The challenge of teaching the World Faiths of Hinduism and Christianity in Britain today

This title is deceptively simple: the factors of issues of legislation, pedagogical research, the role of the teacher and relevance of the subject (and particularly of striking a balance between varying concepts and weightings of these) are common to all subjects in one degree or another. And yet, to discuss religious education – and teaching two such different faiths – without taking into account the challenges unshared by other subjects (e.g. the otherwise similar history) would be inadequate. Further, the qualification ‘in Britain today’ highlights the importance of considering both cultural context and that ubiquitous issue in contemporary education: how to ensure that current ideas also equip young people to engage positively with the (as yet unknown) challenges they will face in a rapidly changing world.
Given this last, recent educational research and practice increasingly focus on teaching learning (rather than transmitting established sets of information or simple defined skills). Indeed, in terms of both faiths, such information and skills are freely available outside the education system. Young people may go to the church or temple to be instructed in Christianity or Hinduism: to replicate this in the classroom is redundant. What religious education in schools can do, in contrast, is to offer to teach about both, and the general importance of religion itself. In doing so, there are clear advantages – particularly in enhancing relevance – to an even-handed approach, as with all subjects touching on belief, tradition and personal adherence (e.g. politics, music). However, the structure of this question, in asking for comparison, suggests that in Britain today it is necessary to go beyond balance in teaching World Faiths.
In order to make such a comparison, it is necessary to consider the senses in which Hinduism and Christianity differ. Some such differences are very apparent, others more apparent than actual. Hinduism is the major polytheistic World Faith, and as such presents a valuable corrective – in terms of the spectrum of human belief systems – to the dominance of monotheistic ideas. However, in many senses, this polytheism is not actually so different from the concept of saints in many Christian sects, for the concept of a unitary supreme deity is important to Hinduism. A more major difference is that “it is possible to be a Hindu and an atheist, for belief in the existence of a deity is not an essential component of religion for all Hindus” (Brockington, 1992: xi). As World Faiths, the two have comparable status in terms of spiritual and philosophical influence, historical importance, and depth and complexity of belief and adherence.
As World Faiths in Britain today, however, they occupy very different cultural positions. It is obvious that in the broad view of British culture and society, Christianity is both more integral and more widespread, and it is possible to use these relative positions as a basis for comparing the two, and thus for deciding how to meet the challenges of teaching them (Purdam et al. 2007: 147-68). However, this is problematic in various ways. Firstly, that wider view is an abstraction: the practice of religious education is always one in which individuals (pupils and teachers) of different beliefs and attitudes interact. This is not a modern phenomenon (it is many centuries since Britain was a religiously homogenous society, Brockington, 1992: x) for sectarianism presented very similar challenges to those of our current multifaith society, and should remind us both of the consequences of not meeting them, and of the importance of differences of faith alone, without ethnic or cultural distinctions or prejudice. Secondly, given current trends of promoting learning in education, religious education provides an important opportunity to extend – rather than just reflect – the pre-existing experiences of young people. Just as young people can go to organised religion for instruction in a singular faith, so they may look to contemporary culture and society to reinforce their unconsidered assumptions: teaching can and should supply respect and enquiry instead.
Therefore, this essay will consider comparisons between the challenges and issues in teaching Hinduism and Christianity not simply in terms of how they ought to be balanced (reflecting wider society) but also in how they best complement each other in enhancing the effectiveness and relevance of religious – and general cross-curricular – education. To do so, it will examine what differences (if any) exist in recent legislation, pedagogical research and use of resources, and consider the implications of these factors for the future role of religious education teachers and the subject’s relevance to young people.
There is no doubt that one of the principal challenges for religious education teaching is the legislative complexity surrounding this statutory subject area. On the one hand, the Act requires universal curricular inclusion of religious education (69, 1-2) and daily collective worship (70, 1) at all stages. On the other, a considerably more detailed provision (71) deals with the right of parents to have a child excused, and with their concomitant responsibility to provide equivalent religious education and experience for the child. This paradoxical situation perhaps reflects continued problems with public perceptions of religious education, or may be in part due to the close association, in the Act, of religious education and collective worship (which is notably not reflected in the emphases of the National Framework).
Further legal complication is produced by legislation governing religious education teachers, which prohibits discrimination against teachers on a religious basis, and provides that no teacher shall be compelled to teach religious education (with the usual exceptions under the DSRCO). Again, this creates an impression contrary to the balanced and detailed schema provided by the NF (e.g. QCA 2004: 8-10, 12-18, 30-31). For if the importance of religious education -for personal and social development, and cross-curricular learning – is to be effectively conveyed to young people, it must be seen in fact (reflected in teacher investment, policy prioritisation, etc. Widdowson et al. 1996: 171-80) not just spoken of. Of all subjects, religious education perhaps most requires sensitive, specialist teachers, as discussed further below.
However, this particular curriculum area is subject to an exceptional degree of outside and public involvement, which must fetter teachers’ professional decisions. The NF “recognises the large extent to which the public is already involved with religious education, in the form of ASCs, SACREs, LEAs, governing bodies, and the relevant religious and secular authorities and communities” (QCA 2004:9). So, syllabi for religious education in each school are governed not only by the statutory curriculum, but also, in detail, by programmes set out by Agreed Syllabus Conferences (ASC, convened by the LEA as a subset of a Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education or SACRE, a local body made up of representatives from faith groups, teachers and the LEA). Therefore, the syllabus to be taught is agreed with local faith communities (with input from their “local, regional and national authorities” QCA 2004:10) being overseen, and subject to review at any time by the SACRE.
While the NF “sets out a structure for ASCs and faith communities to use to determine what pupils should be taught” and is “designed to be inclusive, … guidance for … teaching and learning that is appropriate for all schools … It is for each LEA … to determine the extent to which [it] … informs syllabus development … faith communities should consider what account they wish to take of the national framework” (QCA 2004:10). All of the above legal requirements apply equally to Hinduism and Christianity, although the representative aspect of the last must introduce distinctions between schools. It is clearly intended that syllabi should follow the NF (QCA 2004:12) and yet, almost as clearly implied that some ASCs may be resistant: “public understanding of, and confidence in, the work of schools in religious education” (QCA 2004:9) apparently needs much further work, and this must be regarded as among the most important challenges. While pedagogical research is unlikely to have much impact on this factor, it does have an important indirect effect on teachers’ confidence in the effectiveness of their teaching, and pupils learning, whose benefits should not be underestimated.
Research into this area is widespread and diverse: “The UK has one of the most religiously diverse populations in the European Union, both … within Christianity and between different world religions” (Purdam et al. 2007:147). It is also relatively very culturally determined, so that research from the U.S., for instance, is not necessarily directly applicable. Nevertheless, studies range from investigation of abstract subjects (Helton & Helton 2007: 139-50; Netto 1989: 163-8) to social concerns about the impact of education (e.g. Pajer 2006: 37-45). Practitioners seeking to educate themselves about research can choose between a range bounded by detailed digests supplied by the Government (e.g. www.teachernet.gov.uk) and specialist books on religion (e.g. Brockington, 1992; Clooney, 2001; Richards, 1985). Rather than devote a section to summarizing a tiny fraction of the research available, this essay refers to it in context, as it applies to legal issues, resources, and the role of teachers (the latter an especially useful area of research application).
The use of resources is a crucial part of putting ideas into practice. There is a vast range of published printed resources about these major religions, suitable for learning about every aspect defined by the NF, at each curricular stage. Direct provision of information is only one aspect of resource use, however, and also most likely to already be addressed by syllabi. (However, such direct information can also be used for deeper comparative or analytical readings relating to the ‘Learning from Religion’ strand: QCA 2004: 30, esp. 2d). Creative selection and use of other resources can greatly improve both learning and relevance: many classic works in the literary, visual and musical arts have profound religious significance and emotional impact. Concepts of inclusivity, both within and between Hinduism and Christianity, can be addressed with reference to the variety of styles and portrayals associated with each, and important relationships between religion and culture illustrated by their general differences. While materials relating to Christianity may be both more familiar and more available to teachers from within that tradition, online information is now very easily accessed (in this case, ideally by teachers, in order to properly contextualise it for pupils).
In other areas, ICT has vast potential as a resource for religious education. The internet excels at providing the full spectrum of presentations of belief (from the highly personal to abstract philosophical theology) at every level of credibility and authority. This is ideal for the development of general media literacy, but is equally critical for developing understandings of the specifically religious aspects of topical and future media, politics, and popular opinion. There is no shortage of English language media from Hindu countries and communities (not just India), while the second language skills of pupils can also be valued for translation and peer-scaffolding. Of course, ICT is more than the internet, and there are significant opportunities for using other communications technologies, such as email and videoconferencing, to make direct and meaningful contact with individuals and groups regionally, nationally and globally (QCA 2004: 18). Contacting pupils at equivalent stages studying Christianity as an ‘Other’ World Faith would be particularly valuable in helping understand the different positions of Hinduism and Christianity within our current curriculum. Given the legal requirements, and the varied pre-existing experiences of pupils, classes, schools and teachers, it does not seem useful to make general statements comparing resources for teaching Hinduism and Christianity. The selection of resources depends on context, but resources fulfilling the learning needs of all are plentiful, and their sensitive and creative selection is a major aspect of the role of religious education teachers.
Like teachers in other subject areas, teachers’ roles can be simply defined as directing, supporting and assessing pupils’ learning in accordance with national and school level policies on curriculum and educational aims. This is simpler to say than to do, and involves the careful application of teachers’ professional knowledge and skills with attention to the contexts, legal requirements and public involvement already discussed. A particularly important role in this specific area is balancing the wider perspective of legislation, policies and pedagogical research with the specific needs of each class: assisted by the reflective selection of resources and strategies for learning and teaching.
If such factors are all part of the general role of teachers in today’s Britain, there are further considerations specific to religious education. There is the expectation (sometimes explicit: QCA 2004: 8,13, etc.) that religious education teachers’ roles include a higher degree of ‘pastoral care’. While previously this was guidance about proper things for young people to think and believe, current emphasis falls on suggesting appropriate ways to explore and apply religious education: no longer direct guidance, but guidance in the processes and skills required by pupils to find their own paths, and likely to become increasingly important (Brockington, 1992: 175).
Current educational thinking also emphasises the importance of ‘modelling’ desirable behaviours and attitudes (Wilson 1996: 181-96; Widowson et al. 1996: 171-80) surely crucial and complex for religious education teachers. Again, the more traditional role of modelling the experience of tolerant faith, and interest in religion, has evolved (Clooney 2001: 163 cf. Netto, 1989: 163-5). While ‘tolerance’ remains a buzzword in wider culture, the curriculum (and calls for interreligious dialogue, e.g. Brockington 1992:179, 182) are better served by modelling investment in communication, understanding and imaginative engagement. This is equally important regardless of the relative personal beliefs of teacher and pupils, or their perceived majority position within school and culture. Inhabiting a majority position in today’s Britain does not equate to an unchallenged one: pupils and teachers within the Christian and/or secular humanist mainstreams have as much to learn, and as much need to learn it, as any others. Therefore, it is highly desirable that religious education teachers have as diverse a range of background traditions as possible, and worth noting that Hinduism may, in some ways, be better served in this respect, since modelling of Christianity can often be of assumptions rather than enquiry.
These ties into a final aspect of role, in that religious education teachers seem called upon to mediate between current and future pressures from wider society (e.g. legislation, research, communities and the media) and the personal religious development of young people. There is an extent to which these pressures seem to require religious education teachers to prove consistently worthy of trust – adhering to professional standards, and respecting the decisions of ASCs and SACREs – without the encouragement of being trusted. The high degree of social anxiety (which currently seems unlikely to decrease in future) surrounding their role also means that issues of race and gender can be particular challenges for teachers (Model & Lin 2002: 1061-92, Everington & Sikes 2003: 393-406). Nevertheless, if the development of young people is to meet their future needs, it cannot be wholly formed by present or past attitudes: teachers can aim to provide ‘safe spaces’ for pupils, spaces which allow them the freedom and respect to explore their responses without having – as they must outside of school – to make constant reference to the entrenched attitudes of society and community.
All of the above areas of discussion also address relevance in their own way, because the relevance of a subject ultimately depends on the principles, resources, and aims of how it is taught, but it is worth also noting that in this, religious education also enjoys a rather unique position – it simply is relevant, for all people, in all places, times and cultures, encounter religious expression and personally consider the big questions associated with this aspect of human consciousness (while answers vary, such questions appear to be innate. The question, then, is not how to gain the interest of young people, but how not to lose it. Engagement with pupils’ actual experiences of religion outside the school may be a difficult and controversial task, and one which is perhaps complicated by the legislation discussed above (indeed, even by research, which provides a bewildering range of concepts and perspectives to take into account) but it is critical to the future actual relevance of this subject to pupils. Young people are well able to assess relevance to their own situations and experiences (if not always to appreciate how this may develop later in life) and therefore, reaching out to them is as – or more – important than being sensitive to the requirements of their communities and community representatives. Each aspect of the above discussion has addressed this issue, but the underlying answer for both Hinduism and Christianity, is to strive (and be seen by young people to succeed) to teach in ways that are socially useful and personally valuable to pupils, and to take account of pupils’ valid curiosity and questions as well as legislation and research.
In conclusion, the challenges of teaching Hinduism and Christianity in Britain today are many and varied. This essay has focused on the general picture, but it must be acknowledged that the situation on the ground, in the classroom, for teachers dealing with the complexities of excused pupils, interaction with locally defined syllabi and the committees that create them, and, of course, the inherent challenges of teaching such a varied area of human culture, experience and conflict, is even more complex. Teaching religious education requires the weighing, balancing and negotiating of a wide array of factors, and often seems destined to be a thankless task, pleasing no-one, yet preparing young people to deal with this immensely important and potentially explosive subject is essential. Therefore, the engagement and creativity of teachers are required to strive towards a situation in which their efforts are trusted and recognised by the public, and one in which young people can go on to reap the benefits of the various and detailed legislation, research and resources which have been targeted at this part of the curriculum. As ever in teaching, the fact that the ideal situation may well be out of reach through no fault of the profession does not make this aim any less important