Teach Secondary - Issue 13.2

Course CORRECTION Andy Lewis examines some criticisms from Ofsted concerning the quality of RE provision, and weighs up the question of whether the subject is fit for purpose... W hen Ofsted published its latest Annual Report on on November 23rd 2023 (see bit. ly/ts132-RE1), RE teachers’ various online networks were quick to notice the negative headlines their subject had apparently generated. It was painful to read of ‘extensive weaknesses’ in its teaching. “ In too many primary and secondary schools ,” the report said, REwas of “ a poor quality and not fit for purpose ” – before adding that this was leaving pupils “ ill-equipped for some of the complexities of contemporary society .” Those words hurt, but they didn’t come as a complete surprise. Postcode lottery I’ve been an RE teacher for 18 years, and it’s a subject I’ve loved since my own GCSE and A Level. I’ve worked locally and nationally to help promote the subject and its development as a discipline. I love teaching RE, and do believe it’s one of the most important subjects on the curriculum. However, the sad reality is that there is indeed some substance to Ofsted’s findings. Fiona Moss, CEO of the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, recently described RE as being a ‘postcode lottery’ – only for Ofsted to then later confirm that the provision students receive does depend on their school. For some, the RE provision in their school is excellent. For others, it’s of poor quality, or barely even included on their timetable. It’s important to understand the subject’s unique position within the curriculum. RE is a legal entitlement for all pupils on the roll of every school, unless they’ve been withdrawn by their parents. It can be found in what’s known as the ‘basic curriculum’, which includes the 12 KS3/4 National Curriculum subject areas, as well as RSHE. Unlike other those other subjects, however, there’s no national set of standards for RE. Instead, the subject is set and overseen in a range of different ways. Creating complexity Inmaintained community, foundation and voluntary schools without a religious character, RE is taught in accordance with the Local Agreed Syllabus (LAS). This is reviewed every five years by the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE), which every local education authority has to appoint. Academies and free schools must teach RE in accordance with the requirements set by a LAS, as well as the law. As the wording of Education Act 1996 puts it, they must ensure that what they teach, “ Reflects the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are, in the main, Christian, while taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain .” Academies can opt to use the LAS, and many do, but bigger MATs will often develop their own. In foundation and voluntary controlled schools with a religious character, RE must be taught according to the Agreed Syllabus, unless parents request RE in accordance with the trust deed of the school. In voluntary aided schools, RE must be taught in accordance with the trust deed. This means, for example, that a Catholic school will follow the Religious Education Directory (RED) set by the Catholic Bishops of England andWales. It soon becomes clear that the challenge of simply clarifying what should be taught in RE has created complexity that many believe directly contributes to the mixed quality of provision we’ve seen. It’s certainly hard to argue that the system more broadly is currently fit for purpose. There was a subject , That had a little place, Right in the middle of the basic curriculum. When it was good, It was very good indeed, But when it was bad it was HORRID. – ‘There was a little subject called RE’ by Andy Lewis, adapted from an original poem by HenryWadsworth Longfellow 68 teachwire.net/secondary