Cardinal Clancy Centre for Research in the Spiritual,
Moral, Religious and Pastoral Dimensions of Education
Spiritual, Moral and Religious Education is a key area of Research and Teaching in Australian Catholic University
The Nature of Religious Education in Public Schools:
Quest for an Educational Identity
The
By Marisa Crawford and Graham Rossiter
(M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1994, The Nature of Religious Education in Public
Schools: The Quest for an Educational Identity, Panorama: International Journal of
Comparative Religious Education and Values, 5, 1, 77-94.)
Once the exclusive preserve of the churches, religious education in public schools
(state/government schools) now usually has an independent educational identity and
rationale. Two consequences of this independence that are evident in some countries
are 1.) an obscuring of the relationships that exist with a church religious education;
and 2.) an over-emphasis on phenomenology as a method. A clarification of these
issues is important for the future of school religious education. Just how much the
British and Australian experience is relevant to understanding what happens in other
countries remains an open question for the international readership.
Introduction
Although the idea of universal compulsory schooling dates from the time of the
Reformation, the actual practice in Western countries is little more than a century old.
Because the Christian churches had a long tradition in conducting schools, it was to be
expected that they would continue to see schools as agencies for the religious education
and evangelisation of young people, even when conducted by the state. Thus, the
tradition was established: religious education in the school was a church concern; its
aims were to hand on the Christian faith and to nourish the spirituality of young people
within the context of the church. Consequently, in countries where the state was not
unfavourable to a particular religion (or denominations), a church religious education was
allowed to continue in state schools. Either it was under church auspices and taught by
church representatives, or the state school teachers taught a church approved curriculum
(This accounted for the situations in countries like the U.K. before the 1960s,
Scandinavia, [West] Germany, Italy, Australia and Canada. There are parallels for
synagogue and mosque religious education in Israel and Muslim countries respectively.)
In the United States, the strong constitutional separation between church and state
resulted in the exclusion of a church religious education from the formal curriculum in
public schools; this separation has also been strong enough to stifle the development of
any study of religions that is not under church auspices. This has made the United
States' pattern very different from those of other countries.
The Evolution of an Educational Identity for religious education in State Schools:
Developments in The United Kingdom
What has happened to religious education in schools in the United Kingdom 1944-1992
highlights principles that can help with the interpretation of developments in other
countries. For example, developments in Australia cannot be properly understood except
in terms of a follow-up to what happened in the U.K. On the other hand, from our
limited contact with European religious education, we have the impression that most
European countries have not followed the same path as the British; but there are
interesting contrasts and similarities. Our interpretation is offered as a stimulus to
2
readers to assess the relevance of the issues to their own situation, contributing to an
understanding of the international mosaic of religious education.
We focus here on the need shown in British religious education to find a new identity,
which was different from a church religious education. This quest had a shaping
influence on the patterns that emerged; it also resulted in the appearance of a dichotomy
that has limited the exchanges between professional educators in the two interest groups
- Church educators and state school educators. (It is not unlike a similar division that
may exist between university Religion Studies and more traditional Theological and
Scriptural studies.) It is of interest to query whether this same need influenced the
development of religious education in state schools in other countries; and whether
similar or different patterns were followed in the search for solutions; or alternatively,
whether this was not a crucial issue and why, perhaps because other problems were more
significant.
1944-1970: From Agreed Christian Syllabuses to Multi-faith Studies:
When
the 1944 Butler Education Act made religion the only compulsory subject in the school
curriculum in the United Kingdom, it formalised the teaching of Agreed Syllabuses in the
county (state/public) schools; the syllabuses were explicitly Christian in content and
orientation. However, by the 1960s changes in the religious composition of the
community and changes in educational thinking led to a review of the role for religious
education in the schools. This gradually led to the present situation, where religious
education is mainly a multi-faith study of religions taught as part of the secular
curriculum by regular state school teachers.1
As had been the practice prior to 1944, it was the study of the Bible and core Christian
teachings that were included in the regional Agreed Religion Syllabuses developed after
the Education Act. In the 1960s there were changes in emphasis with the use of 'life
themes' which were thought to be a more appropriate way of introducing children to
Biblical concepts;2 study of personal and social issues also became prominent.3
Secular, Educational Identity: In the late 1960s, there were moves to establish a
secular, educational identity to distinguish it from a denominational religious education in
churches and in Church-related schools. There were three aspects to this new identity:
* religious education was justified on educational grounds rather than on the concerns
of the churches to hand on their faith.
* Phenomenology (an objective, impartial, descriptive study of religions that had became
more prominent in the study of world religions in universities) was invoked as the
principal source of method rather than Theology and Scripture study which informed
denominational religious education. Phenomenology seemed to be a better 'parent'
discipline for the new school religious education than the traditional Christian disciplines.
* The content was drawn from world religions rather than from traditional
denominational sources in the Bible and Christian practice.
That there was a need for an educational identity is not in question. There was,
however, a tendency to define the educational identity over and against the earlier
Christian denominational identity. As happened again later with similar developments in
Australia, there was evidence of an over-reaction. The changes in rationale, content and
methods resulting from the new educational conception of religious education moved
quite a distance from contemporary patterns of church education; it certainly looked
'different'. But in so doing its movement into the corridors of university phenomenology
seemed to bypass to a considerable extent the spiritual needs and interests of the
2
3
students. This is not to say that its denominational Christian counterpart was at that
same time so much more relevant to young people!
So religious educators tended to separate into their somewhat separate denominational
and 'educational' groups. The language used to describe the differences was ambiguous
-- as if educational concerns were not important for denominational religious education.
While there were borrowings, particularly from the new state religious education by
church religious educators, a separation of the two streams became established and few if
any substantial efforts were made to see where there might be significant
interrelationships both in theory and practice.
The movement in terminology from 'religious education' to 'religious studies', 'religion
studies', 'studies of religion' 'religion education' etc. is indicative of this development.
While it is our concern to challenge and call into question the divisions and to explore the
relationships between church and state school religious education, for convenience we
have gone along to some extent with this usage and have commonly used the term
'religion studies' to stand for religious education in public schools which is not church
sponsored.
We consider that there are many important relationships, at the levels of both theory and
practice, between the two 'camps'; but often there seem to be political reasons why
these are not investigated seriously. Some religious educators (on both sides) are so
invested in maintaining the divisions (and/or their empires) that they appear unable to
appraise theory and practice that claim to bridge the gaps.
Phenomenological Overkill: In the U.K. and later in Australia, there have been
instances of 'phenomenological overkill', where a large mass of descriptive material about
world religions was taught; it has caused just as much student boredom and disinterest
as did a the teaching of a large mass of biblical material.
... with the adoption of what is sometimes mistakenly and misleadingly called 'an
objective approach' to the study of religion, religious education has become contentcentred. The heavy concentration of Biblical content characteristic of Agreed Syllabuses
in pre-Goldman times have often been replaced by equally heavy concentrations of
content drawn form the world's religions.4
Some studies referred to in the endnotes which look at the way today's young people
forge personal meaning and purpose in relation to the traditional religious sources of
wisdom suggest that an emphasis on descriptive content is religious education is
perceived by many youth as useless paraphernalia.5 This reinforces their already strong
sense of the irrelevance of most organised religion.
Some other aspects of the over-emphasis on phenomenology will be examined later in
the article.
Typological Categories for Studying Religions: The new state religious education
proposed that world religions should be studied as entities, but increasingly they were
examined in a more compartmentalised fashion under categories like Ninian Smart's six
dimensions of religions (Doctrinal, Mythological, Moral, Social, Ritual, and Experiential) or
under themes like Founders, Festivals, Sacred Space, Rites of Passage etc. Underpinning
this approach was a basic principle of phenomenology that students should move from
the description of the phenomena to comparisons and contrasts of common features to a
conceptual grasp of the analytic categories themselves.6
3
4
Such a process is undoubtedly valuable for tertiary students of religions who can
appreciate the intellectual subtlety and beauty of such an analysis. However, uncritically
projecting such an approach back into the school, mainly because it is appropriate at
university level, is a form of educational imperialism that does not sufficiently take into
account a student-centred understanding of education or the needs and interests of the
students themselves. While accepting that the phenomenological method had a valuable
place in religious education, Grimmitt suggested caution because "the level of
understanding of which pupils may be capable means that the study of religion may rarely
move beyond the descriptive level; this raises a query about the value of choosing and
structuring content solely by reference to phenomenological principles."7
As things settled down in the 1970s, there was more variety in content and method in
British religious education. Grimmitt exemplified moves to add more 'student relevance'
by emphasising an evaluative, student centred study of religions. He was more
concerned with exploring ways in which the study of religions contributed to the education
and personal development of students than with keeping to the canons of
phenomenology. He provided a systematic critique of the over-use of phenomenological
method in 1987.8 However, the phenomenological pattern still dominates most of the
student texts. Only gradually are new emphases on student interests/needs and on
issue-oriented religious education emerging.
The New Education Act:
The new U.K. Education Act in 1988 revised the 1944
provisions for religious education. Religion remains a compulsory subject. However, the
earlier general reference to religious education and worship which allowed flexibility for
the evolution of content and method has been replaced by a more specific curriculum
statement which indicates that religious education should be 'in the main' concerned with
Christianity. This was not intended to replace multi-faith religion studies. However, it
has caused concern among British educators because they consider that it could
represent a retrograde step towards narrowing the base for religious education in County
schools.9
Developments in religious education in State Schools in Australia
In Australia, the state schools have mixed patterns of religious education involving both a
denominational form where church representatives go into the schools and teach weekly
lessons during normal school time and a 'general' form where the state teachers conduct
religion lessons. Often the latter is called "Religious Studies" or "Religion Studies" to
differentiate it from denominational religious education. The denominational form is
more common, but it has severe difficulties because of the situation. General religion
studies has a very marginal place (or none at all) in the state schools even though there
is supportive educational documentation; in the main, the state determined courses are
a comparatively recent development since the mid 1970s. They draw heavily on the
history of religious education in county schools in the United Kingdom as well as adding
new elements. Undoubtedly learning from the U.K. has been valuable, but this seems to
include making the same mistakes as the British, usually a decade later.
Our purpose here is not to dwell on details of the situation in Australia (this is available in
other publications10) but to consider influences on the emerging identity of religious
education in state schools.
What is of great interest is the fact that the overwhelming candidature for the accredited
state religion studies courses are students in church-related schools; and almost all of
these are from Catholic schools. In our opinion, church schools have embraced the new
courses without any substantial appraisal of their adequacy both as general courses and
as regards their contribution to the denominational schools' aims for religious education.
4
5
Catholic educators amongst others have been prominent in writing the new courses.
However, while there have been distinctive new elements in the courses, we consider that
they are still in the main very traditionally British with some southern content. Our
disappointment is that they have not made any breakthrough into a 'post
phenomenological' age!
At this point we wish to move from the Australian situation to consider concepts that
inevitably arise in the discussion of identity and purposes for school religious education:confessional, non-confessional; evaluative, non-evaluative. What follows draws on both
British and Australian experience. We propose that the concepts are useful 'lenses'
through which religious education in other countries can also be examined.
Confessional v Non-confessional: Inadequate Concepts for Analysing the
Teaching Process in religious education
These terms need clarification because they are the commonly used -- and misused -terms to differentiate state school religious education. 'Confessional' is derived from the
phrase "confessing the faith". It presumes that all present are or should be of one faith
and that commitment to and expression of this faith is to be openly encouraged. The
concept 'non-confessional' is intended to have none of these connotations, where
commitment to a particular faith is neither commended nor discouraged.
Too often the distinctions between so-called 'confessional' and 'non-confessional' religious
education are not useful because they remain at the level of broad intentions or
stereotypes. Because the terms are not defined precisely or applied critically, they do
little to help debate about the nature and purpose of religious education.
The terms are more useful for describing contexts -- a church school is a confessional
context where public prayer and liturgy are a normal part of the corporate spiritual life;
this would not apply in the non-confessional context in a government school. But the
terms are not broad enough to address adequately and unambiguously the complexities
of the teaching processes in religious education.
What is described as "non-confessional teaching" might be quite appropriate in a
confessional context. And what is thought to be "confessional teaching" - the
presumption of faith in all present and the commending of personal faith responses - is
not always accepted as appropriate in the public forum of the church school religion
lesson where respect for the freedom and privacy of the students requires that the
teaching be open, non-dogmatic and impartial. Particular church teachings can be
presented clearly, but this does not require attempted 'imposition' or a pressure to agree
or signify belief. Applying the term 'confessional' to religious education in church-related
schools gives a false impression of what is happening, as if an attempt was being made to
'inject' faith into students! -- and further, that it seems appropriate to try to do this!
When critics use the term 'confessional' for religious education, they usually do so in a
paternalistic, pejorative fashion to bolster the new religion studies against denominational
religious education. They need to define the problem more carefully and explore how
they might actually detect differences between confessional and non-confessional
teaching.
Concepts such as 'indoctrination' and 'evangelism' or 'evangelisation' are also misused to
describe the teaching of religion in a church-related school, as if the state school has a
monopoly on the 'educational' teaching of religion.. The question needs to be asked: "In
whose interests is the distinction made between confessional and non-confessional
5
6
teaching?" While it seems to defend political interests, it does little to help clarify the
nature of religious education.
One example that challenges a naive division is the work of the Queensland Departmental
Religious Education Project in Australia, set up in support of denominational teachers in
public schools. The Project proposed that the approach to teaching religion should be
the same no matter what the context - confessional or non-confessional.11 This theory,
which in parts has significant affinity with the work of Grimmitt, suggests that the
possibilities and limitations of the classroom teaching context cut across apparent
boundaries and incompatibilities within the confessional/non-confessional language, to
yield an approach to religious education appropriate to any school type. While not all
would agree with the claim that the nature of religious education in independent of the
context, the theory developed by this Project is useful for the way it calls into question
some relatively unchallenged ways of dividing up the theory and practice of religious
education.
Evaluative and Non-evaluative Study of Religion
The new religion studies needed to avoid being seen as favouring religion. For this
reason a non-evaluative method like phenomenology was attractive. It stressed
description, objectivity, and temporary suspension of beliefs and commitments as one
tried to understand the subjective experience of others. Also, description of religious
phenomena was 'safe' content. With this emphasis, it was easy to omit controversial
material.
However, an evaluative dimension is essential for religious education; also there is an
important place for the study of controversial religious issues. These aspects are needed
just as much as an empathetic, non-evaluative study of beliefs and values; the nonevaluative phases of study need to be balanced with the development of critical,
evaluative skills. Learning both non-evaluative and evaluative skills is not contradictory;
they are complementary and have important functions at different phases in the study of
religion.
In reading and project work (including interviews) young people can learn to be more
tolerant of, and open to, views and experiences different from their own. Through asking
questions about the internal consistency of the beliefs and values they have come to
understand and through questions about possible personal and social implications, they
can learn how to critique such views in a responsible way.
They can become more aware of their own prejudices, stereotypes and ignorance as they
become more informed. They can then be more rationally and responsibly critical of
religion. This is not opposing reason to belief, nor is it saying that belief is irrational, but
it is saying that a sound religious education should help young people see and judge
irrational aspects of religious beliefs. Students should be able to consider that not all
aspects of religions always foster human development; at times some aspects of religion
inhibit personal development.
Much of young people's education today involves questioning and evaluation. If an
openness to questioning is not present in religious education, then students can feel that
something is missing, that perhaps religion cannot sustain an open, critical inquiry. This
may even reinforce the view that religion is not worth studying.
It is important for teachers to be specific about content and approaches because not
everyone will be happy about what is involved in a critical evaluative study of religion.
Genuine accountability should be maintained. The same applies to controversial content
6
7
in other curriculum areas, for example, in sex education. The other crucial factor is
clarity and openness about the code of ethics that should guide teachers' presentations
and conduct of discussion. This should require presentation of a range of viewpoints,
impartiality and objectivity in teaching, and responsible, diplomatic reference to teachers'
own personal views when this is judged to make a valuable educational contribution to
lessons.12
Relation with the Academic Disciplines: Phenomenological Method and Academic
Bias
There has been at times a conflict of interests in the relationship between school religion
courses and the academic disciplines - a difficulty that is not limited to this subject. In
the U.K. pressure was brought to bear by academics to shape the school courses
according to university models of religion studies; this was to the detriment of the
course by neglecting the needs and interests of the students, very few of whom
progressed to tertiary religion studies in any case. While it is important for course
developers to have liaison with university representatives of the academic disciplines, and
important to have continuity between the study of religion at school and at university and
theological colleges, care is needed to avoid academic bias.
As noted earlier in the article, part of the quest for an 'educational' rather than a
'denominational' identity for religion studies at school was a tendency to forge links with
the relatively new Religion Studies departments in universities rather than with
Theological faculties or Biblical scholarship which might be more easily identified as
Christian.
Where phenomenology was dominant in school courses, content that did not satisfy the
canons of university religion studies was regarded as unacceptable or at least
questionable. (One U.K. religion studies scholar usually labelled such material as
"Catholic bias", no matter what its origin. Perhaps he would have been more correct if
he meant catholic with a small 'c'.) While there were academic precedents for Biblical
studies and Theology, it was understandable that, from this prejudiced point of view,
topics like "Religious Perspectives on Personal and Social Issues", the "'Religious'
Influence of the Media", "Social Justice", and "Prayer" were frowned upon as illegitimate
areas of study for a religion course. The label 'confessional' would then be applied -- the
'ultimate stigma of inappropriateness' -- without answering claims that such topics can be
validly studied in a school religion course which seeks to provide a general education in
religious matters. This claim about the value of the 'issue-based' topics does not mean
that the school course will compromise the integrity of the subject matter of the academic
discipline of religion studies; neither does it have to compromise the academic stature of
the school course.
The need to avoid having school courses dominated by university oriented methods and
content can be just as much a problem as the domination of content and methods by the
concerns of a particular Religion or Church.
Avoiding 'Phenomenological Overkill': Correctives in Curriculum Theory
The danger that religious education in the public schools might be perceived as too
'churchy' has had the effect of pushing out of contention some valuable content -- in
favour of 'safer' phenomenological material. Course developers, and their less informed
government education superiors, have been too suspicious of course content that is
personal or contentious, or is too specifically related to one denomination. Being
'objective', 'impartial' and 'impersonal' seemed to help dispel any suggestion that religion
studies might be evangelising.
7
8
Objectivity and impartiality are essential elements in any critical, evaluative education.
But in reacting to the danger of being labelled as 'denominational', those who shaped
religion studies tended to make it too neutral, too impersonal, too descriptive, nonevaluative and dispassionate. This was out of phase with the developing curriculum
theory for schooling which was giving an increasing emphasis to a critical, evaluative,
questioning, personally relevant education that stressed the development of skills for
informed decision-making.13
Religious education, along with other subjects, needed to show how it relates to values
and personal issues in contemporary society. All school subjects need to pass under the
scrutiny of a curriculum theory that checks how closely related they are to accepted goals
for education and how well they cover evaluative and personal development aspects.14
An evaluation of Religion Studies through the lens of such a curriculum theory should also
help prevent the indiscriminate application to schools of methods and content more
appropriate to the university.
Grimmitt claimed that an over-emphasis on phenomenology as a method has resulted in
making school Religion Studies too 'antiseptic' -- being too restricted to descriptive
processes and data and to a study of topics which are often irrelevant to the interests and
educational needs of students (even though these topics may be of interest to tertiary
scholars of Religion). He called this phenomenology's 'domestication of religions'. He
suggested that teachers should show students how to evaluate religious material in their
own personal terms and to learn how to evaluate their own spiritual concerns in terms of
the religious material being studied.
[the study of religions should] promote awareness and understanding of the nature and
purpose of the religious or spiritual quest within different religions, and promote
reflection, on the part of the pupil, on the implications that the adoption of a religious
view of life would have for his/her own understanding of self and for consequent
development as a person. . . permitting the possibility of the pupil's discerning a
religious or spiritual dimension within his/her own experience of self.15
Each of Grimmitt's books -- in 1973, 1983 and 1987 -- proposed useful correctives to the
problem of phenomenological overkill; in the first instance, by the study of existential
issues16, and in the other books through the relationships between personal, social and
moral education;17 a key feature being the aim to relate 'adolescent life-worlds' to
'religious life-worlds'. Grimmitt also identified the potential for religions to 'domesticate'
religious education by wanting to place limits on student evaluation of religious claims; 18
relating back to what was said in the earlier discussion of evaluative activity, Grimmitt's
contention is that attempts to eliminate or bridle such activity violates one of the central
tenets of education. Some other correctives we have noted in European religious
education are discussed elsewhere.19 However, it may take a long time for them to take
root and have a noticeable influence on school courses in Australia in particular.
The problem of over-emphasising phenomenology as a way of avoiding a denominational
identity for religion studies is still evident in writings and school courses. The 1990
statement of purposes in the new Religion Studies course in Victoria, Australia states:
A phenomenological approach to the study of religious traditions has been adopted in the
(Victorian) Religion and Society Study Design. This is intended to encourage open,
critical and dispassionate study of religions throughout each unit in the Study Design.
The approach taken to Religion should not be confused with religious education or
Religious Instruction. These are two quite different methodologies, both requiring a
confessional approach to the study of one religion only.20
8
9
This statement recommends a non-evaluative, phenomenological description of religions,
but the approach is then contradicted to some extent by the requirement that the study
be "critical". Then follows a further contradiction -- that the study be "dispassionate".
The cliche definition of religious education as "confessional" tends to dismiss religious
education/Religious Instruction in church schools in a paternalistic way as not being
educational, without providing any argument or evidence. This closes the discussion
about the relationship between religion studies courses and the purposes of religious
education in church-related schools at the very point where the debate needs to be
opened and extended. In any type of school, the study of religion should be impartial,
open and critical -- including both descriptive and evaluative elements in the process; it
should not be "dispassionate", if this means being artificially neutral or minimising
attention to personal, emotive and controversial issues; and it should usually give some
attention to other religious traditions even though most attention is given to the religious
tradition sponsoring the school.
Political Factors Influencing the Development of School Religion Studies Courses
in Australia
There is evidence that the course structure and selection of content in some of the
religion studies courses in Australia have been influenced by political factors. In one
instance, an academic emphasis in a school Year 11-12 course was exaggerated;
apparently the course developers thought that such an emphasis would help gain
acceptance of the course for university matriculation. The course outline and the
references seemed more appropriate for a university honours course; attention to the
age, needs, interests and level of maturity of senior school students appeared to be
neglected. Inevitably the course was daunting for both students and teachers.
In one Australian state, the education department's team which developed the religious
education syllabus and student materials were under strong, vocal pressure from different
directions in the community. Some conservative Christian groups were unhappy with the
possibility that student materials would not give enough explicit attention to the Bible.
Some non-religious groups were concerned that too much favourable attention would be
given to religion, an approach which they felt might subvert the views of students with
atheistic or agnostic home backgrounds.
Apparently steering a course between the criticisms, the writing team focused on teaching
about Smart's six dimensions of religion. This approach was more concerned with the
analytical dimensions of religion than with particular religious traditions themselves.
Teaching about the dimensions appeared less open to evangelising for the cause of
religion than teaching religions as such. While the analysis of 'dimensions' of religion is
an appropriate of studying religions at university, questions can be raised about how
appropriate it is at school to organise the course exclusively around such an abstract
analytical system. On the other hand, the dimensions may serve as a useful checklist
that the content covers key aspects of religions. What is needed is a balanced
treatment.
Another problem: In the student materials developed in the above instance, there
appeared to be a presumption that 'equal space needs to be given to each religion so that
no one religion will appear to be favoured'. Special attention to any one tradition
seemed to be regarded as not 'educational'. While the value of drawing on material from
different traditions is not in question, this range does not of itself make the approach
educational. Whether the approach is educational depends on the teaching, not on the
content. Most of the content in religion is confessional by nature. To try to change this
compromises the integrity of the subject matter.
9
10
The Contribution of Religion Studies to the Development of Students' Identity:
Study of Students' own Religion in a Religion Studies Course
At this point we consider a theme that has been avoided in state religion studies courses - probably because the idea of developing a denominational religious identity sounds too
confessional. However, we consider that there is another way of looking at the issue and
that giving young people some access to their cultural religious heritage should have a
naturally important place in religious education. Also, we presume that this may be
much more of a problem in the U.K. and Australia than it is in Europe.
Attention to the education of indigenous peoples in various countries has in recent years
stressed the importance of encouraging them to embrace their own cultural and spiritual
traditions. To help heal the social and psychological damage that has resulted from the
clash between their cultures and the dominant western culture and lifestyle, they have
been encouraged to deepen their familiarity with their cultural/spiritual heritage and to
repair the links between the land, culture and personal/social identity.
The eroded sense of identity and cultural dignity of indigenous peoples needs to be
restored by developing and nurturing cultural and spiritual self-esteem. Their identity
and culture need to respected by the powerful western colonising culture. In Australia,
the study of Aboriginal culture is now presumed to be important not only for the
Aborigines but also for white Australians. A place for the study of Aboriginal spiritual
beliefs is thus essential for any Australian religion studies course.
But the value in affirming the identity and culture of Aborigines (and indigenous people in
general) should also apply to the religions of other ethnic groups. But both in theory and
practice, such an affirmation has not been forthcoming because it is feared that this could
be interpreted as the state fostering religion. It needs to be pointed out that it is in the
interests of the national community, and in accord with accepted principles of
multicultural education, to help educate its children in the culture and spiritual traditions
of their group. Whether or not individuals are practicing members of a particular church
or religion, it is of value to the community as a whole for them to be familiar with and to
have some access to their particular religious heritage. So, in a sense, the state should
be able to see value in promoting the education of its children in relation to their
collective religious heritage without trying to impose that heritage. In this way the
religious education activity is not confessional. Whether or not it influences young
people's religious practice or involvement in a community of faith is not a concern of the
state educational authorities.
A sound general study of religions should enable students to give detailed attention to
aspects of their own religious tradition, especially when they are younger. It is a
legitimate aim of religion studies to help students acquire a better understanding of
religious identity through the study of religions. However, to give exclusive attention to
one tradition is inappropriate. A balance needs to be maintained.
Some educators criticise this arrangement, suggesting that a study of one's own religious
tradition is necessarily partial and not objective. This claim needs to be substantiated.
However, there are good grounds for claiming that students and teachers can study their
own particular religious tradition with the same objectivity and impartiality with which
they study other religions (cf. the well known Birmingham Syllabus in England, 1975).
The difference is that people bring more experience, background knowledge, particular
beliefs, commitments, biases, stereotypes and criticisms to the study of their own
religious tradition than they can to their study of other religions. The challenge to the
10
11
educator is to help students to become more informed and to help them learn how to
think logically, critically and appreciatively about religions.
The issue discussed here will become very important if the same religion studies course is
to allow flexibility for students in both state and church schools to study particular
religions in detail -- presumably the religions with which the students identify, even if
only nominally. As noted earlier, where this principle is not adequately accepted,
educators and academics may work out of a narrow view that it is somehow not
educational (but denominational) to study one's own religion extensively.
This issue is important for the development of religion studies courses in Australia.
Because the overwhelming majority of students who will take religion studies courses at
senior school level will come from church-related schools (most will be Catholic schools),
then it would seem inappropriate if the syllabus did not take this fact into account. The
best move would be to construct courses with optional units and internal options within
units that allow for a selection of content that is relevant to the backgrounds of the
students in the class. This would satisfy the legitimate interests of church-related
schools in providing a thorough education in their own particular religious traditions, while
not precluding the need for the state to provide for a balanced study of religions and
contemporary religious issues.
In concluding this section we note that what has been written here about religious
identity needs interpretation in the light of another discussion of the issues raised by
Nipkow about denominational and ecumenical identities.21 The concept identity is an
important one but a notorious one for ambiguous meaning. All we wish to say here is
that the relationship between religious education and religious identity is a very
complicated one -- especially for many of today's youth who are very secularised and who
forge meaning and purpose in their lives in different ways from those of older
generations, and who may see very little role for 'organised religion' in the formation of
their sense of identity. As regards the relationship between religious education and
religious identity, we briefly signpost the following issues that we see need to be taken
into account.22
* The process of Secularisation.
* The prevalence of the idea of Relativism which affects religions and morality, as well as
other aspects of human life and culture.
* The Increased Capacity to Compare the teachings of their own faith with those of
other religions, and even with non-religious alternatives.
* Young people's view that they have a Real Option to be Part of an Organised
Religion or Not; they also know they have a Choice as to what Elements of
Religion they will Believe and Include in their Spirituality -- and consequently in
their sense of religious identity. They know they are more selective than were previous
generations which tended to accept the traditional religious identity in packaged form with
little personal modification.
* The prevalence of Education through which young people are encouraged to be more
Critical and Autonomous in their thinking.
* Mass Media, particularly Television and Film, which can insinuate expectations for
life and influence the formation of values and beliefs.
The Understanding of Religion Studies from the Point of View of Different
Religions
It should be noted that the most prominent educational views of what a general study of
religion should entail do not achieve unanimous support in the community. For example,
the Muslim community is often not satisfied with the educational values presumed to
11
12
underpin a modern critical, inquiring, open study -- particularly when this comes to the
study of Religion. Similarly, members of the Jewish community may consider that from
the point of view of their faith, a study of religion should concentrate on their own
particular religious tradition, without any need to give detailed attention to other religious
traditions; however, they may agree that a general study of religious education in public
education is desirable. Some Christians from different denominations consider that the
approach to religion studies is too broadly based, too liberal and too critical; they prefer
a religious education that is authoritative and which keeps strictly to the teachings of
their church.
It is not possible to have complete consensus about the form and content for school
religion studies courses. Some traditions and some groups within traditions will approve
of a critical study; others will not; both will have educational and theological
justifications for their views. However, the aims, content and methods need to be spelt
out clearly so that there is accountability to the community. If there is disagreement,
then there is an advantage in having it clear and not ambiguous.
It is inevitable, and not in any way undesirable, that achievement of the proposed
educational aims for the study of religion will contribute positively to the spiritual
development of some students within the context of their own religious tradition.
Whether or not this occurs is not a specific concern of the aims for general religious
education. However, any such potential positive influence should not be regarded as
compromising the impartial, objective nature of the course itself. There is a fear to be
overcome: that the study of Religion in public schools can be thought of as making any
contribution to the handing on of a particular religious tradition.
If comparisons are made with other subjects, one could not find fault with a study of
English literature, when a by-product of the study is a positive influence on the beliefs
and values of some students. It may be expected that a course on religion could be
potentially more influential on young people's religious development because it focuses
directly on religious and moral issues; such issues are studied only indirectly when they
arise in other subjects.
The potential overlap between the aims for a general study of religion and the religious
education aims of a particular religion or Church needs to be considered openly, without
resorting to pejorative or narrow concepts/cliches that preclude any systematic
exploration of the question. Because many churches subscribe to the values
underpinning an open, inquiring education, it should be expected that there will be a
significant overlap. Such an overlap does not have to be denied or played down to
substantiate the educational nature of a religion studies course. The churches/religions
may have educational aims for a study of Religion at school with additional hopes that
this study will contribute to young people's overall religious development and to their
response to the option of being part of a practising church community.
Studying Values and the Inculcation of Values
Clarifying the aims for a general study of Religion requires differentiating between the
study of value sensitive content and the concept of inculcating values. The classroom
study of Religion is open to the study of values; students may clarify their
understanding of issues and may reflect on what the values might mean for them.
However, teachers are unable to intentionally change the values or attitudes of students.
Neither is it desirable that they try to effect such change in the classroom.
Recent authoritative statements on education are increasingly emphasising the important
link between education and the acquisition of values. However, there is ambiguity about
12
13
the extent to which teachers should be seen as agents for changing or inculcating values.
There is also ambiguity about how the 'changing' and 'inculcating' are to be done through
classroom teaching. These issues are evident in the following typical quotation from a
recent Australian curriculum document.
The moral, ethical and spiritual development of students is a fundamental goal of
education. It is clearly not confined to one area of the curriculum. All teachers, across
all areas of the curriculum have a responsibility to inculcate in their students positive
values and a capacity for moral and ethical judgment.
Government schools should actively promote the moral values which are shared by the
majority of people in our community. There is merit in the clear statement of this
responsibility.
In particular, this document will give greater emphasis to the link between education,
work and personal fulfilment, as well as encouraging imagination, creativity, excellence
and the search for meaning and purpose in life. It will give more recognition to the place
of the family and family values in our society and the rights and responsibilities of parents
in the area of morals and values. Greater stress will be placed on students achieving
high standards of self-discipline, personal conduct and social responsibility. As
recommended by the Carrick Committee Report the document will also acknowledge the
importance of all students developing spiritual values.
The Government will publish a revised statement of 'The Values We Teach' for the
guidance of government schools. The document will be available to non-government
schools for their voluntary use.23
The statement (at the beginning of this section) about the role of religion studies in the
education of students in values appears to be a more accurate account of the possibilities
for developing students' values at school than the above. The theory and practice of
religious education has had to address the question of the relationship between classroom
teaching and bringing about personal change in students because of the expectations for
change that are often made on it. This is discussed in detail elsewhere.24 What has
been learned in this area could be well applied more generally to education.
The possibility of personal change is inherent in any form of education and educational
theory should spell out as clearly as possible desirable directions of change that education
might promote. The purposes of a general religion studies spell out goals mainly in
terms of knowledge, understanding and skills. These elements are very important for
the development of attitudes, values and religious faith, but the actual personal change
that takes place is influenced by many other factors and in a much wider context than
school or classroom.
* * * * * * *
Concluding Note
This paper is offered as a stimulus for further analysis and discussion of questions about
the nature of religious education by educators in state and church circles. It may open
up some channels for investigation of new religion studies courses that are applicable in
both state and church schools.
Endnotes
1.
A brief account of the historical development of religion studies courses in British
schools is given in chapter 1 of M.H. Grimmitt, 1983a, Religious Education and
Humanisation: A Consideration of the Contribution of Religious Education to Personal
Development and its Implications for Curriculum Decision-making, Australian
Association for Religious Education, Sydney. A more detailed treatment appears in
M.H. Grimmitt, 1987, Religious Education and Human Development: The Relationship
13
14
Between Studying Religions and Personal Social and Moral Education, McCrimmons,
Great Wakering.
2.
These developments were linked with the work of Ronald Goldman; cf R.J. Goldman,
1965, Readiness for Religion, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. For an evaluation
see M.H. Grimmitt, 1983b, "World Religions and Personal Development" in G.M.
Castles and G.M. Rossiter, (Eds.) Curriculum Theory and Religious Education,
Australian Association for Religious Education, Sydney, p.20-21.
3.
Prominent in popularising this approach was the work of H. Loukes, 1975, New
Ground in Christian Education, SCM Press, London. See also the article by Grimmitt in
note 2.
4.
M.H. Grimmitt, 1983b, p.21.
5.
K E Nipkow, 1991, Pre-conditions for Ecumenical and Interreligious Learning:
Observations and Reflections from a German Perspective, Australian Catholic
University Curriculum Research and Development Project in religious education,
Sydney.
G. Malizia and Z. Trenti, 1991, Una Disciplina in Cammino: Rapporto
sull'Insegnamento della Religione Cattolica nell'Italia Degli Anni 1990. Societa Editrice
Internazionale, Torino. (English translation An Evolving Enterprise: Report on the
Teaching of Religion in Catholic Schools in Italy in 1990).
G.M Rossiter, 1992, The Religious Education Needs of Catholic Children in
Government Schools, Part B: The Research Background, Curriculum Research and
Development Project in Religious Education, Australian Catholic University, Sydney.
6.
Phenomenological typology -- the study of types of religious phenomena -- is another
analytic system that has been used. See for example, B Moore and N Habel, 1980,
When Religion Goes to School: Typology of Religion for the Classroom, Texts in
Humanities, South Australian College of Advanced Education, Adelaide.
7.
Grimmitt, 1983b, p.22.
8.
Grimmitt, 1987. Also M.H. Grimmitt, 1991, Theoretical and Practical Perspectives on
the Use of Religious Phenomena in Schools to further the Spiritual Development of
Primary and Secondary Pupils, Panorama, 3, 1, 74-88.
9.
See for example the editorial in the British Journal of Religious Education, 1990, 12, 3,
121-125 by Professor John Hull; the issues are discussed in more detail in J.M. Hull,
1989, The Act Unpacked: The Meaning of the 1988 Education Reform Act for Religious
Education, Birmingham Papers in RE, No. 1, CEM and the University of Birmingham;
J.M. Hull, 1991, Recent Changes in Religious Education in England and Wales, Journal
of Christian Education, Papers 101, 5-16.
10.
G. M. Rossiter, 1981, Religious Education in Australian Schools, Curriculum
Development Centre, Canberra; M. Crawford and G. Rossiter, 1985, Teaching
Religion in the Secondary School: Theory and Practice, Christian Brothers Province
Group, Sydney; M. Crawford and G. Rossiter, 1988, Missionaries to a Teenage
Culture: Religious Education in a Time of Rapid Change, Christian Brothers Province
Group, Sydney.
14
15
11.
I.G. Mavor and others, 1977, Religious Education: Its Nature and Aims, Queensland
Department of Education, Brisbane.
12.
This issue is discussed further in B.V. Hill, 1982, The Religious Education Teacher's
Commitment in P. Slattery (Ed) Curriculum Development In Religious Education,
Australian Association For Religious Education, Perth. And also in M. Crawford and G.
Rossiter, 1985, Teaching Religion in the Secondary School: Theory and Practice,
Christian Brothers Province Group, Sydney, Chapter 5.
13.
A summary of this trend in education is given in M Crawford and G Rossiter, 1992,
Teaching Wisdom: Religious Education and the Spiritual and Moral Development of
Young People, Journal of Christian Education, Papers 101, 47-62.
14.
The role of curriculum theory as a lens for analysing and evaluating the approach to
Religious Education is discussed in a number of articles in G.M. Castles and G.M.
Rossiter (Eds), 1983.
15.
Grimmitt, 1983b, p. 26. See also Grimmitt, 1987.
16.
M.H. Grimmitt, 1973, What Can I do in RE? Mayhew McCrimmon, Great Wakering.
17.
Grimmitt, 1983a, 1987.
18.
Grimmitt, 1991, p.76.
19.
Nipkow, 1991; Malizia and Z. Trenti, 1991; Rossiter, 1992.
20.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board, 1990, Religion and Society: Course
Development Support Material, Melbourne: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment
Board, p. 1.
21.
See Nipkow, 1992.
22.
See Rossiter, 1992.
23.
T. Metherell, 1989, Excellence and Equity: New South Wales Curriculum Reform, NSW
Government, Sydney, (The White Paper on Curriculum Reform in NSW) p. 65.
24.
The possibilities and limitations of classroom teaching for bringing about personal
change in students is discussed in Crawford and Rossiter, 1988, chapters 2, 4 and 6.
15