith Religious Education could have emerged -with support from some of Her Majesty's Inspectors -in which pupils from different faith communities were taught Religious Education in parallel groups according to a range of faith-specific Agreed Syllabuses.…”

“…macro-and micro-political factors at national, local, school, department and classroom levels) including the tensions that can emerge between individual teachers (agency) and the multiplicity of social forces acting upon them (structure) (Parker & Freathy, 2011b);  expose the often highly politicized proceedings of curriculum councils, committees, working parties, conferences, and so forth, where status and power, force of argument, charisma and popularity, ensure that certain discourses are heard and become dominant, while others are silenced and excluded, including acknowledging the benign or malign influence of key individuals in supposedly collective decisionmaking procedures;  consider carefully the mechanisms by which particular ideological factors, such as theological, philosophical or pedagogical theories, influence curriculum change and continuity, and seek to demonstrate the outcome of such influences, whilst at the same time recognizing other factors, such as demographic fluctuations or educational organization and expenditure, that catalyse or inhibit curriculum change; and  interrogate the short and long-term effects of curriculum reforms, including the extent to which they have been generalized, institutionalized and sustained, acknowledging evolutionary and revolutionary processes of change, but also examples of continuity, regression, subversion, avoidance and compromise, in terms of how the formal curriculum is interpreted and translated into schemes of work, lesson plans, resources and activities by teachers and how these are then encountered by students.…”